Davids throne/Millenial Reign of Christ

[third hero]

What are you talking about? What is wrong with my wanting to see her clear interpretation of those verses? So far, she has only been vague about that passage.



I have shown my beliefs over and over again. You seem to have no interest in trying to understand where I'm coming from. You've made that clear. You have repeatedly shown a lack of understanding of other's beliefs because you don't care to take the effort to try to understand them.

Try to remember what I'm about to tell you so that you don't misrepresent my beliefs in the future. My belief would fall into the amillenial idealist category. I don't put a huge emphasis on 70 AD as preterists do. I see some prophecy fulfilled at that time, but not as much as they see. For example, they see Revelation as being totally (full preterists) or mostly (partial preterists) fulfilled and I don't see that. I believe the book of Revelation is a series of parallel visions that each document the time between Christ's first coming and His second. For example, we can see the second coming of Christ and the events surrounding it in Revelation 11, 14, 16, 19 and 20. I see the beast as something that was, is not, and yet is. The beast has been around a long time. But preterists say the beast and the mark of the beast had something to do with the time around 70 AD while futurists like yourself think the beast is only a future entity. I agree with the preterist interpretation of passages like Luke 21:20-24, but disagree with others, such as their interpretation of Matthew 24:29-31 and Luke 21:25-28 as having already been fulfilled in 70 AD.

Eric

Before this post, Eric, I have not read anything from you that comes even remotely close to what you have just described. Like yourself, I agree with some portions of Luke 21 being fulfilled in 70AD, and unlike you, I totally reject the notion that Matthew 24 is partially fulfilled in 70AD, while other parts are yet to be fulfilled. I believe that all of Matthew 24, with exception for verse 2, is either currently being fulfilled today, or are about ready to be fulfilled. And on top of that, it would seem that we would be in agreement with the return of the Lord being shown in Revelation, however, you have consistantly argued that Revelation 20:1-3 has been fulfilled, which is exactly what I am arguing against in this very thread.

[John146]

Before this post, Eric, I have not read anything from you that comes even remotely close to what you have just described.

That must be because you thought of me as a preterist and therefore you were not seeing what I was really saying. I have never spoken in such a way that would contradict the explanation I just gave you of what I believe.

Like yourself, I agree with some portions of Luke 21 being fulfilled in 70AD, and unlike you, I totally reject the notion that Matthew 24 is partially fulfilled in 70AD, while other parts are yet to be fulfilled. I believe that all of Matthew 24, with exception for verse 2, is either currently being fulfilled today, or are about ready to be fulfilled.

What you have yet to explain is the inclusion of the question "when shall all these things be" in Matthew 24. That question had to do with the destruction of the temple. If He didn't answer that question in Matthew 24, why would it be included there? I understand that we disagree on the "before all these" in Luke 21 and the "then" in Matthew 24, so I don't care to get into that here.

And on top of that, it would seem that we would be in agreement with the return of the Lord being shown in Revelation, however, you have consistantly argued that Revelation 20:1-3 has been fulfilled, which is exactly what I am arguing against in this very thread.

Yes, we both see the second coming of Christ in Revelation and we disagree on what the binding of Satan means. I think we've made that abundantly clear. But let's discuss it civilly. You seem to get quite riled up and angry in these discussions. I just enjoy being able to discuss these things because many Christians stay as far away from books like Daniel and Revelation as they can, which I think is sad.

[quiet dove]

Hi John146, I thought I responded to Acts but I must have deleted the wrong thing in my stuff because I cant find it. The other one (Romans) is in response to another post.

the one on Acts
I think the first important thing is the setting and context for Peter’s sermon. This conversation was directed toward “devout”Jews and these Jews fully expected their promised Messiah to restore the kingdom to Israel.

With those promises (scripture below-Jeremiah) and the promises of the Christ and Him ruling on Davids throne, then the One claiming to be the Christ dieing on the cross, the Jews who were very aware of being the chosen people of God and the "holier than thou" attitude,and that they had strayed so far in rebellion (they were not aware of that part), no doubt there was some confusion here. The part of the prophesies of the Christ dieing on a cross had gone right by them due to their rebellous hearts.

Jeremiah 23:5 says that this King shall, not only shall riegn and prosper, but also “execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. Presently Christ is offering salvation as a gift and building His Church, not reigning in the sense of a king of Israel executing judgment and righteousness in the earth. And Jeremiah 30:9 But they shall serve the LORD their God, And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them. This in Jeremiah is not speaking of Davids heir to the throne, but David, whom God will raise up in resurrection, just like He will raise us up in resurrection.

Peter quoted the prophesies (Psalms) as evidence that Christ was their promised Messiah, and within that context Peter explains that David was not talking about David and Jesus was the Christ, that much we both would agree to I think. Within this context, and with Acts 1:6, it is clear that some of the main confusion was the expectancy of the Jews, that their promised Messiah would sit as rightfull Heir upon the throne of David and rule Israel, and along with His reign, the Jews would see the promises of protection, safety, properity and so on that they were all focused on. It was the disciples who ask in Acts 1:6 “ Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” and as I stated earlier, Jesus did not correct them other than to say “ It is not for you to know the times or seaons which the Father has put in His own autority”.

All of that relates to setting for Peter’s sermon and the mind set of the Jews. Not only did Peter have to show from their prophesies that Jesus was the Christ, he had to show why the kingdom was not restored to Israel. The fact that Christ is at the right hand of God and no kingdom was restored to Israel is a problem for these Jews. They fully expect their Messiah to sit on Davids throne as their prophets fortold that He will.

David was/is presently dead,(or for the sake of this conversaion, he aint on the earth, mortal or immortal.) And the prophesies were exlplained that David was not speaking about/to David. But that prophecy doesn’t confirm that the Christ is on the throne of David, it expains why He isnt and that He is at the right hand of God which is not physically or spirituall the throne of David.

The reason I quoted the verses from Romans is they make clear, that God has full intentions of doing all He has said reguarding the restoration and salvation of Israel, that doesn’t mean anyone Jewish is saved based on their blood, it means that in the future, in the tribulation, all the Jews that survive the tribulation will have been saved, (through Christ) they will recognize their Messiah as the One they pierced. All those Jews, entering the Millenial reign of Christ will be saved, therefore, all of Israel will be saved at that time because those Jews will constitue the “all”. Doesn’t have anything to do with todays Israel other than if the tribulation were to begin tomarrow, they are the ones alive when it begins and therefore those of Rev 7 would come from the ones alive today.

I am sorry if this is to long, I’m trying to shorten them.

[Ezekiel_37]

I have been curiously following this thread,and I dont understand how anyboby can read acts2 and say Jesus is on Davids throne. Jesus is God ,and existed before David.Why put so much weight on etablishing the point of Davids throne? David was the forerunner of Jesus. Jesus sits on his own throne.There are a lot of types and shadows in the bible ,but they can get overworked if a person looks too deeply into them. Davids life POINTS to Jesus.Jesus didnt follow the lineage of AAron ,but of David and I think this is the main point. Jesus could NOT have come through levitical priesthood.
D.susuki

Hi DS,

Christ was both Levite and Jew.

He was 1/2 and 1/2.

If you need scripture, just ask!

[quiet dove]

Ezekiel_37, I'm curious. So I reakon I'm askin

Christ was both Levite and Jew.

He was 1/2 and 1/2.

If you need scripture, just ask!

Since the lineage given in Matthew is Judah and Judah was a brother of Levi, I'm confused.

Hebrews 7:11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

[David Taylor]

I'm curious also.

Matt chapter 1 gives the paternal lineage through Judah, not Levi.

Luke chapter 3 gives the maternal lineage through Judah, not Levi.

[John146]

Hi John146, I thought I responded to Acts but I must have deleted the wrong thing in my stuff because I cant find it. The other one (Romans) is in response to another post.

the one on Acts
I think the first important thing is the setting and context for Peter’s sermon. This conversation was directed toward “devout”Jews and these Jews fully expected their promised Messiah to restore the kingdom to Israel.

With those promises (scripture below-Jeremiah) and the promises of the Christ and Him ruling on Davids throne, then the One claiming to be the Christ dieing on the cross, the Jews who were very aware of being the chosen people of God and the "holier than thou" attitude,and that they had strayed so far in rebellion (they were not aware of that part), no doubt there was some confusion here. The part of the prophesies of the Christ dieing on a cross had gone right by them due to their rebellous hearts.

Jeremiah 23:5 says that this King shall, not only shall riegn and prosper, but also “execute judgment and righteousness in the earth. Presently Christ is offering salvation as a gift and building His Church, not reigning in the sense of a king of Israel executing judgment and righteousness in the earth. And Jeremiah 30:9 But they shall serve the LORD their God, And David their king, Whom I will raise up for them. This in Jeremiah is not speaking of Davids heir to the throne, but David, whom God will raise up in resurrection, just like He will raise us up in resurrection.

Peter quoted the prophesies (Psalms) as evidence that Christ was their promised Messiah, and within that context Peter explains that David was not talking about David and Jesus was the Christ, that much we both would agree to I think. Within this context, and with Acts 1:6, it is clear that some of the main confusion was the expectancy of the Jews, that their promised Messiah would sit as rightfull Heir upon the throne of David and rule Israel, and along with His reign, the Jews would see the promises of protection, safety, properity and so on that they were all focused on. It was the disciples who ask in Acts 1:6 “ Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” and as I stated earlier, Jesus did not correct them other than to say “ It is not for you to know the times or seaons which the Father has put in His own autority”.

All of that relates to setting for Peter’s sermon and the mind set of the Jews. Not only did Peter have to show from their prophesies that Jesus was the Christ, he had to show why the kingdom was not restored to Israel. The fact that Christ is at the right hand of God and no kingdom was restored to Israel is a problem for these Jews. They fully expect their Messiah to sit on Davids throne as their prophets fortold that He will.

David was/is presently dead,(or for the sake of this conversaion, he aint on the earth, mortal or immortal.) And the prophesies were exlplained that David was not speaking about/to David. But that prophecy doesn’t confirm that the Christ is on the throne of David, it expains why He isnt and that He is at the right hand of God which is not physically or spirituall the throne of David.

The reason I quoted the verses from Romans is they make clear, that God has full intentions of doing all He has said reguarding the restoration and salvation of Israel, that doesn’t mean anyone Jewish is saved based on their blood, it means that in the future, in the tribulation, all the Jews that survive the tribulation will have been saved, (through Christ) they will recognize their Messiah as the One they pierced. All those Jews, entering the Millenial reign of Christ will be saved, therefore, all of Israel will be saved at that time because those Jews will constitue the “all”. Doesn’t have anything to do with todays Israel other than if the tribulation were to begin tomarrow, they are the ones alive when it begins and therefore those of Rev 7 would come from the ones alive today.

I am sorry if this is to long, I’m trying to shorten them.

I'm asking for your interpretation of Acts 2:29-36 or at least verses 29-31 and you're giving me anything but that. I'll have to try a different approach. Maybe I'll just have to ask specific questions on the passage and you can answer them. In Acts 2:30, it says that David knew that God swore an oath to him that someone from his (David's) lineage (Christ) would be raised up to sit on his (David's) throne. Would you agree with that? So, when it says in Acts2:31, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ", what does that mean? In other words, what is the "this" that David saw before and what did David say that was equivalent to him speaking of the resurrection of Christ? I believe the answer to my question can be found in verse 30, but I'm curious as to how you interpret the passage.

[Ezekiel_37]

I'm curious also.

Matt chapter 1 gives the paternal lineage through Judah, not Levi.

Luke chapter 3 gives the maternal lineage through Judah, not Levi.

Hello all,

Mat 1 has to do with Joseph's line, not Christ's for God fathered Jesus, not Joseph. Mat 1 is not the lineage of Christ. It is the line to Jesus' step dad.


So for Christ's lineage we must see Luke 1 and Luke 3.

Luke1:5 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife [was] of the daughters of Aaron, and her name [was] Elisabeth.

This is John The baptist's parents. Both Levites, of Aaron's line. A Levite priest had to mary a Levite woman.

the angel speaks to Mary;

Luke1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

This makes Mary and Elisabeth cousins, which means that Mary would have to be a Levite on her mother's side.

Since Mary's parents are where Christ's lineage came through, we can learn that her mother was a Levite (hence the cousins) and her father was of Judah (which I am sure no one disputes) as detailed in Luke 3.

Peace in Christ

[quiet dove]

john146

In Acts 2:30, it says that David knew that God swore an oath to him that someone from his (David's) lineage (Christ) would be raised up to sit on his (David's) throne. Would you agree with that?

yes, David knew that God swore an oath to him and He would be raised up to sit on Davids throne which isnt at the right hand of God.

That doesn’t confirm that the Christ is on the throne of David, it explains why He isnt and that He is at the right hand of God which is not physically or spiritually the throne of David.

The Jews were well aware that David was to have an heir on the throne so why, if this Jesus was that heir, was He not sitting on the throne? That is why in my post I gave the setting of the Jews expecting the heir on the throne. Christ didnt take the throne of David yet and that was an issue for the Jews who awaited that promise.

My post did address it and gave you the reason why I see it the way I do. Christ is at the right hand of God and that is what David saw and prophesied about which backs up why Jesus did not re-establish the kingdm of Israel and Davids throne, yet. I took the setting of Peter’s sermon to back up the reasoning behind my understanding.

Acts 2:34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35 Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Jesus is at the right hand of the throne of God, not on David’s throne.

Jeremiah 23:5 says that this King shall, not only shall riegn and prosper, but also “execute judgment and righteousness in the earth”. Presently Christ is offering salvation as a gift and building His Church, not reigning in the sense of a king of Israel executing judgment and righteousness in the earth.

This is what the Jews back in the NT were looking for, just like many Jews today are looking for this.

[quiet dove]

Ezekiel 37, Hebrews clearly says
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

So there is discrepancy somewhere, Luke 3 actually gives the geneology of Mary not Joseph.
And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary (Matt 1:16)
the son of Heli (Luke 3:23) should be taken as Mary, “son” isnt in the original, and would have been better said son-in-law as Matthew 1:16 tells us who the father of Joseph is.
Both parents were descendants of David – Joseph through Solomon (Matt1:7-15) and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31) But Solomons decendents were not to be on the throne, so therefore Joseph would have been disqualified.
So the legitacy of Jesus as heir to Davids throne would have been through Mary. And Joseph would have been the one who was related Levitacally (is that a word?) to Elizabeth

The information I found says that Elizabeth was related to Mary by marriage, but I could not find that information in the Bible and am really to tired at this point to keep looking and may have looked right over it as it is 3am. I am probably looking right over it, reading geneologies being so exciting and all.

Your thoughts?

David, do you have any thoughts here?

[David Taylor]

Great job.

We could list a dozen or more scriptures that show Christ's lieaage through David, and through Judah.

We can list ZERO scripturs that show Christ's lineage through Judah's brother Levi. The only support for this method, is to force cousin, to mean blood-cousin, instead of married-cousin.

One view harmonizes with the pale of all scripture.

one view contradicts the pale of all scripture, in favor of a viewpoint that is speculative.

I wonder if Ezekiel_37 is mormon and/or from some LDS offshoot that accepts the writings of Joseph Smith?

Mormonism is the only group I have ever read of who postulates that Jesus was a Levite.

[John146]

yes, David knew that God swore an oath to him and He would be raised up to sit on Davids throne which isnt at the right hand of God.

Spiritually speaking, the throne is in heaven. Christ ascended to heaven and sat on the throne. That passage from Acts 2 makes that clear. It seems that you do not want to accept what that passage says. It is no longer David's throne because Christ took His place on the throne and it is now His throne that He sits on at the right hand of the Father. It is also the Father's throne. The Father and the Son sit on the same throne. They do not sit on a literal physical throne. We should not think of God that way. They sit or rule on a spiritual throne in a spiritual place called heaven.

That doesn’t confirm that the Christ is on the throne of David, it explains why He isnt and that He is at the right hand of God which is not physically or spiritually the throne of David.

How does it explain why He isn't when it says that He is on the throne? And yes, it indeed was spiritually the throne of David because that is what it clearly says. Now it is Christ's throne as it was always intended to be in the first place.

The Jews were well aware that David was to have an heir on the throne so why, if this Jesus was that heir, was He not sitting on the throne? That is why in my post I gave the setting of the Jews expecting the heir on the throne. Christ didnt take the throne of David yet and that was an issue for the Jews who awaited that promise.

Why are you looking at it just as the Pharisees and the other Jews did? They were expecting Jesus to rule on the earth from David's literal throne but Jesus corrected them by letting them know that His kingdom was not of this world and does not come with observation.

My post did address it and gave you the reason why I see it the way I do. Christ is at the right hand of God and that is what David saw and prophesied about which backs up why Jesus did not re-establish the kingdm of Israel and Davids throne, yet.

What about verse 31 which says, "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ"? He was pointing back to seeing Christ on his throne. He was not speaking in terms of Christ sitting on his literal physical throne. He was speaking in terms of Christ succeeding him in power and rule. Christ reigns from His throne in heaven now. All power in heaven and earth has been given to Him (Matt 28:18). That is what His inheriting David's throne is all about. He is the prince of the kings of the earth and we reign with Him as kings and priests (Revelation 1:5-6).

Hebrews 12:2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Jesus is at the right hand of the throne of God, not on David’s throne.

There are no physical thrones in heaven. The throne of David, which is now the throne of Christ, is the same as the throne of God. There is only one throne from which the Father and the Son reign together. I think you are trying to think of a spiritual reality in heaven in earthly terms. As if the throne of God is a great big physical throne that God sits on with Jesus at His right hand.

Jeremiah 23:5 says that this King shall, not only shall riegn and prosper, but also “execute judgment and righteousness in the earth”. Presently Christ is offering salvation as a gift and building His Church, not reigning in the sense of a king of Israel executing judgment and righteousness in the earth.

This is what the Jews back in the NT were looking for, just like many Jews today are looking for this.

And those Jews in the NT were mistaken just as the Jews today are mistaken. They didn't want to hear that Christ's kingdom does not come with observation and that it is not of this world. They don't want to hear that because they have their own ideas of what Christ and His kingdom should be like. How can you think that the view of unbelieving Jews would be the truth?

[quiet dove]

John,
If what you are saying is true, then why did Jesus not simply explain that to the disciples with the quesion they ask in Acts 1:6. He clearly made no attempt to correct such a big error in their understanding of the promises to restore the kingdom to Israel?

Acts 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? 7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. 8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. 9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.

Seems like Jesus could have at least made mention of there being some misunderstanding with the throne of David in their minds before He ascended to that throne?

[David Taylor]

John,
If what you are saying is true, then why did Jesus not simply explain that to the disciples

I guess he could have used words to make his point.

Personally, though, I kinda think that the Acts 1 parting event of "when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight" was a way of doing it was just a little bit more dramatic and resplendant.

How else would Peter, just a few verses later, spoke so clearly, and unconfused when he taught that Christ being raised to sit on the throne of David was fulfilled in Christ's Resurrection?

Within one chapter, and a couple dozen verses, Peter was very completely cleared up of the misconcepted idea that the Scribes and Pharisees held regarding the Messiah coming to reign on David's throne(being a mortal, temporal government like of old).

Peter's focus was the kingdom via the resurrection and ascension of Christ on High, reigning in power and glory over all.

Since Luke who wrote the gospel, also penned Acts, he probably got it to....and knew exactly this was the fulfillment of his earlier prophecy concerning the babe coming to fulfill the following, with His death, burial, and resurrection....

"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. "

[John146]

I guess he could have used words to make his point.

Personally, though, I kinda think that the Acts 1 parting event of "when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight" was a way of doing it was just a little bit more dramatic and resplendant.

How else would Peter, just a few verses later, spoke so clearly, and unconfused when he taught that Christ being raised to sit on the throne of David was fulfilled in Christ's Resurrection?

Within one chapter, and a couple dozen verses, Peter was very completely cleared up of the misconcepted idea that the Scribes and Pharisees held regarding the Messiah coming to reign on David's throne(being a mortal, temporal government like of old).

Peter's focus was the kingdom via the resurrection and ascension of Christ on High, reigning in power and glory over all.

Since Luke who wrote the gospel, also penned Acts, he probably got it to....and knew exactly this was the fulfillment of his earlier prophecy concerning the babe coming to fulfill the following, with His death, burial, and resurrection....

"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. "

Excellent post. And we know that a future millenial kingdom would not qualify as a kingdom that has no end.