Two Prophecies in One

[John of Japan]

Over the Christmas break something in Isaiah 9 really impacted my thinking. Note vv. 6-7:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

So in the very same prophecy of Isaiah, we have both the Incarnation, the first coming, and the Second Coming of Christ prophesied. Now, I'm pretty sure that everyone here on the BB takes v. 6 literally. Jesus is indeed a Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God Himself, the everlasting Father and the only Prince of Peace.

Then we come to v. 7, and the naysayers will say, "Oh, no, it could never be that Jesus will literally sit on the throne of David, the actual King David of Scripture. Nope. That has to be metaphorical, speaking of the Kingdom of God. There is no separate throne of David." Now why will they take v. 6 literally but reject the literal meaning of v. 7? Right there in the same prophecy--literal and then non-literal. Strange.

I choose to believe v. 6 literally, but right there in the same context I believe v. 7 literally. Until this passage, every single mention in the OT of the throne of David is clearly literal, with most of them dealing with Solomon sitting on the throne of his father. The Davidic Covenant is a real thing, and still in force.

I have to head home. I'll be back tomorrow to see what carnage has happened.

P. S. Like my new, aggressive (Scrooge-face) avatar? That's my lovely, sweet wife behind me looking friendly.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Over the Christmas break something in Isaiah 9 really impacted my thinking. Note vv. 6-7:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

So in the very same prophecy of Isaiah, we have both the Incarnation, the first coming, and the Second Coming of Christ prophesied. Now, I'm pretty sure that everyone here on the BB takes v. 6 literally. Jesus is indeed a Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God Himself, the everlasting Father and the only Prince of Peace.

Then we come to v. 7, and the naysayers will say, "Oh, no, it could never be that Jesus will literally sit on the throne of David, the actual King David of Scripture. Nope. That has to be metaphorical, speaking of the Kingdom of God. There is no separate throne of David." Now why will they take v. 6 literally but reject the literal meaning of v. 7? Right there in the same prophecy--literal and then non-literal. Strange.

I choose to believe v. 6 literally, but right there in the same context I believe v. 7 literally. Until this passage, every single mention in the OT of the throne of David is clearly literal, with most of them dealing with Solomon sitting on the throne of his father. The Davidic Covenant is a real thing, and still in force.

I have to head home. I'll be back tomorrow to see what carnage has happened.

P. S. Like my new, aggressive (Scrooge-face) avatar? That's my lovely, sweet wife behind me looking friendly.

If it is a literal throne of David, then Christ will be reigning only over Israel and parts of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. I was rather hoping He would be reigning in Britain as well, but David's throne never extended that far.

Christ will indeed reign on David's throne and it will indeed be in Jerusalem, but not the one that now is, is in bondage with her children and is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. He will be reigning in the new Jerusalem which comes down from heaven, indeed, He is reigning there now (Psalm 110:1-2).

The Davidic Covenant is a covenant of promise (Ephesians 2:12). The promises are fulfilled in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20).

 

[David Kent]

Jesus is King at the present and is now reigning on the Throne Of David. He is king over His Church.;

 

[Aaron]

What does the Throne of David signify? Certainly he's not saying that David was a greater king. We also know it is not speaking of the Millennium, because the Millennium ends, even according to Darbyism. The temple and priesthood and all the bloody memorials that Darbyism insists will please Christ, will end. This heaven and this earth (of which is David's) is going to burn. A new heaven and new earth will replace it. And if there's a throne abiding forever, we can be certain it never saw David's butt.

So what is signified by the Throne of David? I'm certain some pre-Darby commentator might have a thought about that.

 

[percho]

I also believe v7 is literal.

Christ had come, born of woman Gal 4:4 Luke 2:11 to sit on the throne of his father David in the future.

Luke 1:32 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: ---- Shall be giving. As understood by David. Acts 2:30,31 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

However what does God say?

For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Acts 2:34,35 -- Also -- Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.Acts 3:21

Then Acts 3:20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: As Jesus said; Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
Acts 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: Matt 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

However in reality, just whose throne is it?

Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. 1 Chro 29:23

 

[percho]

What does the Throne of David signify? Certainly he's not saying that David was a greater king. We also know it is not speaking of the Millennium, because the Millennium ends, even according to Darbyism. The temple and priesthood and all the bloody memorials that Darbyism insists will please Christ, will end. This heaven and this earth (of which is David's) is going to burn. A new heaven and new earth will replace it. And if there's a throne abiding forever, we can be certain it never saw David's butt.

So what is signified by the Throne of David? I'm certain some pre-Darby commentator might have a thought about that.

IMHO

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order:
Christ the firstfruits;
afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 1 Cor 15:22,23

Millennium

And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.Rev 20:13

1 Cor 15:24-26 Then the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

The end of death.

 

[Aaron]

The Throne of David is a symbol. What does it symbolize?

 

[HankD]

You are truly blessed brother JoJ.

Thank you for your service in the Army of the LORD.

How long have you served Him as a missionary?

 

[HankD]

The Throne of David is a symbol. What does it symbolize?

A chair which you sit on when you officiate over your kingdom

 

[John of Japan]

Jesus is King at the present and is now reigning on the Throne Of David. He is king over His Church.;

That does not answer my exegetical point. To say this, you have to interpret verse 6 literally but verse 7 allegorically. How do you do that with proper hermeneutics?

Every single mention of the throne of David until this passage was literal. 13 times it was Solomon taking the literal throne of his father David. How could a Jew reading this at the time of Isaiah believe the prophecy was for an allegorical throne?

As for Christ being "king over the Church," that is reading the NT back into the OT--unacceptable hermeneutics. The whole book of Isaiah says nothing about a church.

 

[John of Japan]

You are truly blessed brother JoJ.

Thank you for your service in the Army of the LORD.

How long have you served Him as a missionary?

Thanks brother. We were in Japan for 33 years--3 1/2 years of deputation before that. As you know, now I teach Greek, missions, Bible, translation theory, etc., in the homeland.

 

[John of Japan]

The Throne of David is a symbol. What does it symbolize?

It was not a symbol all through the OT up until Isaiah. Every single time up to this passage it was a literal chair on which a king sits. 13 times it was Solomon sitting on the throne of his father. So, how and when did it become a symbol, because that is certainly not in the OT historical narrative.

 

[John of Japan]

If it is a literal throne of David, then Christ will be reigning only over Israel and parts of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. I was rather hoping He would be reigning in Britain as well, but David's throne never extended that far.

So when Kublai Khan conquered Asia he was no longer sitting on the throne of the Tartars? And when Alexander conquered his known world he was no longer sitting on the throne of Macedonia? That doesn't make sense. When Christ comes back, He will conquer the world. At that time the throne of David will be the throne of the world.

Christ will indeed reign on David's throne and it will indeed be in Jerusalem, but not the one that now is, is in bondage with her children and is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. He will be reigning in the new Jerusalem which comes down from heaven, indeed, He is reigning there now (Psalm 110:1-2).

The Davidic Covenant is a covenant of promise (Ephesians 2:12). The promises are fulfilled in Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20).

I have no problem with Him sitting on David's throne in Jerusalem. However, the rest of your point does not answer my OP. How did Isaiah get from literal (v. 6) to symbolic? And since every mention of the throne of David until this passage was literal, how would a Jew reading Isaiah have understood it was symbolic?

 

[kyredneck]

The Throne of David is a symbol. What does it symbolize?

When you tell us, include "house of David", "root of David", "key of David", "seed of David", "son of David", "sure blessings of David", ….please.

 

[kyredneck]

So, how and when did it become a symbol

29 Brethren, I may say unto you freely of the patriarch David, that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day.
30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne;
31 he foreseeing this spake of the resurrection of the Christ, that neither was he left unto Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.
32 This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear.
34 For David ascended not into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
35 Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet.
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified. Acts 2

 

[David Kent]

That does not answer my exegetical point. To say this, you have to interpret verse 6 literally but verse 7 allegorically. How do you do that with proper hermeneutics?

Every single mention of the throne of David until this passage was literal. 13 times it was Solomon taking the literal throne of his father David. How could a Jew reading this at the time of Isaiah believe the prophecy was for an allegorical throne?

As for Christ being "king over the Church," that is reading the NT back into the OT--unacceptable hermeneutics. The whole book of Isaiah says nothing about a church.

I treat it all literally .

Jesus' lliteral kingdom is not of this world, just as He is not of this world. His is the Kindom of Heaven.

• John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
• John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

So when Kublai Khan conquered Asia he was no longer sitting on the throne of the Tartars? And when Alexander conquered his known world he was no longer sitting on the throne of Macedonia?

No and no, in that order. Kublai Khan sat on the throne of China; it was his Grand-daddy Genghis who conquered most of Asia. And Alexander never returned to Macedonia after he started his invasion of Persia. He sat on the thrones of those he had conquered in Susa and Persepolis.

When Christ comes back, He will conquer the world. At that time the throne of David will be the throne of the world.

On this we agree. I just don't believe His throne will be in the Jerusalem that now is, or that His reign will be limited to 1,000 years (e.g. Psalm 89:29).

I have no problem with Him sitting on David's throne in Jerusalem. However, the rest of your point does not answer my OP. How did Isaiah get from literal (v. 6) to symbolic? And since every mention of the throne of David until this passage was literal, how would a Jew reading Isaiah have understood it was symbolic?

Not well, I fear, seeing that they crucified Him when He came. But as I read Isaiah 9, I don't see amy sudden change from literal to figurative. However, Christ is 'the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to the saints' (Colossians 1:26). Also, in Ezekiel 34:23, God describes David as being a shepherd; were the Jews reading Ezekiel supposed to think that the Messiah would be a literal shepherd? It must have been a shock when He turned out to be a carpenter.

 

[Aaron]

It was not a symbol all through the OT up until Isaiah. Every single time up to this passage it was a literal chair on which a king sits. 13 times it was Solomon sitting on the throne of his father. So, how and when did it become a symbol, because that is certainly not in the OT historical narrative.

Okay. So He that dwelleth not in temples made with hands will seat Himself forevert on a chair thus made?

But that contradicts the Scriptures. The things that can be seen with the eye are temporary. 2 Corinthians 4:18.

And since the prophecy is about something eternal, it can't be about the literal chair upon which David sat.

 

[John of Japan]

I treat it all literally .

Jesus' lliteral kingdom is not of this world, just as He is not of this world. His is the Kindom of Heaven.

• John 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
• John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

With this you are conflating the two kingdoms: the Kingdom of God/Heaven and the Davidic throne. Where do you get that in Scripture? There are no passages that I know of to say the two kingdoms are the same.

I have pointed out how every single mention of David's throne in the OT until this Isaiah passage refers to the actual, literal, physical throne of David, the Davidic kingdom. The term refers to Solomon sitting on his father's throne 13 times. (I said that in the post you quoted, but you did not answer it.) So, how do you get from there to an internal , non-physical kingdom, the Kingdom of God/Heaven? These are two quite different kingdoms. (And I have not said that the throne of David is eternal. Where do you get that?)

"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:2).

 

[John of Japan]

Okay. So He that dwelleth not in temples made with hands will seat Himself forevert on a chair thus made?

But that contradicts the Scriptures. The things that can be seen with the eye are temporary. 2 Corinthians 4:18.

And since the prophecy is about something eternal, it can't be about the literal chair upon which David sat.

The prophecies are about an actual, physical throne, the throne of David. How do you deal with the fact that every single time until Is. 9 the term "throne of David" refers to an actual physical throne?

Jesus Christ is fully human as well as fully God. Do you believe somehow that the new heavens and new earth will not be physical? Do you believe that everything after Christ comes back will be only spiritual and not physical?

The Gnostics believed that everything physical is evil. Is that what you believe, or are you willing to admit that a physical throne can be holy?