By Les Fleetwood

 

(Taken from the full article on the Old Testament Covenants – here)

Over 30% of the New Testament (NT) is composed of OT quotes and allusions. Much of this refers to OT covenant material. This statistic alone should motivate one to study the OT more diligently. Specifically, God’s eschatological (endtime) program began in specific OT covenants He made with the nation of Israel. These covenants provided Israel with a hope, a certain future based on the faithfulness of God. Anyone serious about understanding the Endtimes must begin their study with the OT covenants as they are “the basis of Biblical Eschatology”

How do I interpret the OT Covenants?

As explained in a previous article on this site, the literal or normal method of biblical interpretation is the only method to assure consistency and accuracy when it comes to studying the OT covenants. As we study the covenants, we shall see that they are literal, that is they are contracts written in common language, conveying a plainly expressed straightforward meaning. As such, reading and interpreting these covenants in the most plain and normal sense (i.e.; literal interpretation) becomes obvious.

The Davidic Covenant

2 Samuel 7:12-16 records the Davidic Covenant, a covenant God made with King David after he purposed to build a permanent temple for the LORD. This covenant enlarged and confirmed the “seed/descendant” promises from the Abrahamic Covenant, and is further confirmed by God to David in Psalm 89: 3-4, 27-29, 33-37, and to the nation Israel through the prophets: Isaiah 9:6-7; Jeremiah 23:5-6; 30:8-9; 33:14-17, 20-21; Ezekiel 37:24-25; Daniel 7:13-14; Hosea 3:4-5; Amos 9:11; and Zechariah 14:4, 9. But is this covenant eternal and unconditional?

As previously mentioned, the Davidic Covenant is an eternal and unconditional covenant (the “conditional covenant/spiritualized fulfillment” position on this covenant is dealt with later in the “Eschatological significance” section). First, 2 Samuel 7:13, 16, 19, 23:5; 1 Chronicles 17:12, 22:10; Isaiah 55:3; and Ezekiel 37:25 all refer to this covenant as “eternal.” It can only be called “eternal” if “it is unconditional and rests upon the faithfulness of God for its execution.” (Pentecost, Things…, p. 104). Second, as an amplification of the “seed/descendant” portion of the eternal and unconditional Abrahamic Covenant (as has already been established), it logically follows that this covenant is likewise eternal and unconditional. Finally, this covenant was re-affirmed by God and offered to the nation by Christ (Luke 22:29-30) after generations of apostasy, an offer that could only have been made under an unconditional covenant unreliant upon any response on the part of the nation (Ibid).

The elements of the Davidic Covenant are:

1. David will have a son who will succeed him and establish his kingdom (2 Samuel 7:12);
2. This son (not David) will build the LORD’s temple (7:13a);
3. The throne of his kingdom will be established forever (7:13b);
4. Though the LORD disciplines this son for sins, his throne will not be taken away from him (7:14-15); and
5. David’s house, kingdom, and throne will be established forever (7:16). As with the previous covenants, we must ask the question, will this covenant (i.e., these elements) be literally fulfilled?

Eschatological Significance: Before answering the question of literal fulfillment, notice that there are three major features of this covenant that are eschatologically significant: house, kingdom, and throne (2 Samuel 7:16). These three terms amplify God’s original “seed/descendants” promise given in the Abrahamic Covenant, in that God is detailing His plan for the descendants of David.

Contextually, with a plain reading of the text (2 Samuel 7:12-16), the term “house” clearly refers to David’s physical descendants. “This meant that a line stemming from David would continue indefinitely and would be the divinely recognized royal line” (Pentecost, Thy Kingdom…, p. 142). With a literal reading of the text, the term “kingdom” refers to the political body David would rule and over which his descendants would successively reign, and the term “throne” here refers not to a material throne for sitting upon, but to the right to rule, the authority as king vested in David (Ibid).

Notice in verse 16 the term “forever.” “The word ‘forever’ must refer to any time during which the descendants of Abraham exist. Even though there might be temporary interruptions in the exercise of royal authority because of divine discipline, the authority would never transfer to another line” (Ibid). In fact, this is what we read in 2 Samuel 7:14-15 (where God is speaking in reference to His actions toward David’s future son, Solomon, and all his descendants): “…when he [David’s son] commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul… .”

What was taken away from Saul? God says “My lovingkindness.” This is translated from the Hebrew word “hesed.” “Hesed” implies favor and loyal love, and in the context of 2 Samuel 7:15 it relates to God granting the right to rule as king. This then is what God removed from Saul, his right to rule as king. God removed it due to Saul’s disobedience. In contrast, this “throne”, or right to rule, is something God said He will never remove from David’s line, in spite of iniquity.

Now to the question previously asked:

Will the Davidic Covenant be literally fulfilled? 

“At stake is the question of whether there will be a future Davidic kingdom on earth following the second coming of Christ” (Walvoord, Major…, p. 96). The answer is yes for several reasons (Pentecost, Things…, pp. 107-111; and in Thy Kingdom…, pp. 144-145; Walvoord, Major…, pp. 100-109):

1. Portions of the covenant have already been literally fulfilled.

The promises in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 which state that David would have a son succeed him, who would establish David’s kingdom (the political body he and successive descendants would rule over) and throne (right to rule), who would build the temple, and who would be punished for disobedience were fulfilled with King Solomon, David’s son (see 2 Samuel 12:24-25; 1 Kings 1:37-40; 3:1-4:34; 6:1-38; 10:26-11:1-13ff). “Solomon’s throne was a literal, political throne; therefore the ultimate fulfillment through Messiah will also be literal and political” (Enns, Handbook…, p. 62). As has been previously emphasized, the way in which parts of a covenant are fulfilled determines the pattern of fulfillment for the whole. If parts of the Davidic Covenant have already been literally fulfilled, it is logical to assume that God will literally fulfill the rest of it. (Future implications of literal fulfillment will be addressed at the end of this section.)

2. David understood the covenant would be fulfilled literally .

This is attested to in 2 Samuel 23:5 and 1 Kings 1:30-37. Also notice that David understood the covenant to be ultimately fulfilled in the Messiah (“anointed one”), as seen in Psalm 89:27-29 (David would have a descendant who will rule over the kings of the earth). In reference to Psalm 89, Dr. John Walvoord comments, “No other passage makes quite so clear that the kingdom refers to David and the people of Israel and that the covenant is unconditional and certain of fulfillment” (Major…, p. 100).

3. The OT prophets expected a literal fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant through the Messiah.

Isaiah 9:6-7 – the Messiah’s birth, government, and reign on David’s throne are prophesied, along with God stating His own accomplishment of it.

Jeremiah 23:5-8 – a clear reference is made to David’s throne, and the Righteous one who would reign.

Jeremiah 33:14-17 – another specific reference to the Messiah, the Righteous one, ruling from over an earthly kingdom.

Ezekiel 37:21-28 – the prophet refers to the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant after the nation Israel is regathered to the Promised Land.

Daniel 7:13-14 – refers to the “Son of Man”, the Messiah, whose kingdom will never pass away.

Zechariah 14:9 – the Davidic throne will extend God’s political authority as vested in Jesus Christ over the nation Israel, and also over the universal kingdom of God in the Millennium (Ibid, p. 104).

4. There is evidence for literal fulfillment from the NT references to the Davidic Covenant.

This is observed in the first church council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:14-17): after it is noted by James that God purposed to call Gentiles to Himself, and then that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) would return, James reminds the council that it is only then that God would re-establish the Davidic kingdom exactly as promised in the Davidic Covenant. The OT prophet Amos predicted this re-establishing of the kingdom in Amos 9:11 – “In that day [a phrase referring to the day of the Lord, the last days, the Endtimes] I will raise up the fallen booth of David… .” Also significant is the reference in Luke 1:31-33. In this passage Jesus Christ is announced to be the Messiah, the One to whom God will give the Davidic throne, that He will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and that His kingdom would have no end. Notice in this passage that the three elements of “house,” “kingdom,” and “throne” from the Davidic Covenant are all fulfilled in Christ.

How the lineage of Jesus Christ points to His ultimate fulfillment of the “house/kingdom/throne forever” promise of the Davidic Covenant (an expansion of the “seed/descendant” promises of the Abrahamic Covenant). “Solomon’s line was to end physically in Joseph, the husband of Mary, a fact that would give Jesus Christ, his legal son, the legal right to the throne [Matthew 1:1-17]. Mary, however, was to descend from David through another son, Nathan (not to be confused with Nathan the prophet), and therefore would have a different physical lineage [Luke 3:23-38]. This is taken into consideration in the Davidic Covenant. Solomon was promised that his throne would continue forever but not that his house would continue forever, in contrast to David, whose throne and house were promised to continue forever. This covenant, accordingly, introduces the descending line from David to Christ and points to the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the ultimate fulfillment [legally through Joseph and physically through Mary] of this promise to David” (Ibid, p. 98). Further, in Galatians 3:16 the Apostle Paul affirms that the “seed/descendant” promise was ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Related Issues in the Davidic Covenant

While space does not permit us to examine every question as it relates to the Davidic Covenant , let us briefly look at seven of the key issues.

1. Is the Davidic Covenant conditional, and fulfilled spiritually in the Church?

This is a question from some theologians who argue for a conditional Davidic Covenant with a spiritualized fulfillment. For proponents of this view, the “throne” of the covenant is realized as the throne on which Christ is now seated at God’s right hand, the “house” of the covenant is realized to be the household of faith, and the “kingdom” of the covenant is realized in the Church. Further, it is said that all the temporal aspects of the covenant were fulfilled by King Solomon and the eternal aspects are fulfilled by Christ’s present reign over the Church. “This makes the church the “seed” and the “kingdom” promised in the covenant. The kingdom becomes heavenly, not earthly. The Davidic rule becomes but a type of the reign of Christ” (Pentecost, Things…, p. 103).

The problems with this view are three-fold:

(1) The proponents of this view admit that the terms of the Davidic Covenant require a literal fulfillment during the reign of King Solomon (referred to as “historical fulfillment”). So why do they then insist on a spiritual fulfillment as well? Claiming a literal fulfillment historically would seem to contradict their view that this covenant was fulfilled spiritually by the Church. “The two are mutually exclusive and make for an illogical and inconsistent theology all the way around” (Pentecost, Thy Kingdom…, p. 147).

(2) Proponents of this view claim Solomon fulfilled this covenant during his reign. They cite 1 Kings 4:21 as evidence that the Solomonic empire filled the region promised by God to Abraham. But as previously explained, there was no permanent possession of the land, and Solomon never fully occupied it. The phrase “From the river of Egypt” (Genesis 15:18) is not geographically equivalent to the phrase “from the border of Egypt” (1 Kings 4:21), and Solomon never occupied all this land, but only collected a tribute from it (1 Kings 4:21b). Certainly overlordship is not the same as everlasting possession (Ibid, pp. 147-148).

(3) Proponents of this view state that Christ is now seated on David’s throne, citing such verses as Acts 2:34-35 and Acts 5:31. The problem here is that David’s throne is never explicitly mentioned. Rather, we read in both of these passages that Christ is presently seated in heaven at God’s right hand. The wording here is very significant: to be “seated at the right hand” of someone is a common metaphor for sitting in a position of prestige and power. Clearly we recognize that Christ is in such a present position, as this is what the NT teaches (Acts 2:34-35). But this should not be interpreted as referring to the Davidic throne. Acts 5:31 says, “…whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and Savior… .” Did you catch those key words? Christ is in a powerful position of heavenly rulership (“right hand”), as a “Prince and Savior” – the relational concept here between God and Christ is that of a vice-regent to the King; Christ is not yet presented as the King literally ruling from David’s throne! This will not occur until His reign here on earth (Revelation 20:1-15).

2. Is Christ presently ruling from David’s throne?

As previously shown from Acts 2:34-35 (cf. Colossians 3:1) and Acts 5:31, Christ is not presently ruling from David’s throne. He is seated in a position of powerful heavenly rulership (seated at God’s “right hand”) as God’s Prince and Savior (“vice-regent”).

Psalm 110 tells us that Christ is presently seated on the heavenly throne at God’s right hand, and that He will occupy David’s throne from Jerusalem (“Zion”) as King only after Israel’s enemies have been subjugated at the end of the Great Tribulation.

Also significant to this question is this fact: this writer’s personal search of the NT revealed 58 references to the Davidic Covenant, and many references to the present ministry of Jesus. One would expect that something as significant as Jesus presently ruling from David’s throne would be clearly dealt with in the NT, but this is not the case. There is not a single reference which connects Christ’s present ministry with the Davidic throne. David’s throne is never pictured as heavenly, but always as a literal, earthly throne in Jerusalem (e.g, Psalm 2 and 110; Zechariah 14:4-11).

3. Is the “kingdom” present today?

Some believe that the “kingdom” promise in the Davidic Covenant (i.e., that David and his successive descendants would rule over a political body) is to be spiritualized and that it has been fulfilled on earth by the Church. But is the kingdom people enter into at salvation associated with the Davidic kingdom?

The answer is “No.” Colossians 1:13 says, “For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.” Clearly this verse is speaking about salvation; the immediate context of Colossians 1 reveals as much. But the “kingdom of God’s beloved Son” here is not associated with the kingdom promised in the Davidic Covenant, which has been previously shown to be a literal, political body.

In Acts 1:6-8, the disciples asked Christ if He was going to restore the kingdom to Israel. Christ does not say Israel forfeited the kingdom. Rather, He replies that they could not know the timing of such things, but that they were to proceed with the task of disciple-making. Don’t you think that if something as significant as Israel losing their right to the kingdom was about to happen, that Jesus would’ve said something? The disciples’ question in Acts 1:6 would have been an opportune moment for Jesus to correct their thinking about the kingdom. But He does no such thing!

The above conclusion is not an argument from silence, but is in line with Romans 11, where the Apostle Paul is very clear that there is a distinct future for ethnic Israel, apart from the Church.

Some bring up Matthew 21:43 as evidence that Jesus DID say the kingdom was removed from Israel – “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” But in the context of Matthew 21:23-45, it is crucial to note that Jesus was directing his reply in verse 43 at the chief priests and Pharisees, and that they knew He was speaking directly to them (verse 45). Of course, any Israelite who would disbelieve as the religious leaders would also lose the right to enter the kingdom (John S. Feinberg, Continuity and Discontinuity. Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988; p. 343). Since virtually all Israel rejected Jesus as the Messiah, the kingdom was taken from them…but not forever.

Remember: the Davidic Covenant is promised to be fulfilled regardless of Israel’s actions – 2 Samuel 7:14-15: “when he commits iniquity, I will correct him…but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him;” Psalm 89:30-37: “if his sons forsake My law, and do not walk in My judgments, if they violate My statutes…then I will visit their transgression with the rod…But I will not break off My lovingkindness from him…My covenant I will not violate…I will not lie to David, his descendants shall endure forever…[emphasis added];” Romans 11:1-36: “…God has not rejected His people, has He? May it never be! For I too am an Israelite… .”

4. But didn’t Jesus say the kingdom was “at hand”? Which kingdom was that?

Yes, Jesus did say the kingdom is at hand (Matthew 4:17). In fact, so did John the Baptist (Matthew 3:2), the twelve disciples (Matthew 10:5-7), and the seventy witnesses commissioned by Jesus (Luke 10:1-12). Which kingdom was offered? Contextually in each instance a genuine offer of the earthly Davidic kingdom was made to the nation Israel. However, they rejected the offer. In this way, we can understand that although the Kingdom was “at hand” in Jesus’ day, it is presently not so, and will not be until after the second coming of Christ , when He is seated on David’s throne (e.g., Psalm 2 and 110; Zechariah 14:4-11). This affirms the unconditionality of the Davidic Covenant as discussed earlier in this article.

5. If Jesus’ offer of the Davidic kingdom was indeed genuine, what if Israel would have accepted it?

This hypothetical question is generally raised to present the following dilemma: “If Israel accepted Jesus’ offer, this would affect the certainty of your endtime scheme, because the kingdom would then have been set up in Jesus’ day.” But this is an invalid hypothetical because of OT prophecies where God predicted Israel’s initial rejection of Messiah’s offer (e.g., Isaiah 50:4-7; 52:13-53:12; Daniel 9:25-26; Zechariah 12:10; 13:6-7) and future acceptance of it in the last days (e.g., Ezekiel 36:24-28; Hosea 3:4-5; Zechariah 13:9).

Those posing the hypothetical apparently fail to focus on the fact that Israel rejected the offer. The facts are that (a) God’s sovereign plan for Israel’s future predicted their rejection of Jesus’ offer as recorded in the Gospels, (b) that God’s endtime plan is on course, and that (c) we have His complete, revealed Word predicting how it will occur. Therefore, we can maintain our certainty about Israel’s future.

Related to this are other apparent “dilemmas” raised by those who deny that the offer was genuine: “If you say the OT teaches that the Davidic kingdom will be fulfilled in the Millennium, and in no way in the Church today, then how could Jesus’ offer of the kingdom during His earthly ministry have been genuine? Certainly He knew that it would not be fulfilled until He was ruling in the Millennium, so why offer it now? Doesn’t this mean that His offer wasn’t genuine?”

Is there truly a “dilemma” here? No. Again, the problem with all the above questions is that those asking them fail to focus on the fact that Israel rejected the offer. There is no “what if they accepted it” to ponder. Certainly Jesus knew their minds, and knew that Israel would reject His offer. Not only this, but Jesus also knew that Israel’s repentance and acceptance of the kingdom would not happen until the end of the Tribulation, right before the Millennium (e.g., Ezekiel 36:24-28; Hosea 3:4-5; Zechariah 13:9). Does this therefore mean He deceptively made a hollow offer? Not at all. He simply did what God has always done, and that is to give people a choice. For God to give Israel a real choice means there had to be a real offer. This is necessary by virtue of God’s holy character.

The bottom line is that God’s sovereignty is never overruled by human free-will. Just because the OT predicts Israel’s initial rejection of the offer, and because Jesus knew Israel would initially reject the offer, does not lessen the genuineness of the offer. The offer was real, the choice Israel had was real, and they chose to reject it, as God in His sovereignty had already anticipated. And in His sovereignty, God has established that Israel will not accept that offer until the Millennium.

6. Is the Millennium a literal, earthly kingdom?

Yes. Both the OT promises of spiritual, social, political, and economic blessing for the nation Israel (e.g., Isaiah 60; Zephaniah 3:11-20; Zechariah 12-14), and Revelation 20:1-10 require a literal, earthly kingdom of 1000 years. “The Millennium will be a 1000 year period in which Christ will set up a kingdom and rule over the entire earth (Revelation 20:4). It will begin about 75 days after the end of the Tribulation (Daniel 12:12). This 1000 year period is explicitly mentioned six times in six verses (Revelation 20:2-7)” (Lightner, op. cit., p. 35). A literal interpretation of the Davidic Covenant leads the interpreter to expect a literal millennium.

7. If the Millennium is literally 1000 years long, how can it be said that Christ will reign from David’s throne forever?

The answer to this is not so complicated. Christ’s eternal reign will continue after the Millennium into the eternal state, the period of eternity in the new heavens and the new earth, as related to us in Revelation 21:1-22:5.

Now that we have examined the Davidic Covenant, let us look at the future implications of a literal fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (Pentecost, Things…, pp. 114-115):

1. Israel must be preserved as a nation.

2. Israel must have a national existence, and be brought back into the land of her inheritance. Since David’s kingdom had definite geographical boundaries and those boundaries were included in the promise to David concerning his descendant’s reign, the nation must possess all of that land as her national homeland.

3. David’s Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, must return to earth, bodily and literally, in order to reign over David’s covenanted kingdom. The claim that Christ is seated on the Father’s throne reigning over a spiritual kingdom, the Church, simply does not fulfill the promises of the covenant.

4. A literal earthly kingdom must exist over which the returned Messiah will reign.

5. This kingdom must become an eternal kingdom. Since the “throne,” “house,” and “kingdom” were all promised to David in perpetuity, there must be no end to Messiah’s reign over David’s kingdom from David’s throne.

Having examined the content and eschatological significance of the Davidic Covenant, one can clearly see how it is of extreme importance in understanding God’s endtime plan.

(Taken from the full article on the Old Testament Covenants – here)