Did God ever revoke his covenant with David tentatively?

friend of

A private in Gods army
Supporter
Dec 28, 2016
5,556
3,914
provincial
✟753,613.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Question. I think I remember reading somewhere that God did this. I can't remember where, somewhere in the Old Testament. If someone has a passage please share and thank you
According to Luke, Peter - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - in Acts 2 tells us the covenant was fulfilled.

Acts 2:29-33
"29“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing."

He was speaking of the resurrection of Christ. The setting of one of David's descendants on his throne was about Christ's resurrection. That is what the Bible states. That is what the Bible means. No "interpretation" has been added.

God fulfilled the pledge He made, the covenant He initiated with David, when He resurrected His Son and seated him on His throne at His right hand.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
According to Luke, Peter - under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit - in Acts 2 tells us the covenant was fulfilled.

Acts 2:29-33
"29“Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing."

He was speaking of the resurrection of Christ. The setting of one of David's descendants on his throne was about Christ's resurrection. That is what the Bible states. That is what the Bible means. No "interpretation" has been added.

God fulfilled the pledge He made, the covenant He initiated with David, when He resurrected His Son and seated him on His throne at His right hand.

But that's the throne of God, not the throne of David. Jesus won't sit on the throne of David until he returns. Until then the earthly throne of David (the throne of England) will be occupied by a descendant of the house of Judah. Genesis 49:10.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Fail.

There is no such problem and British Israelism most definitely does not "solve" the non-existent problem.

Without regard to the end of the Davidic kingly line someone from the house of Judah has to be keeping that throne warm, ruling over the descendants of Israel until the return of Christ.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Question. I think I remember reading somewhere that God did this. I can't remember where, somewhere in the Old Testament. If someone has a passage please share and thank you

A good read concerning this topic is "Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright", by Reverend J.H. Allen. Copyright 1917.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

That's a different kingly line. The house of David only ruled over the House of Judah after the division of Israel in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam. Upon the death of Zedekiah and his sons the succession of David's line ended. However Zedekiah's daughter escaped, and became the first 'queen mother' to a succession of British kings (princes of the scarlet thread *, Genesis 38:27-29) ruling over the descendants of Israel that had migrated to the British Isles centuries before.

* Scarlet will be forever identified with the British military uniform... the redcoat.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But that's the throne of God, not the throne of David. Jesus won't sit on the throne of David until he returns. Until then the earthly throne of David (the throne of England) will be occupied by a descendant of the house of Judah. Genesis 49:10.
Fail.

The scripture states what the scripture states and what the scripture states is that when God was speaking of the perpetual throne of one of David's descendants He was speaking about the resurrection. The text does NOT state, imply, nor in any way remotely suggest there are two thrones, one "of God" and another completely separate and different one "of David." That would be you reading into the text something it nowhere states, implies, nor suggests. The text does NOT state, imply, or remotely suggest "Jesus won't sit on the throne of David until he returns." That too would be you reading into the text something it nowhere states, implies, or remotely suggests.

Now I notice you've failed to stick to the matter of Acts 2. I see you've left the original covenant made with David and in avoidance of both these texts have eisegetically jumped from 2 Samuel 7 and Acts 2 to Genesis 49:10 and the covenant re-asserted with Jacob and NOT David. So let's take a look at Genesis 49:10, shall we?

Genesis 49:10
"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."

Here we see there's a mention of a "scepter," not a throne. We also see the text explicitly stating the scepter won't depart from Judah, and since Jesis is the "lion of Judah," we understand there's no conflict between Acts 2 and Genesis 49:10. Most importantly, the Genesis 49 text explicitly states this would not happen "until Shiloh" (peace) comes. In other words the tet states the scepter wouldn't depart until Shiloh comes. In other words, when Shiloh comes the scepter will depart. That is what the text states, not what I made it say, not what I have interpreted to say in deference to what it actually, factually, objectively observably, undeniably irrefutable states.

Even if we were to read Genesis 49:10 to say the event is gonna happen when Shiloh comes we then ask, "When did Shiloh come?" and the answer is, "The first century!" The Genesis 49:10 text does not say SHiloh will comes, die, resurrect, and then come again. There's mention of only one coming. Are you denying the messianic nature of what God is telling Jacob? If not then place Genesis 49:10 within the context of Shiloh's coming in the first century.



Why don't you read the text as written? Well, I don't know you personally, but the obvious answer is because your hermeneutic and your eschatology tells you to do so. It tells you to do so in violation of the rules of sound exegesis.


Now, OldWiseGuy, I am not going to jump around from verse to verse to verse ad nauseam with you never being able to get you to discussing the op, and what I specifically brought to bear on the op. This op is about the covenant with David, not the covenant with Jacob. Acts tells us about the covenant with David and I have posted what it states about that covenant. If you cannot address what Acts 2 states then don't expect to have the avoidance respected.

This is very plain and simple: When God spoke of David's throne He was speaking of the resurrection.

Accept scripture as written.

Suspect teachers who teach differently. Be as critical of them as you are of what I am posting. Don't be biased. Get out your Bible and look up these texts and read them yourself to verify what I have posted.
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Without regard to the end of the Davidic kingly line someone from the house of Judah has to be keeping that throne warm, ruling over the descendants of Israel until the return of Christ.
Yep, and Acts 2 answers, addresses, and definitively defines and explains the matter to the Jewish audience then converted to Christ Jesus..... the Lion of Judah!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Fail.

The scripture states what the scripture states and what the scripture states is that when God was speaking of the perpetual throne of one of David's descendants He was speaking about the resurrection. The text does NOT state, imply, nor in any way remotely suggest there are two thrones, one "of God" and another completely separate and different one "of David." That would be you reading into the text something it nowhere states, implies, nor suggests. The text does NOT state, imply, or remotely suggest "Jesus won't sit on the throne of David until he returns." That too would be you reading into the text something it nowhere states, implies, or remotely suggests.

Now I notice you've failed to stick to the matter of Acts 2. I see you've left the original covenant made with David and in avoidance of both these texts have eisegetically jumped from 2 Samuel 7 and Acts 2 to Genesis 49:10 and the covenant re-asserted with Jacob and NOT David. So let's take a look at Genesis 49:10, shall we?

Genesis 49:10
"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples."

Here we see there's a mention of a "scepter," not a throne. We also see the text explicitly stating the scepter won't depart from Judah, and since Jesis is the "lion of Judah," we understand there's no conflict between Acts 2 and Genesis 49:10. Most importantly, the Genesis 49 text explicitly states this would not happen "until Shiloh" (peace) comes. In other words the tet states the scepter wouldn't depart until Shiloh comes. In other words, when Shiloh comes the scepter will depart. That is what the text states, not what I made it say, not what I have interpreted to say in deference to what it actually, factually, objectively observably, undeniably irrefutable states.

Even if we were to read Genesis 49:10 to say the event is gonna happen when Shiloh comes we then ask, "When did Shiloh come?" and the answer is, "The first century!" The Genesis 49:10 text does not say SHiloh will comes, die, resurrect, and then come again. There's mention of only one coming. Are you denying the messianic nature of what God is telling Jacob? If not then place Genesis 49:10 within the context of Shiloh's coming in the first century.



Why don't you read the text as written? Well, I don't know you personally, but the obvious answer is because your hermeneutic and your eschatology tells you to do so. It tells you to do so in violation of the rules of sound exegesis.


Now, OldWiseGuy, I am not going to jump around from verse to verse to verse ad nauseam with you never being able to get you to discussing the op, and what I specifically brought to bear on the op. This op is about the covenant with David, not the covenant with Jacob. Acts tells us about the covenant with David and I have posted what it states about that covenant. If you cannot address what Acts 2 states then don't expect to have the avoidance respected.

This is very plain and simple: When God spoke of David's throne He was speaking of the resurrection.

Accept scripture as written.

Suspect teachers who teach differently. Be as critical of them as you are of what I am posting. Don't be biased. Get out your Bible and look up these texts and read them yourself to verify what I have posted.

Shiloh hasn't come yet, therefore someone descended from the house of Judah is sitting on the throne of David ruling over descendants of the house of Israel.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yep, and Acts 2 answers, addresses, and definitively defines and explains the matter to the Jewish audience then converted to Christ Jesus..... the Lion of Judah!

Jesus came as the lamb of God, as most Christians still consider him. He will return as the Lion of Judah, and as Shiloh, only after the tribulation.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Semper-Fi
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Shiloh hasn't come yet...
That is just wrong.

John 14:25-29
"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful. You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe."

John 16:29-33
"His disciples said, "Lo, now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech. 'Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.' Jesus answered them, 'Do you now believe? Behold, an hour is coming, and has already come, for you to be scattered, each to his own home, and to leave Me alone; and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me. These things I have spoken to you, so that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world.'"


Romans 4:13-5:2
"For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (as it is written, 'A father of many nations have I made you') in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist. In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, 'So shall your descendants be.'......Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."

Peace has come. SHiloh Has come. That is what scripture states.

Why don't you believe scripture as written, plainly read? Why do you let others tell you something that is not true? The New Testament writers tell us this prophesy has been fulfilled.

And, OldWiseGuy.... you are still NOT dealing with the David covenant. You're still dodging it and trying to make this discussion about what was said to Jacob, not David. Please stop trying to change the topic. Please stop asserting your own agenda. Please stop avoiding what was posted. Please stick to the op. This op asks about the David covenant and the throne thereof and Acts 2 tells us God was speaking of the resurrection.

And the resurrection has come and gone and Jesus's Davidic throne is now permanent and unending.

NOW!
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jesus came as the lamb of God, as most Christians still consider him. He will return as the Lion of Judah, and as Shiloh, only after the tribulation.
You're changing topic, again. Your posts will be ignored as long as you fail to stick to the op. You don't get to hijack the op and expect a reply.

This op is about the covenant God made with David and a specific question about the unending throne. Acts 2 answers the question this op asks and you are ignoring and avoiding that answer.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,981
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟960,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You're changing topic, again. Your posts will be ignored as long as you fail to stick to the op. You don't get to hijack the op and expect a reply.

This op is about the covenant God made with David and a specific question about the unending throne. Acts 2 answers the question this op asks and you are ignoring and avoiding that answer.

The op is vague. How do you 'tentatively' revoke something? My comments relate directly to the throne of David; what it is, and where it is.
 
Upvote 0

Josheb

Christian
Supporter
Jan 3, 2014
2,172
830
NoVa
✟160,065.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The op is vague.
Based on the posts in this op you are the only one having difficulty with its supposed vagary.
How do you 'tentatively' revoke something?
This is an international forum but your profile states you live in the US. Is English you native language? If not that would explain some of the content I have received. It would explain the inability to stay on-topic. It would explain the perceived vagary. It would explain the failure to understand English quotations of the Bible It would explain the lack of understanding of the word "tentatively."

The word "tentatively" can mean something is done with hesitancy, or it can mean something is either not fixed or certain, or it can mean something is provisional. You, for example, have argued the perpetuity of David's thrown is conditioned upon Jesus returning as the Lion of Judah; provided Jesus comes as the Lion the endless thrown then occurs.

You, apparently, believe' Jesus Second Coming is going to look a given way and the way that's gonna look necessarily entails a physical Davidic thrown that is distinct from God's thrown. Most of Christianity finds that interpretation insane. It is a very popular view, having gained popularity since its inception in the mid-1800s by way of televangelists best-selling but invariably false prognosticating books, and movies promoting that view.
My comments relate directly to the throne of David; what it is, and where it is.
That has yet to be proven and the evidence posted so far demonstrates not only a remarkable inability to stay on topic and discuss both the endless nature of David's thrown but also what Acts 2 states about that thrown. The evidence in these posts also shows a remarkable failure in basic exegesis and a propensity to copy and paste scriptures together eisegetically. There is no denying what you posted is not what the scriptures you quoted actually state. That's not mere evidence; that problem is proven.


So I'm gonna ask you something: Is you next move to attack me, or is you next move to look at the scriptures exegetically? The latter I can work with. The former will be noted as such for the record and then ignored.



Acts 2 states God was speaking of the resurrection when He told David,

2 Samuel 7:12-16
"When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he 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, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.'"

This is the origin of the Davidic covenant as it pertains to David's thrown. If you read the whole chapter you'll see God rhetorically asks, "Go and say to My servant David, 'Thus says the LORD, 'Are you the one who should build Me a house to dwell in? For I have not dwelt in a house since the day I brought up the sons of Israel from Egypt, even to this day; but I have been moving about in a tent, even in a tabernacle'" (2 Sam. 7:5-6). Elsewhere in scripture we read the fact God does dwell in houses built by human hands (Acts. 7:48, Acts 17:24)... so we necessarily understand by way of the New Testament God was NOT speaking about a physical house made of stone and definitely not one made by human hands. Yet even today there are many anticipating another temple of stone despite the fact nowhere do the scriptures ever state a third temple will be built.

If you, OldWiseGuy, will right now get out your Bible and read 2 Samuel 7 then you will note three guys are mentioned, three guys are said to be the ones who will build God's house: 1) God Himself! 2) God's son, and 3) David's son. Christians understand God's son who is God came down from heaven as a descendant of David and fulfilled all three criteria, but David couldn't possibly fathom what God was saying. He had no theology by which he could understand God might exist as a man, much less live and die and rise up from the grave and empower everyone else such that God would live in them too.

God told David his son was going to be a man of peace so David named his next son Peace (Solomon = peace). In other words, he tried to facilitate the fulfillment of the prophesy in his flesh by naming his next son Salem, Shiloh, Solomon, Peace. Amazing! Look! God said my son would be a man of peace and it is true; look I named him Peace! God is true! The problem is Solomon wasn't a man of peace. Yes, Israel did eventually have peace during his reign but it was only because he defeated his enemies in battle. He, like his father before him, was a man with blood on his hands and that is what precluded David from building God's house. The man who wrote, "Vanity! Vanity! Life is vanity! was not a man of peace. Note also two other realities concerning Solomon: 1) he was not next in line for the throne; at least eight other older brothers preceded him, and 2) God told David to name his son Jedidiah, not Solomon (2 Sam. 12:25).

Note the glaring discrepancy between what God told David and what David later told Solomon. When David recounts this covenant to Solomon he changes what God told him (1 Chr. 22). Note also the commands of God prohibited the hewing of stones to build an altar (Ex. 20:25; Dt. 27:5-6) but Solomon had the stones hewn so well mortar was not needed to cement them together. In other words, Solomon broke God's law building the temple!


In the New Testament, we learn is the Prince of Peace. In the New Testament we learn Jesus is the temple of God (Jn. 2:21). In the New Testament we learn we, the believers in the resurrected Christ, are the temple of God that God, God's Son, and David's descendant built.

In the New Testament we learn the house of God was accomplished during the first advent, not a second advent.

In the New Testament we learn the priest and king are united in both Jesus and his body of believers (1 Pet. 2:9) and we learn that was accomplished during the first advent and is not something we need look for in a second advent. Throughout the New Testament we learn Jesus has ascended to his place as Lord of Lords and King of Kings and Great High Priest in the Order of Melchizedek, which is far superior than the Levitical order.


And I can go from Genesis 1 all the way through Revelation 22 and expound upon the scriptures threads related to the Davidic thrown. Were I to do so I would measure every Old Testament passage possible by what the New Testament inspired writers tell us to understand about thos Old Testament passages because the OT texts were a veiled mystery the Jews were kept from understanding.

In Acts 2 Peter, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit states quite plainly when God was speaking of the perpetuity of David's thrown He was speaking of the resurrection. Regardless of what God told, Adam, Nowah, Abraham Isaac, Jacob, or Moses when God spoke to David about the endless thrown God was speaking about the resurrection.

Acts 2:29-36
"Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he neither abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'The LORD said to my Lord, 'Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.' Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.'"

Note something else stated in this passage: Jesus will remain there until all his enemies are defeated. In other words, he's not coming down to defeat his enemies; he's staying enthroned until His Father defeats his enemies.

The oath God made about David's throne was about the resurrection of Christ.

Christ stays there until his Father defeats all his enemies (see also Psalm 110:1).

Appeals to Jacob don't change that fact. Appeals to the lion instead of the lamb don't change that fact. Pitting scripture in opposition to scripture never works.



That is what the Acts 2 text actually states, not what I interpreted it or in any other way made it say. It states what it states and I believe what it states and will stand firmly one those words as written plainly read.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hazelelponi

I'm back
Supporter
Jun 25, 2018
9,210
8,689
55
USA
✟676,936.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Question. I think I remember reading somewhere that God did this. I can't remember where, somewhere in the Old Testament. If someone has a passage please share and thank you

Are you talking about Deuteronomy 30? Specific to Deuteronomy 30:15-19?
 
Upvote 0