Life in the Millennium (Part 3) – David’s Throne

I will eventually get the subject of this series – Life in the Millennium. But for now I’m content to establish some introductory understanding concerning the foundations of this Messianic Kingdom, as well as learning a great deal myself.

I think one of the greatest benefits to the church today would be to experience the lifestyle and culture of the first century church. I’m getting a “guy” to work on a time machine. Okay, it’s not a time machine, but it does make snow cones. Consistently, I find that I’m trying to place myself into the story – after the crucifixion when the resurrected dead are wandering the streets of Jerusalem,  during those 40 mysterious days of teaching after Christ’s resurrection, into the upper room waiting for the Promise of the Father, into the house gatherings of the apostles for prayer and the breaking of bread. That’s what a good story does right? It seeks to place the reader into the storyline so that the reader begins to think, act, and feel like one of the characters. And this story is the best story ever written. It includes, Fencing, fighting, torture, revenge, giants, monsters, chases, escapes, true love, miracles… (the grandpa from The Princess Bride – the shinning year of 1987). The plot line is simple enough for a child to grasp, yet so profoundly intricate that it strikes the intellectual mind with wonder.

taken by: Shlomit Wolf

One day as David is wandering around in his villa of cedar, he suddenly realizes the ark of the covenant is dwelling inside a curtained tabernacle. The injustice of the situation begins to dawn on him. Nathan the prophet tells him to do what is in his heart to do – build a permanent house wherein God would dwell. David is told by the Lord that he would not be the one to build the temple but that his seed would complete the endeavor (2 Sam. 7:12, 14). God then swears an everlasting oath to David, known as the Davidic Covenant.  This covenant ensures David that the following 3 things would be perpetuated 1) his seed, 2) his throne, and 3) his kingdom.

I. David’s Seed

The Lord tells David, “[I] will make you house. When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your father, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body…” (2 Sam. 7:11b-12). David’s “house” is meant to be understood as his posterity – physical descendants (some translate house as “Royal dynasty”). Here, David is promised that he will have a child (Solomon), yet to be born, who will succeed him. His line will always be the royal line with the right to rule. No other family will inherit the kingly linage of the Davidic seed. This seed is the same seed that is spoken of who will crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15).  In one sense, it speaks of the ongoing generations of David’s descendants, yet also points to a future Seed who will embody the fullness of a King-Priest anointing and bring about the final defeat of the serpent. God has  preserved a physical seed throughout history to bring about both the redemption of mankind and the Messianic Kingdom; both fulfillment’s are found in the man Christ. Gen 49:10  The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people. This is what is spoken of in Acts 2 during Peter’s discourse concerning the resurrection of Jesus. His case is that Christ, as the Son (Seed) of David must be resurrected in accordance with the oath God had sworn. Christ could not rule on David’s throne if He were a disembodied spirit, for David’s throne is in Zion – the city of David (1 Kg 8:1).  Therefore, Christ has risen to fulfill all that God had spoken, part being, he was given a resurrected body capable of sitting on an earthly throne.

II. David’s Throne

2 Sam 7:13b …I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

Provision is made through oath that David’s throne would continue forever (2 Sam 7:16). The throne speaks not only the political power committed to David’s seed but the geographic locale whereupon this seed would preside. This is an important and oft overlooked provision.  As previously mentioned the throne of David rests in the city of David – Jerusalem. David’s throne was meant to be understood as the seat of exulted earthly power centered in Jerusalem. God chose Israel to make a name for Himself (2 Sam 7:23) through which He would establish His government in the earth. He sent His Son to sit on that seat (Ps. 2:6). Mary is told that her Son would be given the throne of His father David and that He would in fact reign over the house of Jacob forever (Lk 1:32). Jesus is both Messiah (1st coming) and King (2nd coming).

No where in scripture does it say that David’s throne is in the heart of believers or in heaven. To come to one of these conclusions requires the symbolizing of many passages to form an uninspired idea that somehow David’s throne evaporated and entered the heart of believers through the cross. This idea came through a misunderstanding, and further denial, of both the Dadivic Covenant and earthly millennial kingdom. The Davidic Covenant presents several problems for those who seek the allegorical or spiritual interpretation of the its provisions. Foremost is the fact that both David and Solomon understood it as literal (2 Sam 7:18-29; 2 Chron. 6:14-16); moreover there is not clear scriptural basis for understanding David’s throne to be in heart of a believer nor of it being synonymous with the heavenly Father’s throne.

III. The Kingdom

2 Sam 7:16 …your kingdom shall be established forever

David is further promised that his kingdom will forever perpetuate. When this promise was given it would by nature of its longevity demand to be supreme on the earth. In theory, the armies of Israel would have no fear of their enemies going into battle because of the knowledge that their kingdom would not be thrown down. Even if it were not supreme initially it would simply outlast all other kingdoms to become so. An eternal entity cannot be subject to a temporary one. Even Rome, in it’s millennial rule of  glory, would and was,  simply outlasted by this Davidic Kingdom. The destruction inititated in 70 AD and completed in 135 AD was undone through the re-establishment of Israel in 1948. Although evil has purposed time and time again to ‘stamp out’ the Jewish people, there will always be a remnant left to humbly receive Yeshua at His coming (see Mt. 23:39).  Jesus is the only one to fulfill this promise since He is both naturally ‘Son of Daivid’ and divinely eternal. It is implied that one king will rule this kingdom forever (see also Mic. 4:7). By understanding the promise to Mary concerning Christ’s throne (Lk 1:32), the Father’s purpose to have His Son as King (Ps. 2:6), and the prophecy in Daniel 2:44 of a kingdom which will never be destroyed it can be deduced that this covenant finds its fulfillment in Christ at His Second Coming. Further, we are told by Isaiah that through this given Son, there would be no end to the increase of His peace and government when He sits upon the throne of Daivid’s kingdom (9:7).

In summary, the three provisions of this covenant are find their rest in Christ at the establishment of His millennial kingdom.

12 thoughts on “Life in the Millennium (Part 3) – David’s Throne

  • Even Rome, in it’s millennial rule of glory, would and was, simply outlasted by this Davidic Kingdom. The destruction inititated in 70 AD and completed in 135 AD was undone through the re-establishment of Israel in 1948. Although evil has purposed time and time again to ’stamp out’ the Jewish people, there will always be a remnant left to humbly receive Yeshua at His coming (see Mt. 23:39)…

    Just a quick question: Are you trying to say that the current state of Israel, as a political entity, is the Davidic Kingdom? Thats what the first sentences seem to be implying?


  • Jonothan,

    No, I do not believe the current political state of Israel to be the resurrected Davidic Kingdom in relation to either it’s historical or millennial power. However, the reestablishment of the state of Israel puts forth the platform (geographic locale) through which the fullness of the Davidic Covenant and its provisions will emerge.



  • Cool 😉 mmm… that is intriguing though I do not agree…

    (( I have only used UPPER case letters because I dont have bold, italics, etc at my disposal. I am not shouting as it normally implies… ;)))

    Another question, if you will bare with me? Where do you believe Davids throne is? And do you think really think that there really is a proviso in the Davidic covenant that gives credence, more than inference, to it being in Jerusalem or in other words a locale rather than a ‘position of authority’?

    1 Kings 8:1 is unconvincing because of Galatians 4:25-28 and Hebrews 12:22?

    Acts 2:30 is pretty much explained in vs 32 ( 33 – 36 also). In that I see Peter refering to the promise of 25 – 30 being explained and fulfilled in Jesus’ resurrection (vs 31- 35)

    Follow me for a second: vs 31-36 – he (David) foreseeing this (that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He(God) would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne-v.30b) spoke of the resurrection of Christ…This Jesus God HAS raised up… THEREFORE being exalted to the right hand of God… for David did not ascend into heaven…. THEREFORE let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus…both Lord (Phil 2:5-11) and Christ…

    It seems as if Peter is proving that Jesus’ resurrection and ascension is ipso facto evidence of the promise to David being fulfilled? The promise being that God would raise up one from his flesh to sit on his throne… to which Peter emphatically declares ‘this Jesus, God has raised up!!!

    Now because I see Jesus’ coming back with the New Jerusalem… His throne (Rev 21) will be in Israel eventually, but not to the exclusion that NOW Jesus is ruling from Davids throne…

    I am in full agreement with this “”Jesus will come again, fulfill the Messianic Mandate, sit on David’s throne, and rule the nations of the earth from Jerusalem with uncompromising righteousness.””

    In the Spirit of the Greats: Sola Scriptura… Semper Reformanda…



  • Jonathan (sorry for the misspelling last time),

    Thanks for your expedient and insightful reply.

    I believe David’s throne to be in Zion the city of David – Jerusalem. It doens’t make sense to me to equate David’s throne and kingdom with Russia, Bangladesh, or even heaven. Christ by divine nature inherited the kingdom of heaven and by his human nature inherited the kingdoms of the earth. While there is overlap in God’s prophetic program concerning the realm and nature of Christ’s kingdom, the Davidic provision centers this kingdom where David’s kingdom was situated. The Jewish Messianic expectation during the time of Christ wasn’t off, it was an issue of timing.

    Davids Covenant combines both political location and authoritative position in my opinion, but my opinion is only that. The first 2 times Zion is mentioned in 2 Sam 5:7 and 1 Kg 8:1, intentional explanation to its specific location is given.

    An unpopular view that I hold is that Zion ALWAYS refers to the earthly location where Jerusalem currently is. I believe Heb 12 speaks of “Mount Zion” (earthly), the “city of God” (joined earthly and heavenly), and “heavenly Jerusalem” (new Jerusalem). Read it and tell if you can see what I mean though you still may disagree.

    Is Galatians 4 speaking of destination or of origin?


  • Hey bro,

    Sweet blog! I appreciate all the thought you put into these posts. A lot to chew on for sure.

    After reading through this post in particular, though, I’d like to follow up on Jono’s question. You explained what you believe about David’s throne well enough in your response, but you didn’t really attempt to explain why. Yes of course I understand that this whole post was that explanation, but I didn’t see that you actually interacted with Jono’s question / argument from Acts 2.

    To put the point as I understand it from the passage, it seems like Peter is calling upon the covenant promises which God made to Israel–including the promise made to David in 2 Samuel 7–and declaring that those promises are CURRENTLY being fulfilled, right then and there (v. 33, 39), THROUGH the resurrection and ascension of Jesus as the empirical evidence that he is Israel’s Messiah. Jesus of Nazareth HAS BEEN exalted to the right hand of God, vindicated as Lord and Messiah, and it’s from that place of authority that he has received the promise of the Spirit–the very promise that, according to the OT prophets, would accompany the great messianic age. That, it seems to me, is the whole reason Peter quotes from Joel 2:28 at the beginning of his message: he sees this charismatic outpouring as a clear sign that the age to come has burst into the present, that the kingdom has in fact come, albeit in an ‘already-but-not-yet’ way.

    Peter quotes several OT passages in this sermon–Joel 2, of course, but also Ps. 16, 2 Sam. 7 (which is of great importance to the point you make about David’s throne) and, climactically, Ps. 110–all of them concerning the ‘age to come’ when the covenant promises would be fulfilled, and the stunning thing is that he proclaims they have already been fulfilled, that the long-awaited day of redemption has come at last, for all within Israel who repent (vv. 38-39), through Jesus’ resurrection, ascension and giving of the Spirit.

    This may seem unsubstantiated, but look closely at verses 30-35.

    “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath [covenant] to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would RAISE UP the Messiah to sit on his throne (2 Sam. 7), he, foreseeing this, SPOKE CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION of the Messiah…This Jesus God has RAISED UP… Therefore [connecting Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand with the promise made to David] BEING EXALTED to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.”’

    Notice how Peter associates the Messiah’s being ‘raised up’ to sit on ‘his’ throne, meaning David’s (v. 30), with Jesus’ being ‘raised up’ to ‘the right hand of God’ (v. 33), and notice how his use of 1 Samuel 7 and Psalm 110 function within this. The clear point, at the climax of the sermon, is to say that Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of God, the place of authority from which he pours out the Spirit for the renewal of Israel, is in fact in substantial fulfillment of God’s promises to David.

  • One more thing:

    The distinction which is often made between Jesus’ sitting on David’s throne (which is said to be ‘earthly’) vs. his present enthronement as Lord in heaven (which is said to be ‘spiritual’) strikes me as a bit off target, for it seems to be working off of a cosmological dualism which pulls the ‘natural’ too far apart from the ‘spiritual’–something which would not have occurred to the mind of a Jew like Peter in the first century. As important as it is to stay clear of a spiritualizing hermeneutic like that of Augustine or Origen, we must be equally careful not to react to Augustine off of the same false antithesis as Augustine, imposing our western worldview, where earthly and heavenly are distant and at odds with one another, onto the thinking of a first-century Jew like Peter.

    In fact, the whole NT assumes a worldview that insists heaven and earth are twin parts of God’s good creation, and that even post-fall they overlap and interlock in a variety of surprising ways, and that they have been reconciled forever via the cross and resurrection of Jesus. (Yes this reconciliation is still to be worked out as an ontologically reality at the Eschaton, but the covenantal fact was sealed at Calvary (cf. Eph. 1:9-10; Col. 1:19-12).) Of course our culture is built on the denial that such a thing is possible, and so things fall apart into either ‘earthly’ or ‘heavenly’, the former seen as ‘objective’ and the latter ‘subjective’.

    But if we are in agreement, which I know we are, that the supernatural often breaks in upon the natural right now, and that, when it’s all said and done, ‘heaven’ is coming to ‘earth’, that the New Jerusalem will one day descend and the throne on which Jesus currently sits will in fact be located in the dirt-filled-land promised to David, then doesn’t it strike you as a bit arbitrary to distinguish between his sitting on David’s ‘earthly’ throne in the future and his present exaltation upon a ‘heavenly’ throne? Aren’t they actually one and the same throne?

  • Matt,

    Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post and questions following. After I responded to Jonathan’s question I realized that I didn’t give any explanation to his question concerning Acts 2. My apologies Jonathan for this.

    I don’t believe my view infallible but tested through fellow believers such as yourself. You make a strong case indeed concerning the Davidic promises related to Christ’s resurrection. But I still think your last sentence is a strong statement when you said, “[the Promise of the Father] is in fact in substantial fulfillment of God’s promises to David.”

    There are many promises concerning the first and second comings of Messiah, but I was dealing with those specifically concerning the Lord’s oath to David. Meaning, I don’t see a “this is that” when the Promise of the Father was given at Pentecost. The subject of Peter’s sermon was the promise of the “resurrection” not the fulfillment of the “Davidic Covenant”.

    I believe Peter was giving substance to his audience of the validity of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. I hear you saying in essence, “The resurrection is proof that the Davidic Covenant is being fulfilled”; but I see it as, “The Davidic Covenant is proof that the resurrection is fulfilled.” Jesus could not receive David’s throne and then die without ruling on the earth. I think this is what Peter is addressing when he mentions Ps. 16 in Acts 2:31 –

    Psa 16:9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; My flesh also will rest in hope.
    Psa 16:10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.
    Psa 16:11 You will show me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore

    I believe the “flesh also will rest in hope” is speaking of the resurrected body Jesus received. Christ would be exalted to the right hand of the Father from Sheol. There, He would “wait” until His enemies were subjugated.

    I don’t believe that Peter was associating Messiah’s being ‘raised up’ and receiving the Davidic Promise with being ‘exalted’ to the right hand of the Father. In fact, Peter emphatically stops at the end of verse 32 and begins with “therefore” at the beginning of verse 33, indicating that the promise of “Lord” (King) was yet to be fulfilled and showing that “Christ” (Savior) had come (vs. 36).

    The Jews equated Messiah with the Conquering King who would never die, but they didn’t see provision for the Suffering Savior. Many Jewish teachers believed there to be two Messiah’s because they couldn’t reconcile the two polarized descriptions. Peter was showing the correlation of the two, the crucible point being the resurrection.

    In conclusion, I can’t justify the resurrection being the litmus test of authentic fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, because it was not overtly in the provisions given in 2 Sam. 7 (seed, throne, kingdom).

    Knowing dimly,


    P.s. you’re probably right , keep convincing me

  • Isaac,

    Looks like I’m a latecomer to the conversation, but nevertheless I’ll throw in my $0.02!

    I still think you’re right in saying that “the Davidic Covenant is proof that the resurrection is fulfilled”. To assume that God kept His promises to David in a means beyond the Jews’ understanding would completely negate the grammatical/historical exegesis of the passages you brought up (along with many others) that reaffirmed God’s covenant with David.

    I believe that Peter’s point above was to point out to his brethren that the resurrection proved that Jesus was God’s “anointed” (chosen or appointed) One, not that Jesus was currently seated upon a throne. This is why they were deeply “cut to the heart”.

    I think it would be extremely difficult to prove that thousands of Peter’s hearers – Jews themselves – would have been “cut to the heart” if Peter’s point was to say that the Davidic covenant was fulfilled in their hearing and that Jesus was now seated on an invisible throne. That conclusion, in my opinion, ignores thousands of years of context, expectation, and grammatical flow. It also ignores the content of apostolic gospel preaching, which tended to focus on the resurrection of Jesus as proof that He is anointed to rule or judge; not that He was currently doing so in fullness.

    Keep writing bro, this is good stuff.


  • Josh, great to hear from you bro! Thanks for the input.

    I think Acts 2 was/is an apologetic for Jews to see Jesus as both Meschiach Ben Joseph (Suffering Servant) and Meschiach Ben David (Conquering King).

    Acts 2:36 – “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both LORD and CHRIST.

    How could a Jew reconcile Is. 53 and Is. 9? This is what I believe Peter is addressing.

    Secondly, something that was mentioned in an earlier comment was the supposed relation of the “promise of the Holy Spirit” (vrs 33) with the “oath to [David]” (vrs 30). I think it would be difficult to show that the Promise of the Father is the SAME as the Davidic Covenant using other passages.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s