What Mainline Christianity Erroneously

Teaches about the Davidic Throne

By Liaf

I am about to post copyrighted material here! I want to go over a step-by-step doctrinal outline that your run-of-the-mill, hell-fire evangelist believes about the Throne of David. He will preach that you will go to hell if you do not have any faith, but we shall see that he does not have faith in what the Bible says about a critical doctrine such as the Davidic Throne. "Liaf, if you post copyrighted material without permission, aren’t you plagiarizing?" Let’s look carefully at the definition of the word "plagiarize". Plagiarizing is when you use somebody else’s writing or speech and pass it off as your own ideas without giving them credit. Let’s get something straight. I would not pass off this outline as my own beliefs. Over my dead body. I’m here to critique it. "What about at least quoting the source?" you may ask. I am not quoting this source because after I am done setting things straight, the "source" may not want to be identified. Actually, I am not out to bash anybody personally, but I am about to bash an erroneous doctrine. However, some may take it personally since people oftentimes associate their person with their beliefs. In other words, attack one and you’ve effectively attacked both whether or not that is the intention. Tell ya what. If anybody out there recognizes this as his or her material, just notify me by e-mail. I will gladly remove it, and I will offer a public apology and credit your name to this material. Any takers? I thought not.

Below is an outline of the "Doctrine of the Davidic Covenant". From what I’ve heard, read, and studied, this outline is not really unique. It expresses the typical beliefs that the mainline church has about David’s eternal albeit "fallen" throne. I will insert my comments in bold red within the outline. OK---- here is the outline and here we go:

DOCTRINE OF THE DAVIDIC COVENANT

  1. Preliminary considerations.
    1. Scripture: 2Sam.7:12-16; cp. Ps.89:3,4,19-37.
    2. Historical background.
      1. David had established his authority over his enemies (2Sam.7:1).
      2. He lived in a house of cedar and desired to build God a house (2Sam.7:2).
      3. David was not permitted to build this house, but was promised a "house" that would endure forever (2Sam.7:11).
      4. The prophet Nathan was informed of the details by a vision 2Sam.7:4; Ps.89:19).

      So far, just history. This is OK.

    3. Key terms defined.
      1. "House" refers to the Davidic royal dynasty (2Sam.7:11,16).
      2. "Seed", or "descendant", refers to the male heirs, beginning with Solomon and ending with Jesus Christ (2Sam.7:12; Ps.89:4a,29a,36a)."Covenant" refers to the binding contract between God and His servant, David (Ps.89:3a,28b,34a).No, the Bible allows for female heirs if no male heirs were present as long as the female heirs married within their own tribe. Numbers 36 regarding Zelophehad’s daughters proves this. It may end with Jesus Christ, but at his first coming or second? Remember, Jesus assumed NO THRONE at his first coming, so there must be heirs AFTER his first coming according to this.
      3. "Throne" refers to the right to rule over the kingdom defined by the land grant of the Abrahamic Covenant (2Sam.7:13,16; Ps.89:4b,29b,36b).
    4. The Abrahamic Covenant is centered in "land" and "seed". Actually, it involves MORE. See how all those birthright promises are watered down? God promised over ten major things to Abraham that I can think of off the top of my head.
    5. What the Covenant requires for fulfillment: it demands that a biological descendant of David occupy his throne forever.

    Agreed, let’s see if this is believed later on in the outline. Notice the word FOREVER there. What does forever mean? It means CONTINUOUS and WITHOUT END.

  2. Reasons why David was selected.
    1. He was a member of the chosen people (Ps.89:19c) and of the tribe destined for royalty in Israel (Ps.78:68; cp. Gen.49:8-10; Pss.60:7; 76:1; 108:8).
    2. He was in the line of Christ (Rom.1:3).
    3. He was anointed king by the prophet Samuel to replace the renegade Saul (1Sam.16:13; Ps.89:20).
    4. He was spiritually qualified to inherit such Ph2 blessing (2Sam.7:8,9; Ps.89:26).
    5. And he was physically endowed to be a warrior-king (Pss.89:19b; 18:32-34).
  3. Promises associated with the Covenant fulfilled in David's lifetime. David was promised:
    1. An heir who would succeed him and who would build the Temple (2Sam.7:12,13).
    2. Continued success over his enemies (Ps.89:21-23).
    3. A great name among the peoples of the earth (2Sam.7:9).
    4. An expanded kingdom according to the Abrahamic mandate (Ps.89:25; Ex.23:31; Deut.1:7,8; 11:24; 1Kgs.4:21,24).
    5. Elevation to the highest rank of kings (Ps.89:27; cp. 2Sam.7:14).
  4. The eternal provisions of the Covenant are centered in two spheres: "seed/descendants" and "throne" (Ps.89:3,4,28,29,35-37).
    1. There is the promise that there will always be a Davidic descendant (Ps.89:4a; 2Sam.7:16).
    2. There is the promise that the throne of David would last forever (Ps.89:4b; 2Sam.7:13).

    OK—We are all agreed on "A" and "B" here? Needless to say, if one has an eternal throne, there must be a descendent to rule. One must be careful here. They are splitting "throne" and "seed" to claim an eternal succession but would allow for an interrupted throne. This is their escape hatch. What’s amazing here is that this apparent split is clearly seen by them, but they cannot distinguish "Israel" form "Judah" which is CLEARLY spelled out in scripture.

  5. The problem associated with the interrupted rule of the house of David. Now wait a minute, we just agreed on points "A" and "B" and the next word is about an interruption? Well, at least it is seen as a problem. I’ll say it’s a problem. You can’t have "A" and "B" and have an interruption at the same time.
    1. The problem stated.
      1. An uninterrupted succession of kings ruled over the house of David between 1010BC and 586BC.Of course there was an uninterrupted succession of kings. That’s what God promised wasn’t it?
      2. But with the fall of the Southern Kingdom, the throne of David has remained unoccupied to this present day.How did we arrive at this conclusion? Because there appears to be no throne? Hebrews 11:1 says, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". You see, the whole essence of faith is that God will do as he promised no matter how things look.
      3. Furthermore, God placed a curse upon the line of descent through Solomon during the reign of Jehoiakin/Jeconiah/Coniah (Jer.22:30).
      4. This curse means that no man in the David/Solomon line of descent could ever prosper as ruler over Israel, no matter how great he was spiritually. Boy, did they botch this one up BIG TIME! Jeremiah 22:30 says, "Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah". As usual, these mushy-headed types confuse ISRAEL with JUDAH even though there are SCORES of prophetic references that CLEARLY distinguish the two. READ Jeremiah 33:17 and see the difference. This curse assured that nobody from the Solomon/Jehoiachin (who was the same person as Jeconiah and Coniah) lineage would rule again in Judah when the house of Judah returned from the Babylon captivity. The throne was to be transferred to the house of Israel. Yet, the Solomon/Jehoiachin lineage is the rightful lineage.
      5. Yet the promise to David was that the throne of his son Solomon would remain forever (2Sam.7:13,16). That’s right. At least they see this much. The throne was to David AND Solomon.
      6. Clearly, the promise does not require an uninterrupted succession of rulers, but it does require the throne to be established forever. Clearly? No, it’s NOT clear to me. What gives one the faintest idea that scripture mandated an interruption of the throne? It sounds to me as if they are taking the apparent interruption of the throne and twisting scripture to fit the circumstances.
    2. The solution.
      1. The line of unbroken male descendants continued from the time of the Babylonian captivity to the birth of Christ (cp. Mt.1:12ff). This was Jesus’ legal lineage actually giving him a right to Solomon’s throne.
      2. Because of the "Jeconiah curse", the individuals of this line could never occupy the throne of David.
      3. So God established another unbroken line of descent from David through his son Nathan; this line links Jesus to David biologically; this line is Mary's genealogy (Lk.3:23ff). Do you know what? Those who are critical of the throne being continued through Zedekiah claim that his descendents were not the rightful heirs (because he was Jehoiachin’s UNCLE and not the logical, legal claimant) even though God himself said, "Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will also take of the highest branch of the high cedar, and will set it; I will crop off from the top of his young twigs a tender one." (Ezekiel 17:22) God was speaking about Zedekiah’s lineage in this passage and that tender twig represented Zedekiah’s daughter. That’s enough proof for me. God said it so it must be true. While I agree that Jesus is of Nathan’s lineage by the flesh, VERY LITTLE is said about Nathan other than a brief mention of his name in genealogies. If we can believe that God chose Nathan in spite of the little reference to him, then why can’t we believe that God chose Zedekiah’s descendents when more is said about them?
      4. The virgin birth enabled Jesus to side-step the Coniah curse and still retain the legal right to the throne since Joseph was His legal link to the throne, while Mary was His biological link to David.
      5. Jesus Christ is, in every way, the legal heir to the throne of David.
      6. He will re-establish David's throne in connection with His Second Coming (Act.15:16).

      Re-establish? How can something eternal be re-established? That means it was not eternal to begin with!

    3. Conclusion: The Covenant did not guarantee uninterrupted rule by David's descendants, but did require that the right to rule would always remain with David's dynasty.

    With conclusions like these, I’m glad these people are not our scientists. Why did the covenant not guarantee uninterrupted rule? I have yet to see any solid evidence in this outline that there was an interruption other than an observation of an apparent interruption that they fitted scripture to seemingly answer.

  6. In the person of Jesus Christ, God established the Covenant.
    1. The virgin birth enabled Jesus to be the physical descendant of David and not come under the "Jeconiah curse".
    2. The resurrection of Christ eliminated the need for a continuation of the genealogy (since Jesus died childless), and provided the Covenant with an indestructible heir. Actually, we have a King (Jesus) who neither abdicated nor is present at the moment to sit on the throne, even though he is the primary legal heir. Because he died childless, when he turns up, he can take that throne (Luke 1:32). Until then, somebody else must be on that throne since it is an Earthly and eternal throne. Generally the rules of a monarchy are that if the legal heir is absent, then another must rule. If the heir shows up again, the throne is rightfully his.
    3. The doctrine of the Second Advent establishes the promise of an eternal throne for David occupied by his greater son, Jesus Christ (Lk.1:32,33).
  7. The security of the Covenant.
    1. It was not affected by the sins of the Davidic kings (2Sam.7:14,15; Ps.89:30-37).Let’s remember what they just said here. The covenant was not affected by their sins--- I agree. What was one of the elements of the covenant? One was that the throne was eternal.
    2. It is seen in the repeated use of the term "forever" or its equivalent (Ps.89:4,28,29,36). I must be psychic. I just mentioned about it being eternal and the next thing out of their mouths is about the covenant being forever. Well, well.
    3. It was confirmed by a divine oath, thus giving the strongest possible assurance to its fulfillment (Pss.89:3,4,33; 132:11; 2Sam.7:13,16).
  8. The Covenant demands literal fulfillment. This is true. At least they see this as an Earthly throne.
    1. Portions of the Covenant fulfilled literally.
      1. David had a son, who built the Temple, and who was disciplined for his sins (2Sam.7:12-15).
      2. There is an unbroken line of descendants from David to Christ, thus fulfilling the "seed" promise (Matthew 1 and Luke 3).
      3. Jesus Christ is a descendant of David according to the flesh (Act.2:29,30; Rom.1:3; 2Tim.2:8).
    2. The Jews of Jesus' day expected literal fulfillment (cp. Mk.11:10; Jn.7:42).
    3. David so understood that the Covenant was being fulfilled literally (2Sam.23:5).
    4. Solomon, likewise, held this conviction (2Chr.6:14-17).
    5. The unfulfilled portion has to do with the "throne" promise (2Sam.7:16). Their famous escape hatch again. We do not see a throne, but there must be descendents. So they keep the descendents going but allow an interruption in the throne. Actually, I do not know of anybody who does not have some sort of descendent. That is not a special miracle in itself. If that’s all God promised, then that is not hard to do!
      1. Amillennialism (denial of the doctrine of the literal 1,000-year reign of Christ on earth) teaches that the throne in heaven is David's throne.
      2. It is true that Jesus Christ is seated on His Father's throne in heaven in session (Heb.12:2); however, the throne of God in heaven and the throne of David are not one and the same. Agreed. The idea that the throne is now in heaven is what more liberal theologians believe. However, The Throne of God in heaven and David’s Throne are separate.
      3. God has promised through the prophets that the throne (political rule) of David would be restored after long centuries of non-existence at the Second coming of Christ (Lk.1:31-33; Act.15:14-17; cp. LXX of Amos.9:11,12). Luke 1:31-33 merely states that Jesus will be given that throne as the rightful heir. It says nothing that the throne is vacant. Acts 15:14-17 in essence quoted Amos 9:11. Amos 9:11 does not say the dynasty is fallen. It says the tabernacle of David is fallen. That is reference to the city of David in ruins where the throne was located. The punishment for disobedience was exile and ruins, but not a fallen throne (thus the throne would continue elsewhere).
      4. The centuries since the fall of the kingdom of Judah and the dispersions of Israel have not rendered the promise void, even though it may appear to be the case (cp. Ps.89:38-49). Cut me a break! They claim to believe in the promise even though it appears not to be so? Even if we KNEW NOTHING as to where the throne was, a man or woman of faith would say that although there is no throne in the land, it must exist somewhere. They would not believe it was fallen and say it’s eternal at the same time. That is not faith. That’s poor logic. If we carefully read the Psalm 89 passage, the writer laments what he believes is the fall of the throne. His world must have been crumbling because he certainly believed it was to be UNINTERRUPTED. That actually PROVES that the throne was meant to be eternal. So we have some folks who lament like this fellow and we have others such as myself who KNOW the throne exists.
      5. Whatever the changing form, temporary interruptions, or chastisements, the line of David will always retain the right to rule over Israel and will, in fact, exercise this privilege.
      6. The right to rule will never be transferred to another family, and the Covenant's blessings are designed for eternal perpetuity (cp. Ps.89:34-36 "My covenant I will not violate, Nor will I alter the utterance of My lips. Once I have sworn by My holiness/integrity; I will not lie to David. His descendants shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me").
      7. It is confirmed in such passages as Isa.9:6,7; Jer.23:5,6; 30:8,9; 33:14-17,20,21; Ezek.37:24,25; Dan.7:13,14; Hos.3:4,5; Amos.9:11; Zech.14:4-9.
      8. David's throne was temporarily vacated due to the disobedience of his descendants, but the promise to rule forever stands because of the faithfulness of his greater Son, Jesus Christ.Let’s get this straight. They believe the throne was vacant due to disobedience yet back in VII A of the outline they said the covenant was not affected by their sins? Which is it now? I want all of you husbands to think twice before you say your wives are fickle. Your wives are nowhere as fickle as these theologians.
      9. Again, the only necessary feature of the Covenant is that the lineage is unbroken, not that the throne be occupiedcontinuously. Again, there is no special miracle in an unbroken lineage. If that’s all their God can do, then trust me, I am not of the same spirit as they are. As for the throne not being occupied, let’s test that theory by scripture. Psalms 89:36-37--- "His SEED shall endure forever, AND his THRONE as the sun before me. It [the throne] shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah." This means that as long as there is a sun and moon, there is a THRONE!! PERIOD!!! I want them to show me the scripture at allows them to emphatically underline " not that the throne be occupied continuously." since I’ve already shown where I get my authority to make my bold assertions. Don’t listen to these FALSE PROPHETS. They are "without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots". They say they believe the covenant, but are WRESTING scripture to allow for an APPARENT fallen throne. They have no faith and are doing everything to make the likes of me look foolish when all I am doing is STATING THAT GOD PRESERVES THE DAVIDIC THRONE AS HE HAS PROMISED. They are no more born again than the chair you are probably sitting on to read this.
      10. The kingdom on earth to be established by Christ be an eternal kingdom, since the "throne/house/kingdom" were all promised to David in perpetuity.
      11. According to the established rules of interpretation (hermenuetics), the unfulfilled "throne" promise must be fulfilled literally, as were the fulfilled portions (as is the case with the "seed" promise).

Well, well. Here is that special word "Hermeneutics" again. And I spelled it right for them, too. I won’t be too hard on them. Maybe with these terrible windows based computers, their letters just reversed with their fast evangelistic typing. Which one of my messages do I say something about that word? I can’t remember tonight. I guess you’ll just have to read all of the messages.

Liaf’s conclusions (if they can make some, I suppose I can too):

When we look carefully at scripture, we see their contradictions. Their doctrine just does not hold water. They do not believe in an eternal throne because they do not want to believe in it. I could be a little more understanding if ruling descendents of David could be found NOWHERE in history. However, that is not the case. At a site such as this (and there are others), we offer the solutions. God has revealed this in these last days, but many ignore or scoff at the answers. They may think that if Jesus were here today, that they would not treat him like the Pharisees did. Bullsplat! They’d treat him worse. They would not recognize the truth that he taught. How do I know this? Jesus said, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?" The faith in the perpetual nature of the Davidic Throne is an EARTHLY doctrine. It takes less faith in my opinion to believe in a society migrating than the supernatural (heavenly) miracle of Jesus’ resurrection. "But we do believe that Jesus rose from the dead again." they may say. I would not bet on it. No, not really if they can’t believe earthly things. Not by a long shot.

 

             
e-mail "Liaf" (if you dare) :-)   Clicking picture will take you to the "new page" email links          
BACK TO ROYALTY AND GENEALOGY INDEX              
  HOME