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.