The kingdom of God and the throne of David

Peter, thank you for inviting for me to write something about the Davidic covenant. I’ve tried to make what I set out below relevant to our discussion so far and hope it helps to further our dialogue.

We all seem to agree that when Jesus preached the kingdom of God he was understood as meaning the restoration of God’s government of the earth through the restitution Davidic monarchy over national Israel and her headship, in turn, over the nations of the earth.

Our disagreement seems to centre around the following question:

What impact did events subsequent to the rejection of Jesus by the priesthood of national Israel have on this promise of God?

According to the apostles, did the kingdom of God and David’s throne undergo a redefinition or was the change understood in terms of postponement?

The record of apostolic preaching in the book of Acts is central to this. In the gospels the kingdom is frequently mentioned but never defined. It would seem therefore, that it’s meaning was assumed to be consistent with the readers’ existing understanding of it. This would be based on the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants, the outworking of which is the lifeblood the Hebrew Bible.

Likewise the epistles. It is referred to, for the most part, indirectly through terms such as ‘inheritance’, or within the broader scope of the word ‘gospel’. The writers seem to presuppose an accurate knowledge of what it meant among their target audience. This is not surprising, since it is proclaimed throughout the book of Acts. An understanding and faith in the message of the kingdom and Jesus is what marked out God’s covenant people (Acts 8:12), as opposed to unbelievers, alienated from God through their ignorance concerning the promise (Ephesians 4:17-18).

If any change took place, we would expect to be able to trace its development to that period between the gospels and epistles documented in the book of Acts. This should also have added relevance for you, Peter, since it covers the events surrounding the outpouring of the spirit on believers.

The book of Acts begins with a focus on the kingdom of God, which continues throughout (1:3, 6, 8:12, 14:22, 19:8, 20:25, 28:23, 28:31.)

 Acts 1:3, 6-7- The apostles’ question:6    When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7    And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

After the resurrection of Jesus and 40 days of teaching- specifically on the subject of the kingdom of God- the apostles still associated that kingdom with Israel’s national hope. Are we to suppose that after so much teaching from Jesus himself, they were still in error about this? That in all this time Jesus had omitted to challenge or correct them on such a key issue?

At the conclusion of Matthew 13, a chapter dedicated to the parables of the kingdom, the apostles are asked in verse 51”Have ye understood all these things?” they reply “Yes, Lord.” Jesus didn’t hesitate to correct their misunderstanding about his death and even rebuked them for their unbelief in his resurrection. Yet he seems satisfied with their grasp of this point.

His answer speaks to the timing of the fulfilment of the restoration as opposed to the definition of the promise.

That the unresolved issue primarily concerns timing is consistent with Luke, who in chapter 19 of his gospel records Jesus making the same point. The kingdom is delayed, not redefined. I’ve previously mentioned this in my “Jesus’ gospel of the kingdom” post.

Acts 2:16-21, 34. This is that…Peter sets the outpouring of the spirit in the context of a series of events, which will climax in the Day of the Lord. He also associated the recipients of the spirit with God’s eschatological people, who will be vindicated at that time.

In proclaiming God’s promise to David that one of his sons would rule forever on David’s throne in Jerusalem, Peter shows that he did not understand him to have been referring to God’s right hand in the heavens, since “David is not ascended into the heavens.”  (Acts 2:34).

Jesus also distinguishes between the heavenly throne of God the Father and the earthly headquarters of the David’s empire:

34  But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 

David reigned on earth. In Psalm 37 he reiterates God’s promise no less than 6 times that the just will inherit the earth. Jesus endorsed this, quoting it in Matthew 5:5.

 He was very articulate is setting out what he understood God to have promised about his son. “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust. The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him. For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy. He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight” (Psalm 72:8-14).  

Like Isaiah 2, 11 etc, this Psalm and the very Jewish framework within which it is set cannot be spiritualised away without doing violence to the meaning intended by its author. The gap between what it ‘meant’ to David and what it ‘means’ in reality would stretch the promise to breaking point, with the implication that the plain grammatical sense of God’s covenant was somehow misleading.

The prophets make it clear that our status in this age and under this present system will continue to be that of sojourners and our world will go on being in exile from God until the time of Zion’s restoration.

The claim that this has already taken place and that David’s son has inaugurated the new age cannot be harmonised with the prophetic picture, while we continue to be surrounded by the tokens of our broken fellowship with God. Even the church, the present embodiment of God’s future kingdom is not exempt from sickness, death and division.

The ascension of Jesus is not equated with his reign on David’s throne. Quite the opposite, it’s ongoing vacancy is interpreted instead as evidence that Jesus will come again to take his rightful place. This is shown in…

  Acts 3:19-21

19  Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;20  And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:

21  Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

Restitution means to give back. It begs the question as to what it was that Israel had before and which God would return to them. Peter is not preaching a ‘new thing’ here, but rather the promised return of an ‘old thing’, albeit it in its consummated state. A just king, permanently installed on David’s throne. What else did the prophets declare over and over again if not the restoration of Jerusalem and its establishment as the capital of a renewed earth?

This promised ‘restitution’ is consistent with the apostles’ expected ‘restoration of the kingdom to Israel’ before Pentecost, in Acts 1:6. Likewise the phrase ‘until the times’ brings to the forefront the issue of timing also evident in both the apostles’ question and Jesus’ reply to them. The continuity of meaning appears undisturbed up to this point.

Acts 4:25-26The manifestation of the Messiah had brought about a hostility to him which foreshadowed the final rebellion of the nations to his rule. The proposition that the apostles actually saw the crucifixion as exhausting the predictive meaning of this Psalm can only be upheld at an immense discount on it’s plain sense. It first must be emptied of it’s of meaning.

Up to the point of his crucifixion, Jesus had come to minister to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, not the Gentile nations. Those interactions he did have with them resulted in liberation from sickness and demonic oppression, not their being placed under the ‘fetters’ and ‘cords’ described in the Psalm, against which they rebel.

This Psalm still speaks primarily of an event in the future, when the Son sits on the holy mountain to inherit the uttermost parts of the earth (As per Psalm 72, above) and rule the nations with a rod of iron.

 Acts 7:5”And he gave him no inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.” 

According to Stephen, a man full of the holy spirit and wisdom (6:3), God’s promise to Abraham is still unfulfilled. This is discussed at length in my other post, ‘the Abrahamic promise and the good news of the kingdom’. I only mention it because it shows that even after the giving of the spirit, the apostles still expect Abraham to get the land.

 Acts 15:14  Simeon has declared how God at first visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.15  And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,16  After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:17  That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, says the Lord, who does all these things. 

Should this be taken to mean that God had in some way restored the Davidic theocracy through the ascension of Jesus to God’s right hand?

This proposition doesn’t fit well with the passage’s original context, which climaxes in a reiteration of the land promise:

14  And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.

15  And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

An alternative interpretation would be that, in the death and resurrection of Jesus, the apostles saw the embodiment of the fall and future rise of David’s house. Hope could be taken from the fact that, just as God had raised David’s Son up again, he would do the same to David’s throne.

And so the way is open for those Gentiles who want to pledge their allegiance to the one who has already been vindicated as king without having to become Jews first.

We are faced with a choice. Is it more consistent to assume that a theological revolution has taken place, and the central apostolic doctrine of the kingdom of God has been redefined without any form of explanation prior to this point?

Is it reasonable to suppose that this bombshell was dropped, in the context of the debate of another issue, and the debate rolled on uninterrupted? That this radical, fundamental change aroused no comment or controversy?

Wouldn’t it be more harmonious with the covenants made to the fathers, the graphic predictions of the prophets and John’s vision in Revelation 20, to see in all this the consistent unfolding of one divine plan?

 In conclusion, a word about the “double fulfilment pattern” which you say I have adopted and which, according to you is “a peculiar feature of premillennialism.” 

I’m not sure that I’m comfortable with the term ‘double fulfilment’. It sounds a bit strange. I would suggest that possibly the definition of fulfilment which you hold, may be somewhat different to that of the Jewish apostles.

Believers today tend to think in terms of something being foretold and then happening. This concept of fulfilment tends to equate one prediction with one event, making it unavailable as a referent to anything else. The Hebrew mind tended rather to grasp the totality of historical patterns with the broader embrace of a midrash hermeneutic.

The New Testament writers seem to use the term ‘fulfilment’ as a means of bringing out the spiritual significance of events which are analogous with the general pattern of an unfolding salvation history.

Even if we choose to stick with the term ‘double fulfilment’ there are two very good examples of it in Matthew’s gospel. Hosea speaks of the past Exodus (which, within our categories wouldn’t even qualify as foretelling, being past history). Matthew then tells us that Jesus’ flight into, and return from Egypt is a ‘fulfilment’ of this. If we are to restrict ‘fulfilment’ to the common definition, we would be forced to choose between what Hosea obviously meant, and the use made of his text by Matthew.

Similarly, he quotes Jeremiah’s lament over captive Jews, assembled to go into exile and applies it to the massacre of infants by Herod as a ‘fulfilment’.

In view of this, the fact that the apostles may refer to a given text as being ‘fulfilled’ does not necessarily mean that it no longer has any predictive value or that the literal-grammatical interpretation needs to be set aside. There is room enough for both, and so Zion has much to look forward to.