The Restoration of the Jews in Jeremiah 30 and Romans 11

I have written before on the subject of the conversion of the Jews (here, here, and here), so this post will rehash some material from those earlier posts. However, it has been several years, so I feel a need to revisit the question, and from a different text. 

"Thus says the Lord: Behold, I will restore the fortunes of the tents of Jacob and have compassion on his dwellings; the city shall be rebuilt on its mound, and the palace shall stand where it used to be. Out of them shall come songs of thanksgiving, and the voices of those who celebrate. I will multiply them, and they shall not be few; I will make them honored, and they shall not be small. Their children shall be as they were of old, and their congregation shall be established before Me, and I will punish all who oppress them. Their prince shall be one of themselves; their ruler shall come out from their midst; I will make Him draw near, and He shall approach Me, for who would dare of himself to approach Me, declares the Lord?: And you shall be My people, and I will be your God" (Jeremiah 30:18-22). 

The first part of these verses could be taken to refer to the restoration of Judah after the exile in Babylon, the same events we see described in Ezra and Nehemiah. However, that is just a launching point, used typologically for events we have yet to see either in Israel or among the Jewish diaspora. 

While modern Jews are mostly secular, often even agnostic or atheist, the people described in this passage are expressing thanks and celebrating God, because they are a people who are established in faithfulness before their God. 

The description of their prince is especially amazing to me, because it is couched in the same language as the davidic, messianic prince. Compare the words of Deuteronomy 18:15: "The Lord your God will raise for you a prophet like me [I. e., Moses] from among you, from your brothers...," and its explicit fulfillment in Acts 7:37. This is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of David: "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end" (Luke 1:32-33). 

Jeremiah is prophesying to Israel a hope, not merely of the restoration to the land after exile in Babylon, but restoration to the covenantal relationship with her God that she had eschewed in idolatry. He remained faithful, though she was faithless (II Timothy 2:13). As he says to Israel: "You shall be My people, and I will be your God" (Jeremiah 30:22), just as He first said to them in Exodus: "I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will deliver you from slavery to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with great acts of judgment [against them]. I will take you to be My people, and I will be your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians" (Exodus 6:6-7).

See some historical views on the matter here and here. 

"Religious Neutrality" in Government Is Treason Against King Jesus

One of the stories which we best remember about the Prophet Elijah is his confrontation with the prophets of Baal (I Kings, chapter 18). The people of Israel had reached an historical point in religion in which they had eschewed fanaticism, giving equal devotion, in their own eyes, to Jehovah, their covenant God, and Baal, a fertility deity popular in much of the region around Israel. They chose to be neutral, giving both gods some attention, in the hope that one or the other would reward them. 

However, Elijah rejected the religious neutrality of the rest of Israel, challenging them, "How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him" (I Kings 18:21). His challenge was outside the cultural norm of that time, in which Israel was lackadaisical about religious devotion. Neutral, if you will. Trying to cover all of their bases. 

However, Jehovah rejected the neutrality of Israel. While the prophets of Baal received no answer from that deity, Jehovah certainly responded: "Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt offering and the wood and the stones and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench" (verse 38). When the Israelites saw that Jehovah answered while Baal remained silent, they saw the emptiness in their illusion of neutrality: "When all the people saw it, they fell on their faces and said, 'The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God'" (verse 39) Then, in the words of Elijah ("my God is Yah"), "'Seize the prophets of Baal, let none of them escape.' And they seized them. And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon and slaughtered them there" (verse 40). 

What Israel learned that day is that there could be no neutrality between the living God of their forefathers, and the pagan idols of the peoples around them. "Limping between two opinions" did not rescue them from the consequences of equating truth with falsehood. 

In a similar way, we in the United States live on land that was dedicated to that same God of the Bible. Then, when our nation was founded, our leaders included a provision in the Constitution saying that the new federal government could not establish a religion. Did they mean to equate Islam, Hinduism, and atheism with Christianity? Not at all. Rather, they intended for the federal government not to show favoritism among the Christian denominations of the new country. 

That plan did not remain in force, especially since the 1960's, when the courts unilaterally decided to eliminate the Christian religion from public forums. Those courts decreed that no establishment of religion meant neutrality toward all religions and irreligion. Prayer and bible reading were removed from government schools, and Christian symbols, such as crosses and placards of the Ten Commandments, were removed from government buildings, parks, even from "polite" discussion. 

Has this "neutrality" fared any better than did that of Elijah's day? Not by any definition. Rather, we have discovered the awful fact that neutrality toward God makes the state the new arbiter of all absolutes. As should have been anticipated. Where Jesus told us, "Your word, [Father], is truth" (John 17:17), now the state is the dispenser of truth. And where Jesus told us, "All authority in Heaven and on earth has been given to Me" (Matthew 28:18), the state says that all authority now belongs to it. Thus, "neutrality" has become an opportunity for tyranny, and our health as a nation sinks further every day.

The Dominion Covenant, the New Earth, and the Defeat of Satan

In the opening of the Bible, we read, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. the earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep" (Genesis 1:1-2). So, God's first step in creating the physical universe was to create the earth, but as a formless and empty ball. The physical universe was a place all of chaos. The remainder of the creation passage describes God's organizing and filling that creation, with both celestial objects and with life, culminating in His creation of man.

And then what was God's plan for man, as expressed in His creation mandates to that man? "Then God said, 'Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping them that creeps on the earth...  be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Genesis 1:26, 28). So God's plan for mankind was that we would extend His work of converting chaos into productive order. Men don't have the ability to create ex nihilo, so the expression of that was to be the use of the other living things to become productive under the rule of God.

However, that plan was interrupted by the Fall of Adam and Eve into sin. The consequences of that Fall included the disruption of God's order, and descent into disorder: "The Lord God said to the serpent, 'Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.' To the woman He said, 'I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.' And to Adam He said, 'Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return'" (Genesis 3:14-19). 

Fist, notice who is speaking here, the Lord, i. e., Jehovah. This is the first appearance of this name, the covenant name of the preincarnate Son, who here first appears in His mediatorial role. After the Fall, all of the interactions between the triune Godhead and men occur through His mediation alone. He first curses the serpent, i. e., Satan, as the instigator of these events. The preincarnate Son curses the foe of the Church. Then He proclaims for the first time the covenant of grace, the promises to His church of His own work on our behalf, to defeat this foe and redeem us from the conseque4nces of the Fall. Then He turns to Eve, the first to sin, and pronounces a curse on the essence of her womanhood, childbirth. And last, He turns to Adam, the head of creation, and pronounces a curse on all of Adam's work in fulfilling his role as the viceroy of God. 

This first announcement of the hope of the Gospel will then be expanded in the rest of Scripture. For example, we have the promises of Yahweh of new blessings on agriculture in Isaiah. See, for example, Isaiah 44:3-4, which explicitly unites both childbearing and agricultural blessings with spiritual blessings: "For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour My Spirit upon your offspring, and My blessing on your descendants. They shall spring up among the grass like willows by flowing streams. This one will say, ‘I am the Lord's,’ another will call on the name of Jacob, and another will write on his hand, ‘The Lord's,’ and name himself by the name of Israel." 

The same prophet gives another promise of God with relates it back to the promise of Genesis 3:15: "They shall not labor in vain or bear children for calamity, for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the Lord, and their descendants with them. Before they call I will answer; while they are yet speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall graze together; the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain" (Isaiah 65:23-24). As men experience the restoration of peace to the creation, we will also see the curse carried out of that old foe, the serpent. 

In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul picks up the same theme: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience" (Romans 8:20-25). He personifies the physical creation as waiting impatiently for the Church to reach her glory, because the creation, too, will be released from the curse under which our sin has brought it. 

And Paul makes it explicit that these blessings flow from that first declaration of the Gospel in Genesis 3:15: "The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet." As the body of Christ, we the Church are credited with the victory of Christ through us, finally bringing the chaos we created back to the order which God intended. 

When will these times be seen? Only God knows. However, we can enjoy the hope today that they will come.

Opposition to Gracious Election and the Kingship of Jesus

In Matthew 21:5, Jesus refers to himself as "king," using  Zechariah 9:9. And, indeed, this is closely followed by the royal welcome he received to Jerusalem in the immediately following verses. Under the influence of Dispensationalism, Christians have mostly stopped talking about the kingly office of Christ, though it carried great significance to our ancestors. For example, we can look at the Westminster Larger Catechism: "Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king? Answer : Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to Himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which He visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon His elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for His own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

We also have the words of Jesus, as He portrayed the nature of His kingship in a parable: "As for these enemies of Mine, who did not want Me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before Me" (Luke 19:27). As king, He will by right judge unbelievers to destruction for their rebellion against His proper rule over them. 

That parable is the New Testament parallel to Psalm 2, which is the promise of the Father to the then-preincarnate Son. Verses 1-3 is the gloating of the rebels: "Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 'Let us burst their bonds apart and cast away their cords from us." These are the same ones described in Luke 18 as refusing to submit to their rightful ruler. However, the Father is unimpressed by their bluster: "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision. Then He will speak to them in His wrath, and terrify them in His fury, saying, 'As for Me, I have set My King on Zion, My holy hill'" (verses 4-6). So, He says to the Son, "The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son; today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel" (verses 7-9). 

We have a concept in our modern society that religion is a voluntary thing, that believing in Jesus or not is a person choice, and either one is equally valid. Well, we can tell ourselves that, but it is not what God says. Unbelief is rebellion, and is, therefore, under the judgment of God. This error is even found among professing evangelicals, who have adopted the cultural assumption of religious freedom binding even on God. He rejects that claim, and even tells us of His sovereign choice of who shall be a sheep, i.e., a valued citizen of His kingdom, and who shall be a goat, i. e., a rebel (John 10:27-29). One sign of who is which is their response to this doctrine.

"There is much violent and bitter opposition to that account of it [i. e., election] which places a crown of absolute sovereignty on the head of Jehovah, and prostrates man in entire dependency upon His will" (James Henley Thornwell, "Election and Reprobation").

Jesus, The Prince of Peace Bears a Bloody Sword

There are some traditional biblical texts that are used whenever the Christmas story is retold (I am writing this the day after Christmas). One of those is Luke 2:14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." That is the King James Version of the verse, which is what is usually used. Why? Look at it in the ESV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom He is pleased!" The second phrase of the two is strikingly different! And other modern translations, such as the NIV, NASB, and CSB, are the same as the ESV here. That second phrase is necessary to a correct understanding of the coming of Jesus. 

In the same book, the writer quotes this comment from Jesus: "Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division" (Luke 12:51; "sword" in Matthew 10:34). If you compared those words to the KJV version of the verse above, you would have a conflict. Did He come to bring peace to the world or not? The KJV of this second verse is the same as the ESV. In either case, we see that it is to one class of men that Jesus brought peace, but to another He brought conflict. 

Look at these words from the Apostle Paul: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). Ah, here was have the distinction explained. Where the unbeliever is in conflict with God (Ephesians 2:3), the believer has been brought into a relationship of peace with God (Romans 5:10). Jesus becomes his Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6) by grace alone through faith alone.

In apocalyptic language, the Apostle John also tells us about this conflict: "From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations" (Revelation 19:15; cp. Isaiah 49:2 and Hebrews 4:12). This is the distinguishing between the sheep and goats, of which Jesus tells us (Matthew 25:32ff), achieved by the preaching of the Gospel (Romans 10:8-15), which further distinguishes between men who will believe and men who will not (II Corinthians 2:16). With the former, it is a message of peace; but to the latter it is a message of war.

"The kingdom which He came to establish consists in joy and peace, and the great blessing which He communicates to all who are sprinkled with His blood is that peace which passeth all understanding, and which abides unshaken amid the agitations and tumults, the glooms and convulsions of the world. ThroughHim, God becomes the God of peace, the Gospel the message of peace, preachers of righteousness the heralds of peace, and the two great results of His work, according to the rapturous song of the angels, are glory to God in the highest and peace on earth" (James Henley Thornwell, "The Necessity and Nature of Christianity).

Conscience, Social Order, and the Kingship of Jesus

Years ago, the pastor I had at that time told a story of one of his daughters, about 5 years old at the time. She customarily took an afternoon nap, as most children do at that age. However, on one particular day, she said that she wasn't sleepy and didn't want to take a nap. So her parents decided to allow her to remain up with them. Yet, later, she started to get drowsy, and told them, "You should have spanked me." My pastor cited this as an example of children's awareness that their contrary actions deserve punishment, and that they benefit from such discipline.

In our day, even adults have adopted an attitude that everything we do is justified, and never deserving of punishment. Yet we expect actions done to us to be punished. That means that we have not lost a sense that wrong action deserves correction. We merely exempt what we do from the standard of right and wrong that

Patrick Henry

we apply to everyone else. The result is chaos, with every person having some sob story to explain why his actions should be tolerated.

This is why we are seeing in our day what Scripture tells us about Hebrew society before the establishment of the monarchy: "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes" (Judges 21:25). No king? But we have never had a king, have we? On the contrary, though we live in a Republic, the Founders built their Republic with a king in view: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!" While the quote has been challenged, it is attributed to Patrick Henry. Whether or not he did say it, it still represents the attitude of the Founders, who, though they created a republic, based it on the presupposition of the kingship of Jesus, and that alone can be the basis of rebuilding a moral basis for a peaceful society.

"The feeling of ill desert drinks up the spirits, and 'conscience makes cowards of us all.' This, then, is the peculiarity which distinguishes guilt - it is a conviction that punishment is due, that it ought to be inflicted, and that , under a righteous government, sooner or later, it will be inflicted; and it is precisely this sense of guilt which the truths of natural religion are adapted to produce within us. It is the echo of our own hearts to the fearful condemnation of a holy God.."

James Henley Thornwell, "The Nature and Necessity of Christianity"

The Whole World Under the Law

I often hear people claim that the moral law of the Old Testament was only for Israel. Now, if we were talking about the ceremonial law, I could see it. But when it is said of the moral law, then the person is saying that it was alright for non-Israelites to steal, to murder, or to commit adultery. I cannot accept that. Furthermore, it would mean that non-Israelites were not sinners, because sin is defined as the breaking of the Law (I John 3:4).

There are two errors that lead people to make this conclusion.

The first is dispensationalism, which teaches a rigid discontinuity between grace and law, such that they cannot coexist. Law was for pre-Christian Israel (or even continues to be for Israel), while grace is for Christians. This is a wrongful use of Romans 6:14, "You are not under Law, but under grace." However, that verse is about the power to resist sin, not to define sin.

The second is really a logical problem, because it involves confusing the written Law with the Law itself. It is true that the Gentiles did not have the written law. However, it is a fallacious leap of logic to take that to mean that they didn't have the Law at all. On the contrary, Paul also tells us, "They [i. e., the Gentiles] show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" (Romans 2:15). The experience of conscience by a person without knowledge of the written Law is due to that same moral Law written in his heart. The conscience can be suppressed, of course, but that only shows that the written Law is advantageous, Paul's exact point (Romans 3:2). 

The problem is that both of the groups described above cherry-pick the verses that they apply to this topic. The crucial one that they both ignore is Romans 3:19: "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God." The first half of the sentence talks about those under the Law, and the second half tells us that it is "the whole world." And it is on that basis that every human being, not just Israel, is a lawbreaker under the judgment of God, and thus needing redemption in Jesus Christ.

Human Pride versus the God-Centeredness of God

"He is unchangeable, and who can turn Him back? What He desires, that He does." 
- Job 23:13

Among American evangelicals, there is an unstated belief that God is a giant Santa Claus in the sky, who exists to take care of us, to make us happy, and to satisfy our whims. We see this most plainly in the Prosperity Gospel teachers, who suggest that anyone who is poor or has a physical ailment is, somehow, unfaithful. God has been turned into an indulgent but toothless grandfather, no longer the Creator and Lord. 

The problem with that is that it bears no similarity to the God of the Bible. It is a violation of both the First and Second Commandments. That God, the true living God, is pursuing, not our glory, but His own; not our desires, but His own; not our gratification, but His own. We see it in the verse at the top of this article. 

I think that atheism is preferable. The atheist honestly admits that He hates God, and, therefore, rejects Him. In contrast, the average evangelical will gush about how much he loves God, but with that one unstated proviso: I will love God as long as He makes me happy. Such a Christian is proud that he keeps God on perpetual probation.

What is God's answer? "For My own sake, for My own sake, do I act, for how should My name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another" (Isaiah 48:11). God always acts to promote His own glory. If He were to do otherwise, at any time for any mere creature, then He would be transferring His glory to that person, and that is something that He will never do.

And that attitude drives the professing, but false, believer absolutely crazy. Try telling it to people, and watch the moral umbrage come steaming out of their nostrils and flashing from their eyes. "Who does God think He is? GOD or something?" And the answer, of course, is yes, He does think that. 

Dispensationalism and Learned Helplessness in the Church

In psychology, there is a concept known as "learned helplessness." It refers to people who experience criticism no matter what they do. Therefore, they stop trying to do anything. In the theological realm, I see this concept in Christians influenced by the hermeneutic of dispensationalism. Dispensationalists believe that work to change this world is no better than "polishing brass on a sinking ship." That is, it is a purposeless activity, doomed to failure. And, of course, that supposition sucks the power right out of any efforts to have an impact on this world.

On the other hand, as a postmillennialist, I believe that efforts to change this world are empowered by the ruler of this world, King Jesus, and are, therefore, guaranteed success, not failure.

On what basis do I say so? Because it is the promise of the Trinity, not to me, but to the Son: "Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemy your footstool" (Psalm 110:1, and quoted frequently in the New Testament, such as Hebrews 1:13). Notice that I am not saying that I have the power, or even that the church has the power. Rather, it is the commitment of the triune God to the Son to honor Him with victory. How can such a promise fail of achievement? And how can such a promise not be a spur to success by the people of God?

"Let the church be in earnest after greater holiness in her own members, and in faith and love undertake the conquest of the world, and she will soon settle the question whether her resources are competent to change the face of the earth" (James Henley Thornwell, "Theology as a Life in Individuals and in the Church").

The Watchtower: Jumping Through Hoops for False Doctrine

The Watchtower Society (the corporate name of the Jehovah's Witnesses) claims that the kingdom of God is something that will appear in the future. Their website says, "'This good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.' (Matthew 24:14) Once the good news has been fully preached, the Kingdom will come to bring the present wicked system to an end."

Do you see the bait-and-switch in their statement? They quote a verse regarding the preaching of the kingdom, and then apply it to the kingdom itself. Matthew describes a worldwide preaching of the kingdom. While I consider this a reference to the period prior to the Roman sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the point is the same if you apply it to the period before His second advent. The Watchtower then interprets the verse to mean that the Kingdom will not appear until He returns.

However, what did Jesus say about His kingdom? "The kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20). He spoke to His audience during His first advent, telling them that they were witnessing the appearance of His kingdom. On another occasion, He told them, "Behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (Luke 17:21). Twice, then, Jesus vocally told His First-Century audience that the kingdom had come among them in the presence of His person. This is consistent with the Old Testament prophecy of the coming of the kingdom: "The stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth" (Daniel 2:35; see the entire vision in verses 31-45). The kingdom would start as just a small rock (see Matthew 16:18), and grow until it fills the earth. That is what is happening between the first and second advents. That is why John can refer to Jesus as "the ruler of kings on earth" (Revelation 1:5) at the beginning of that book.

The Watchtower is aware of this weakness in their doctrine, and try to address it: "The Kingdom of heaven was 'with' or 'among' the Pharisees, in that Jesus, the one designated by God to rule as King, was standing before them.​—Luke 1:​32, 33." Here they change what Jesus says, "Kingdom of heaven," to a reference to Himself as coming King! Another example of bait-and-switch!

To my mind, to use such blatant fallacies to support their doctrine demonstrates that the Watchtower Governing Board is well-aware that their doctrine is unbiblical. And that brings up an obvious question for Watchtower members: If your leadership is so clearly aware of the falsity of their doctrines, why do you remain loyal to those doctrines?

Only the Regenerate Have Free Will

Arminians have enshrined their doctrine of free will, making it the concept that trumps all others. Yet, it has no biblical basis. Ask them! They will hem and haw about why it should be true, but they will offer zero biblical justification.

I suggest, instead, that Scripture is against their doctrine of free will (not that I deny the reality of free will, as I have said before). Rather, I deny their use of it, to mean that men have a will that can choose to seek and obey God. "Free" merely means without coercion. No one, including God, coerces the unregenerate to hate God and to rebel against Him. That is their nature, and they freely, even gladly, choose to act according to it, just as a bird freely wills to fly or a fish to breathe water. But the Arminian would never claim that a man is free to will either of those, since both are contrary to the nature of a man. However, the Arminian blanks out the logical parallel between that and a choice by the unregenerate to act regenerate.

Paul says, "God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will" (II Timothy 2:25-26). Whose will does the sinner freely follow? Not his own. Rather, he wills the will of Satan. The coercion isn't by God, or predestination, but rather by Satan. Yet the Arminian never criticizes Satan for ignoring man's free will! That misdirection is very telling!

What breaks that bondage? It is only by the prevenient act of the Holy Spirit in regenerating the elect sinner. It is by this intervention that Jesus, in His kingly office, overthrows the power of Satan and brings that man to repentance and faith: "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, He takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil" (Luke 11:21-22).

Turning to Paul again, he summarizes this in Romans 9:16: "So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy."

Christ, Our Conquering King!

Question 45 of the Westminster Larger Catechism asks, How does Christ execute the office of a king? And answers it this way: "Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel."

There's a lot there, and I won't even try to address it all.

In Psalm 110:1, the Father gave a promise to the Son as part of the intra-Trinitarian covenant in prehistory: "Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool" (applied to the Son in Hebrews 1:13). The Father had determined to glorify the Son by giving Him visible rule over the creation. History has been the record of the fulfillment of that promise, as the rule of Christ is established over the kingdoms of the world (compare Daniel 2:44-45, Revelation 11:15).

The theme of the royal destiny of the Son is especially described in the second Psalm:

"'As for Me, I have set my King
     on Zion, My holy hill.' 
I will tell of the decree:
     The Lord said to Me, 'You are My Son;
today I have begotten You.       

     Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage,
and the ends of the earth Your possession.
     You shall break them with a rod of iron
and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.' 
     Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
     Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
     Kiss the Son,
lest He be angry, and you perish in the way,
     for His wrath is quickly kindled. 

Blessed are all who take refuge in Him."

- Psalm 2:6-12 

What we don't see here is a description of the means of that conquest. There are militaristic expressions, but no mention of armies or weapons. In fact, Scripture denies a spiritual role for weapons of war: "The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds" (II Corinthians 10:4). So, no tanks or nuclear bombs, or even swords or arrows. What then?

Some of Jesus's last words during His earthly ministry are found in the Great Commission: "Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age'" (Matthew 28:18-20). Here, Jesus claims "all authority," that is, the very delegation of royal prerogative we find in Psalm 2. As King, what assignment does He then give His captains, the Apostles (and we after them)? To disciple the nations, part of which is to teach them to obey His Law.

Therefore, the answer to the assignment in Psalm 2 is no military conquest. Nor is it some waving of a divine hand from heaven. This is in spite of the obvious fact that either one would be within the power on omnipotent deity. Rather, the submission of all things to the crown rights of Jesus is through His people, as we proclaim the Gospel and train the nations to live as Christians. Evangelism and missions will conquer the world, because our Savior is already king!

God's Sovereign Grace: His Gift to the Church

In Psalm 148, an anonymous poet exhorts nature and all classes of men to praise Jehovah. I especially want to emphasize the last two verses:
"Let them praise the name of the Lord,
     for His name alone is exalted; 
His majesty is above earth and heaven.
      He has raised up a horn for His people,
praise for all His saints,
for the people of Israel who are near to Him. 
     Praise the Lord!"
     - Psalm 148:13-14

My emphasis is on the line, "He has raised up a horn for His people."  As most of my readers will be aware, "horn" is a Hebrew metaphor for power, or strength. That is, the Psalmist tells us that we have a special reason to praise Jehovah because He has exercised His strength on behalf of His people, the Church. 

The Apostle Paul described the same principle in his literate prose: "We know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28). It is sad that this verse has been turned into a truism. Every time someone is suffering, we can depend on someone's quoting of the first half of this verse, but rarely the second. It is true that God always brings all experiences to some good purpose. But for whom? The touchy-feely types would have us believe everyone. However, Paul excludes that misrepresentation by limiting the principle to God's chosen people, the elect, those who love Him, i. e., to the Church. He was even more explicit in Ephesians 1:22: "He [the Father] put all things under His [the Son's] feet and gave Him [the Son] as head over all things to the church." That is, the glorified Christ rules over every thing, not just as God, but for the benefit of His church!

This is a big part of why I am a Calvinist. Even without the positive reinforcement, I would acknowledge it as a summary of biblical truth. However, my commitment is strengthened by the additional awareness of the assurance that He rules all things, not just for Himself (though that would be sufficient justification), but also for me!

Jesus Expresses His Love to His Bride, the Church

"Behold, you are beautiful, My love,
     behold, you are beautiful!
Your eyes are doves
     behind your veil.
Your hair is like a flock of goats
     leaping down the slopes of Gilead.
You have captivated My heart, my sister, My bride; 
     you have captivated My heart with one glance of your eyes,
with one jewel of your necklace.
     How beautiful is your love, My sister, my bride!"
- Song of Solomon 4:1, 10 

Have you ever read the Song of Solomon? If you have, have you ever heard a sermon on it? Most people reading this probably answered "yes" to the first question. But I would be surprised if anyone answered "yes" to the second. I haven't. And it's a shame, really. The Puritans had commentaries on the book, and preached on it, and used references from it in their literature. No doubt that was because they had a beautiful understanding of it as a love poem, not between Solomon and a Shulamite woman, though it is couched in those terms, but rather as an allegory of the relationship between the divine Bridegroom, Jesus Christ, and His Bride, the church. Notice the terminology in Revelation 19:6-10 which makes that metaphor explicit

Song 4:1-15 is an especially beautiful passage, of which I quote a portion above. In it, the Bridegroom expresses His love for the Bride. We often talk about the love of Jesus for the church, and we should! It's a wonderful thing to consider our experience of the love of our divine Savior. The difference is that this passage isn't about our experience of His love, but rather of His experience of loving us. We don't talk about that. What is His subjective experience of love toward us?

In Solomon's words above, we can see that His love is no burden to Him, but rather a delight! How extraordinary it is to imagine that the Almighty God delights in loving us, His people, knowing what sinful wretches we are!

We see another description of this in Ezekiel 16:8-14: "When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of My garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made My vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became Mine. Then I bathed you with water and washed off your blood from you and

anointed you with oil. I clothed you also with embroidered cloth and shod you with fine leather. I wrapped you in fine linen and covered you with silk. And I adorned you with ornaments and put bracelets on your wrists and a chain on your neck. And I put a ring on your nose and earrings in your ears and a beautiful crown on your head. Thus you were adorned with gold and silver, and your clothing was of fine linen and silk and embroidered cloth. You ate fine flour and honey and oil. You grew exceedingly beautiful and advanced to royalty. And your renown went forth among the nations because of your beauty, for it was perfect through the splendor that I had bestowed on you, declares the Lord God." However, we must be humbled by the knowledge that the very next verse describes the spiritual adultery by Israel that dominated the rest of her history. In fact,the rest of the Bible, from Ezekiel 16 to Revelation 19 might be thought of as the story of Israel's rebellion and adultery and God's spiritual work of restoring her through the Gospel (see especially the Book of Hosea). In Ezekiel 16 she rejects her bridal glory, but in Revelation 19 she is restored to it.

The Intra-Trinitarian Covenant According to the pre-Gospel of Isaiah

The doctrine that I hate most among those held by classic dispensationalists is their assertion that history consists of a series of attempts by God to save sinful men, attempts which failed over and over, to be replaced by Plan B (then C, D, E, and F). In contrast, Reformed theology holds that a plan of salvation was determined before the creation, with the Father decreeing that a church would be saved, the Son undertaking to purchase that redemption, and the Holy Spirit undertaking to apply that redemption to those who are saved. This agreement is known by various terms, such as the covenant of redemption or the intra-trinitarian covenant. There is nothing wrong with either term, but I generally use the latter to avoid confusion with the covenants of works and of grace, which are between God and men.

There are a number of places where we find references to this conversation among the Persons of the Godhead, especially in the Psalms and in the Book of Isaiah. I want to look at a passage in the latter, 49:1-10.

We can tell that this passage is about Christ because He applied it to Himself in the New Testament. Consider the remark in Is. 49:2: "He made My mouth like a sharp sword." Compare that to Revelation 19:15: "From His mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations." Or compare Is. 49:9, "Saying to the prisoners, 'Come out,' and to those who are in darkness, 'Appear'" to Jesus's words in Luke 4:18, "He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind...."

In this portion of the covenant, what does the Father promise? First, He promises that in Christ He will be glorified, v. 3. This will be through His work of redemption (John 12:28), through His people (Matthew5:16, John 15:8), and by answering their prayers (John 14:13).

Then He is promised success in the restoration of Israel (Is. 49:5): "He who formed Me from the womb to be His servant, to bring Jacob back to Him; and that Israel might be gathered to Him." We are still waiting for the fulfillment of that promise, but it is repeated in the New Testament (Romans 11:25-28). Yet, the Father says that this honor is not enough (v.6): "It is too light a thing that You should be My servant [merely] to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel." If restoring the elect remnant of Israel is too small of an honor, how shall the Father increase it? "I will make You as a light for the nations, that My salvation may reach the end of the earth." As honored as Christ would be to receive the elect Jews, the Father extends that promise to elect Gentiles, as well! This is the "fullness of the Gentiles" of Romans 11:25. It is, indeed, a glorious promise! To make it even more certain, the Father had already made that promise in Psalm 2:8: "Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your heritage, and the ends of the earth Your possession." And the Scripture describes that promise as fulfilled in Revelation 11:15: "Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever.'" See also, for example, Isaiah 2:2-3 and Micah 4:1-2.

Bishops: Diotrophes in the Church

Before I start, I want to mention what a landmark this post is: Post number 300! When I first started this blog, I would never have imagined reaching 300 posts.

And now, to proceed: How many sermons have you ever heard from the Third Epistle of John? If your experience is like mine, not many, if any. In fact, out of my thirty-some years of listening to sermons, I can't recall even one. That's sad, because I think this epistle does have significance for the church today, even as small as it is.

I won't go into the question of authorship here; it isn't within the purview of this post. However, I take it as having been written by the Apostle John, as has been held throughout the history of the church.

In III John 1:9-11, the Apostle tells us, "I have written something to the church, but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge our authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, talking wicked nonsense against us. And not content with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers, and also stops those who want to [welcome them] and puts them out of the church.

Beloved, do not imitate evil but imitate good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God."

It is from this passage that the Covenanters got their nickname for the bishops of Charles I, "Diotrophes in the church." They, like John's nemesis here, sought to be first in the church, as do their kin in today's Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican churches.

Jesus also addressed the issue of the lordship of men in the Church of which He alone is Head (Mark 10:42-45): "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many."

That is why a Presbyterian church cannot exist without at least two elders. This is what is practiced by Paul in Acts 14:23, and enjoined by him in Titus 1:5 (on which I have commented here). Notice that it says "elders in  every church," plural, not "an elder in every church," or even "in every town," contrary to the diocesan system of the prelatic churches. Notice also the reference to "overseers" in Philippians 1:1. That word translates the Greek work "episkopos," the very word which has come into English as "bishop." The Church at Philippi had a multiplicity of bishops!

And here, I describe the words of the Apostle Peter, the supposed first pope, which forbid the very monarchical bishops which have claimed his name and title. And someone should inform the Vatican that the Apostle Peter that they claim as their source was the married Apostle Peter (Luke 4:38 and I Corinthians 9:5)!

The original Diotrophes thrust himself into a one-man rule over the congregation in III John (we don't know where this congregation was located). In the same way, the Pope and his bishops, along with the others in Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism, have set themselves up as heads over the church, contrary to too many places in Scripture to be an accident. In his first epistle (I Peter 5:1-2), Peter commands the elders to "bishopize" (my own word, to translate "episkopountas") in the church. Thus, not only is it disingenuous for the Church of Rome to claim him as the origin of their church

government, but it is contrary to his very words! It is a self-justification for the papal tyranny over a billion souls, contrary to that attitude of service enjoined by Christ in the passage in Mark cited above.

Is a man saved by presbyterian church government? Of course not. Is he blocked from eternal life by the presence of bishops? Again, no man could say so. But, if Jesus has established a government in His Church, as I think I have proven, then it can only be rank rebellion to persist in ruling, or accepting rule, in that church, contrary to the express will of her Head. That is a serious sin, and cannot be anything but an obstacle to fellowship with that Head, who gave Himself to ransom her (Ephesians 5:25). 

I am concurring here with the Westminster Confession of Faith XXV:6, "There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God..."

Who Is Sovereign? God? Or My Free Will?

"I am God, and there is no other;
     I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning
     And from ancient times things not yet done,
Saying, 'My counsel shall stand,
     And I will accomplish all My purpose,'...
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
     I have purposed, and I will do it."
- Isaiah 46:9-11

These verses occur in a portion of the Prophet in which God is revealing His plans for Babylon, for its conquest and exiling of Judah. While those events were part of God's plan for the punishment of the sins of His people, the Babylonians certainly didn't act for His glory, but for their own. And, as seen here, God had a plan, to "call a bird of prey from the East, the man of My counsel from a far country" (v. 11), i. e., Cyrus the Mede. These events occurred approximately two-hundred years after the prophecy was given.

Consider some of the contingencies that had to occur, in order for these prophesied events to occur. That is two-hundred years of politics, wars, geography. Even something as minuscule as sets of parents that had to come together to result in this particular person, and to name him this exact name (given explicitly in Is. 44:28). Yet, God planned all of those details to bring about His purposes, His counsel.

Whenever the subject of predestination comes up, someone will unfailingly claim that God cannot override the free will of men. Aside from the obvious question of where that is mentioned in Scripture, we have a problem here of how many steps of free will of men could have derailed the plans of God. Two-hundred years of free will!

Let's consider some other verses:

Psalm 33:11: "The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the plans of His heart to all generations."

Proverbs 19:21: "Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand."

Isaiah 14:24: "The Lord of hosts has sworn, 'As I have planned, so shall it be, and, as I have purposed, so shall it stand.'"

And Isaiah 14:27: "The Lord of hosts has purposed, and who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, and who will turn it back?"

What is the consistent testimony of these verses? That the free will of men can veto the intentions of God? I certainly don't see that. Rather, I see God acting as God, fulfilling His own purposes out of His free will, for He is God and we are not! That is the way that Calvinism and Arminianism reflect utterly inconsistent worldviews. The Calvinist says that "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" (PS. 24:1). Arminianism holds that men are little gods, with sovereignty in our own little spheres, our lives. What does God say to that? "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose" (Is. 46:10). He is not restrained by our pretensions to independence.

I think that the Westminster Confession of Faith (III:1) says it well: "God from all eternity did, by the most and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established."

The Faithfulness of God, Seen in the Covenant with David

My fourth biblical-theology paper.

    David, son of Jesse, the second King of Israel, is the foremost character in the second half of I Samuel, beginning in chapter 16, all of II Samuel, and in I Kings, up to chapter 2, as well as their parallel passages in I Chronicles. He himself authored authored a large, though indefinite, portion of the Psalms. Thus, he rivals his descendant Jesus in the amount of Scripture devoted to his person.

    The first King, Saul, rebels against God in I Samuel 15. As a result, God removes His anointing from Saul and his line. In his place, in chapter 16, the Prophet Samuel is commanded to anoint a replacement. Samuel examines the son’s of Jesse, going down the line from eldest down, rejecting them one by one, until David, the youngest is brought before him, and God commands him to anoint David as king-elect. We next see him in chapter 17, as Israel is standing intimidated by the champion of the Philistines, the giant Goliath. David, too young to be a soldier, is sent by his father to carry food to his elder brothers. At the front, he is appalled by the failure of any Israelite to answer Goliath’s challenge. Then David, still a beardless youth, a mere shepherd, volunteers. He approaches, not as a swaggering warrior as God’s appointee. He tells Goliath (17:45), “I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, Whom you have taunted.” He strikes down Goliath with his shepherd’s sling, cuts of his head, and the now-inspired Israel drives away the rest of the disheartened Philistine army.

    Saul is jealous of David, as he listens to the people sing, “Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (18:7). He knows that he has been rejected by God in favor of David, now his son-in-law (18:20-30), and resents him for it, especially in the face of the close friendship between David and Saul’s son Jonathan (ch. 20). Saul persecutes David in chps. 21-30, during which time David marries his second wife, the widow of Nabal (ch. 25). Saul and his sons, including Jonathan but not Ishbosheth. Ishbosheth becomes king of eleven tribes, while David is crowned over Judah. The divided kingdom lasts seven and a half years (II Sam. 5:5), until Ishbosheth is assassinated, and David is then crowned king over the reunited kingdom (v. 3). The only surviving member of Saul’s family, Jonathan’s lame son Mephibosheth (v. 4:4), was to remain an honored guest in David’s household (ch. 9).

    The most important segment of David’s history is in chapter 7:8-17 (I Chronicles 17:1-15), the Davidic covenant. As was standard in such covenants, it begins with a rehearsal of God’s past blessings on David (vv. 8-9), then promises blessings (vv. 13-16). God promises peace, and a lineage on the throne of Israel forever. Verse 16 is the culmination: “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.” David responds in a prayer of thanksgiving in vv. 18-29, ending with a confidence in God’s promises: “For You, O Lord God, have spoken, and with Your blessing shall the house of your servant be blessed forever.”

    The next major event in David’s life is his sin with Bathsheba (ch. 11). After seeing her bathing on the roof of her house, David has her husband, Uriah the Hittite, exposed in battle with the Ammonites. With Uriah out of the way, David then takes the now-widow as his third wife. The sin is rebuked by the Prophet Nathan in chapter 12, and the newborn son of David with Bathsheba is struck down (vv. 15-23). However, their next son is Solomon, destined to be David’s heir. This demonstrates the human sinfulness of this man, of whom God said, “This is a man after my own heart” (I Sam. 13:14). As a result, David deals suffers from the sins of his own children” Amnon with Tamar, and the rebellion of Absalom. We see his nature again in his census of chap. 24, resulting in God’s striking down of 70 thousand of his people. I Kings 1 and 2 are the account of the transfer of the kingdom from David to Solomon, and then David’s passing (vv. 10-12).

    David’s son, Solomon, as the newly-anointed king, relies of God’s covenant with his father in I Kings 3:6-14: “You have kept for him this great and steadfast love, and have given him a son to sit on his throne this day.” This suggests that David made great effort to teach Solomon what God had promised and done for him. But 5:3 indicates that he was also aware of the consequences of David’s bloody hands. We see both sides of David’s relationship with God in 8:15-20. But Solomon continues confident in God’s covenant promises (vv. 24-26). And that confidence is shared by all of Israel in verse 66.

    God explicitly repeats the promises of the Davidic covenant with Solomon in 9:4-5. This is similar to the pattern of the Abrahamic covenant, with the terms renewed with each succeeding generation. However, unlike David, Solomon did not keep his side of the covenant. In 11:4-6, the writer of Kings shows Solomon following after the pagan deities of his multitudinous wives. Yet, God continues faithful (vv. 12-13), not for Solomon’s sake, but for David’s. Later in the chapter, God punishes the apostasy of Solomon by dividing the kingdom with a rebellion against his son, Rehoboam. Yet, even here, God remembers his covenant, and reserves the tribe of Judah to David’s line (vv. 32-39). This pattern is repeated with Rehoboam’s son, Abijam. In 15:3, the writer explicitly tells us that Abijam did not share the faith of his ancestor David, but vv.4-5 show us God acting out of faithfulness to David: “because David did what was right in the eyes of the Lord…” This is what Paul refers to, in II Timothy 2:13: “If we are faithless, he remains faithful - for He cannot deny Himself.” In II Kings 8:16ff, when Jehoram follows the apostate path of his Israelite kinsmen, even here, the writer tells us, “Yet the Lord was not willing to destroy Judah, for the sake of David His servant, since He promised to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever.”

    The writer of Kings continues to use David as the standard against whom to compare his posterity. His lineage rates badly in 14:3 and 16:2, but well in 18:3. God again recalls His covenant in 19:34 (parallel in Isaiah 37:33-35), as Assyria, after eliminating the northern kingdom, now attacks Jerusalem:  “I will defend this city to save it, for My own sake and for the sake of My servant David.” As Paul said to Timothy, God acts according to His covenant promises because He is watchful over His own truth and reputation, as well as the welfare of His elect.

    David himself writes of God’s establishment of His covenant. In Psalm 18:20-24, he wrote, “The Lord dealt with me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands… The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in His sight.” He does not claim that his righteousness is inherent for (v. 32), “[God] equipped me with strength and made my way blameless.” He remembers the particular elements of the covenant, as he credits God with “making me the head of the nations” (v. 43) and “subduing peoples under me” (v. 47), promises “to David and his offspring forever” (v. 50). Asaph sings of the covenant in Psalm 78:67-72: “He chose David His servant… to shepherd Jacob His people… [And] with upright heart he shepherded them.” Ethan the Ezrahite has the voice of God recalling (89:19-37), “I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him, so that My hand shall be established with him… My faithfulness and My steadfast love shall be with him… He shall cry to Me, ‘You are my Father, my God, and the Rock of my salvation’... My steadfast love I will keep with him forever, and My covenant will stand firm for him. I will establish his offspring forever, and his throne as the days of the heavens… I will not remove from him my steadfast love or be false to My faithfulness. I will not violate My covenant or alter the word that went forth from My lips…” Ethan claims this faithfulness for all of God’s people (v. 49): “Lord, where is your steadfast love of old, which, by Your faithfulness, you swore to David?”

    The unnamed writer of Psalm 132 applied the same principle of prayer. In verse 1, he starts with, “Remember, O Lord, in David’s favor…” He claims God’s faithfulness to david for the benefit of all of Israel. Verses 11-12: “The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which He will not turn back: ‘One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne. If your sons keep My covenant and My testimonies that I shall teach them, their sons also forever shall sit on your throne.” The writer asks, “If Jerusalem is destroyed, how can You fulfill Your promise that there shall always be a son of David to rule there?” The promise to David, in his eyes, has positive implications for the whole nation.

    The Prophet Isaiah also applied the Davidic covenant to the people of God, as the promise according to which the Messiah would come. In Isaiah 9, the famous Christmas story, he writes (vv. 6-7): “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon His shoulder… Of the increase of His government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it…” So, we see an expansion of the vision of the covenant. Where David had seen it as a political promise, with his dynasty established over ethnic Israel, Isaiah now expands that vision to point to a particular King, yet unnamed, who shall take that kingdom to a far greater glory. He repeats that vision in 16:5, “A throne will be established in steadfast love, and on it will sit in faithfulness in the tent of David one who judges and seeks justice and is swift to do  righteousness.” Again, he moves the covenant from a promise of a lineage of men to a particular One.

    Isaiah also makes use of the covenant to encourage the faithful remnant of Israel. In 55:1-5, he calls the people to repentance, assure of the faithfulness of God, as seen in His covenant with David. Verse 3: “Incline your ear and come to Me; hear, that Gsoul may live; and I will make with you an everlasting covenant, My steadfast, sure love for David.” David, the sinner of Bathsheba and Psalm 51 relied on the faithful mercy of God. If he did it, can’t I?

    God Himself made the same comparison through Jeremiah (17:24-25). Using the Sabbath as a test case, He calls the people to repent, and “then there shall enter by the gates of this city kings and princes who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their officials, the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And this city shall be inhabited forever.” Or, if they refuse (21:12, repeated in 22:2-4), “Hear the word of the Lord, O house of David! Thus says the Lord, ‘Execute justice in the morning, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed, lest My wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it, because of your evil deeds.’” Repent and enjoy the blessings of David, but do not presume on them to excuse your wickedness.

    Then, as Isaiah 9, Jeremiah turns to the One who will ultimately fulfill God’s promises to David. 23:5: “I will raise up for David a righteous Branch, and He shall reign as king and deal wisely, and shall execute justice and righteousness in the land. In His days, Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which He will be called: The Lord is our righteousness.” Where the writer of Kings lamented that king after king failed to evidence the faith of David, the One Davidic king to come will do so. And, on the side of the people (30:9): “They shall serve the Lord their God and David their king, Whom I will raise up for them.” Just as the One king will demonstrate the best of David’s faith, under His rule the people will do so, as well.

    The Branch appears again in 33:14-26. The content of the Davidic covenant is repeated in verse 17: “David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel…” (and again in verses 21 and 26). The passage also adds a new element (v. 18): “The Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence…” (also verse 21). David wasn’t a priest, so this aspect of the Branch is an expansion, perhaps from the reference to the priesthood of Melchizedek in David’s Psalm 110:4. It isn’t relevant here, but Christ fulfilled this in His union of the offices of priest and king.

    The Prophet Ezekiel prophesies a coming Messiah as the fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to David in 34:22-24: “I will set up over them one Shepherd, my servant David, and He shall feed them; He shall feed them and be their Shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them.” Ezekiel continues this theme in 37:24-28: “My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one Shepherd… David My servant shall be their prince forever… My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God. and they shall be My people…” Notice his resurrection of the servant theme of Isaiah.

    This Davidic king also makes a brief appearance in the prophecies of Hosea (3:5): “The children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to His goodness in the latter days.” And in Amos 9:11-12: “In that day I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen and repair its breaches,... that they may possess… all the nations who are called by My name.” And in Zechariah 12: 6-13:1, especially that last verse: “On that day there shall be a fountain opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and uncleanness.”

    In the New Testament, David plays a prominent role in the apologetic efforts of the Apostles to prove that Jesus was the expected Messiah and Branch of the prophets.

    In the genealogy of Jesus as given by Matthew (1:1-17), not only is the line of David prominent, but the author emphasizes the number fourteen, even skipping generations to create the three sets of fourteen. Why? Because, in hebrew, the letters also represented numbers. The consonants of David’s name (daledh-waw-daledh) add up to fourteen. Thus, not only is Jesus a lineal descendant of David, but Matthew adds that name symbolically three more times to multiply the emphasis on that fact. Not only is Jesus addressed or referred to as the “Son of David” eleven times (e. g., 9:27 and 12:23), but He Himself uses David’s words from the Psalms to express the connection in His teachings (e. g., 22:43).

The words of the David covenant appear in Mark  11:10: “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David.” And again in Luke 1:32-33: “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.” And again in verse 69: “[The Lord God of Israel] has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David.” And finally in John 7:42: “Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?” Thus, the Gospel writers confronted the Jews with their own covenantal expectations as pointing to this Jesus, whom they were to reject and crucify. This would serve as a direct apologetic against the claims of unbelieving Jews that the Messiah is still to be anticipated, because Jesus did not fulfill that role as they expected.

In Acts, Luke turned to David again, but with less of the covenantal emphasis. In 1:16, 2:25-30, 2:34-35, and 13:33-38, he borrows from Jesus own strategy, using David’s words to emphasize the connection between David and Jesus. He explicitly makes Jesus the hair of David in 13:23: “Of this man’s [i. e., David’s] offspring, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as He promised.” This language is reminiscent of th Branch terminology of the Prophets. See also 15:16-17.

Paul also borrows this apologetic theme, such as in Romans 4:6-8, 11:9-10, and II Timothy 2:8. Yet, he never follows up on the covenantal theme, a role he gives, instead, to Abraham.

Jesus again picks up His “Son of David” role in Revelation 3:7: “The words of the Holy One, the True One, Who has the key of David…” And, in the words of an elder in 5:5: “Behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered…” And in Jesus’s words again, in 22:16: “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you about these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”

So, the story of David min the Bible is the story of God’s faithfulness, both to him and to the people of God as a whole. Through His words to him, God establishes a theme of promised redemption, peace, and prosperity, not as the result of merit, but because of God’s covenantal promises of grace, justification, sanctification, and glorification. The New Testament writers continue the story of David, both in their own words and in the words of Jesus, to point Israel to Him. Here is the man promised for a thousand years! Here is the promise of God incarnate! All that we have waited for is here, standing embodied before you. And even in the last verses of the Bible, Jesus Himself points to His purposes as bringing to pass God’s faithfulness to David, and to all Israel in him.