Two Prophecies in One

[Covenanter]

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.

I think your basic hermeneutic is questionable. Should we choose between literal & non-literal as we read OT prophecy? Rather, we should look for the relevance of prophecy to the immediate hearers, & then look for its fulfilment in the life & ministry of the LORD Jesus Christ.

Thus the prophecy of Isaiah 9 begins with figurative language - light versus darkness;
spiritual joy compared with natural joy at harvest & military victory;
figurative yoke compared with military oppression;
the burning of boots & garments used in war - the end of war and oppression, all resulting from the realisation of the Messianic prophecy.

Is the "throne of David" always literal? An ornate chair in a Jerusalem palace? Did David only have one chair, still preserved somewhere for Jesus to sit on it?

Note the way James quotes from Amos -
9:11 ‘In that day
‘I will restore David’s fallen shelter –
I will repair its broken walls and restore its ruins –
and will rebuild it as it used to be,

Acts 15:16 ‘“After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

Was that happening literally? No. The tabernacle of David, the dwelling place of God is with his people, wherever they are, in spirit & in truth.

Go back a bit -
1 Sam. 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

The kings of Israel & Judah were sitting on the throne of the LORD, as Solomon recognised -
1 Chr. 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

The concept of sitting on a throne is partly figurative - a king doesn't need to sit on a throne to be king - it is a sign of office.

Remember the question Jesus asked?
Luke 20:41 And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son?

Jesus is so much more - see Psalm 72 - replete with figurative language.

The meaning of the figurative language in Isaiah 9 is clear, with a clear literal meaning in terms of our LORD Jesus Christ. And he won't need a chair in earthly Jerusalem - he is King of kings & LORD of lords.

Thanks for the question, John - your comments are thought provoking & direct us to search the Scriptures.

 

[Revmitchell]

Need has got nothing to do with it.

 

[John of Japan]

I think your basic hermeneutic is questionable. Should we choose between literal & non-literal as we read OT prophecy?

We've been through this before. In fact, I did a whole thread on figures of speech once. If it is a figure of speech we exegete it as such. If it is not a figure of speech, it is literal. That is how we humans communicate, and we got that from God, who invented language.

Rather, we should look for the relevance of prophecy to the immediate hearers, & then look for its fulfilment in the life & ministry of the LORD Jesus Christ.

I did this, and no non-literalist on this thread has answered me yet. Every single mention of the throne of David until Is. 9 was a literal meaning. So how did it suddenly become metaphorical in Is. 9?

Thus the prophecy of Isaiah 9 begins with figurative language - light versus darkness;
spiritual joy compared with natural joy at harvest & military victory;
figurative yoke compared with military oppression;
the burning of boots & garments used in war - the end of war and oppression, all resulting from the realisation of the Messianic prophecy.

Irrelevant to my points.

Is the "throne of David" always literal? An ornate chair in a Jerusalem palace? Did David only have one chair, still preserved somewhere for Jesus to sit on it?

Here is the BDB Hebrew lexicon definition of the Hebrew word for throne:

"1) seat (of honour), throne, seat, stool
1a) seat (of honour), throne
1b) royal dignity, authority, power (figuratively)"

Note the way James quotes from Amos -
9:11 ‘In that day
‘I will restore David’s fallen shelter –
I will repair its broken walls and restore its ruins –
and will rebuild it as it used to be,

Acts 15:16 ‘“After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

Was that happening literally? No. The tabernacle of David, the dwelling place of God is with his people, wherever they are, in spirit & in truth.

This is all irrelevant to my OP. I wish someone would actually answer the OP.

Go back a bit -
1 Sam. 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

The kings of Israel & Judah were sitting on the throne of the LORD, as Solomon recognised -
1 Chr. 29:23 Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him.

The concept of sitting on a throne is partly figurative - a king doesn't need to sit on a throne to be king - it is a sign of office.

Well, of course. Have I said anything different?

Remember the question Jesus asked?
Luke 20:41 And he said unto them, How say they that Christ is David's son?

Jesus is so much more - see Psalm 72 - replete with figurative language.

Well of course He is so much more. Come on, this is not a grammar school Bible class. None of this negates my points.

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."

The meaning of the figurative language in Isaiah 9 is clear, with a clear literal meaning in terms of our LORD Jesus Christ. And he won't need a chair in earthly Jerusalem - he is King of kings & LORD of lords.

Once again my point: v. 6 is held to be literal by all. So why do some interpret v. 7 as symbolic, with no actual throne/reign of David for the Messiah?

Thanks for the question, John - your comments are thought provoking & direct us to search the Scriptures.

Excellent! That was the intent.

 

[agedman]

During the millennial reign, The King of Kings rules from Jerusalem and compelling the nations of the world to pay Him tribute.

One cannot be the King if there is no kingdom nor known as the King of Kings unless there are other kings.

Grammar helps by establishing singular King and plural kings.

The millennial reign physically ceases on earth, however, the reign continues after the judgment of the nations as the new heaven and earth are disclosed.

The King of kings may certainly sit at the City of David ruling the nations the same as exampled by David and Solomon ruling over other “kings” other nations bringing tribute in their time.

Literal throne at a literal place at a literal time.

 

[John of Japan]

Just to be clear, fellow Bible students, I'm talking about the throne of David as an equivalent kingdom rule. Therefore, it means someone in the lineage of David (that's Jesus all over) ruling over Israel. That does not limit the rule of Jesus to Israel. Christ will conquer the world at His second coming, so He will rule it as well as Israel. Alexander the Great did not cease to be the king of Greece when he conquered the world.

Will it be a literal king's chair? I believe it will. Will it be the literal king's chair of David? It could be. God certainly could do that. Whether it is or not, it will be a genuine reign like David on a genuine throne, one you can sit on, as Christ Himself said: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats" (Matt. 25:31-32).

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.

Why did Jesus say “NOW is my kindgom
Not from hence”

 

[agedman]

Why did Jesus say “NOW is my kindgom
Not from hence”

He brings the kingdom to establish rule on earth.

He does not come into a kingdom as one who ascends to a thrown by birthright.

 

[David Kent]

So where is David's lteral throne at the present time?

 

[Aaron]

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?

Yeah, I'm a Gnostic.

Boo! Did I scare ya?

 

[kyredneck]

reading the NT back into the OT--unacceptable hermeneutics.

Wow. Totally opposite of the 'hermeneutic' I operate from.

The New is in the Old Concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed.

 

[kyredneck]

the throne of David, the actual King David of Scripture.

So who's gonna be 'literally' sitting on the 'literal' throne of David? Christ? Or 'literally' David?

24 And my servant David shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in mine ordinances, and observe my statutes, and do them.
25 And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, they, and their children, and their children`s children, for ever: and David my servant shall be their prince for ever. Ezek 37

 

[kyredneck]

FYI, JoJ has me on ignore, but I know that he peeks, he can't help but to.

 

[John of Japan]

Yeah, I'm a Gnostic.

Boo! Did I scare ya?

Well of course you're not a Gnostic. I never thought for a second you were! But you sure talked like one.

 

[John of Japan]

So where is David's lteral throne at the present time?

The actual king's chair? Tell me who would know besides David or Jesus. But that's not the point of this thread, if that's what you mean.

The Davidic Covenant had two parts. Know what they are?

 

[percho]

Just to be clear, fellow Bible students, I'm talking about the throne of David as an equivalent kingdom rule. Therefore, it means someone in the lineage of David (that's Jesus all over) ruling over Israel. That does not limit the rule of Jesus to Israel. Christ will conquer the world at His second coming, so He will rule it as well as Israel. Alexander the Great did not cease to be the king of Greece when he conquered the world.

Will it be a literal king's chair? I believe it will. Will it be the literal king's chair of David? It could be. God certainly could do that. Whether it is or not, it will be a genuine reign like David on a genuine throne, one you can sit on, as Christ Himself said: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats" (Matt. 25:31-32).

Permit me to ask, maybe off topic yet maybe not.

Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: Acts 2:29 KJV Acts 13:36

And after my skin is destroyed, this I know,
That in my flesh I shall see God, Job 1926

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 1 Cor 15:51-64

Will David, in his flesh, see God? When? Will he have anything to do with ruling Israel, whether sitting or standing ?

 

[Aaron]

Will it be the literal king's chair of David? It could be. God certainly could do that. Whether it is or not, it will be a genuine reign ...

Lol, "Throne = reign." a tacit admission that the chair is really a symbol.

But Christ has already conquered the world. 1 John 5:4 . (I bet you even sing that song.) And we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. Romans 8:37 .

Christ asked the Jews, "Whose son is Messiah?" They answered, David's. Christ said, "Haven't you read that David said, 'The LORD said unto my Lord, sit on my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool'? If David calls Him, Lord, how is He his son?" Because, Jesus isn't really David's son. According to the flesh, He was known as the Son of David, but now that He died and rose again, we henceforth know Him no more after the flesh. 2 Corinthians 5:16 .

In short, David's throne was always Christ's. David just borrowed it. It pointed to Christ's rule over the household of faith and victory over the world. NOT a reestablishment of earthly, temporal rule and setting up one family of the earth over the others, and reactivation of butchery as a mode of worship.

What a small, inglorious thing you guys are looking forward to.

 

[kyredneck]

Jesus isn't really David's son

David's throne was always Christ's

5 and one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not; behold, the Lion that is of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath overcome to open the book and the seven seals thereof. Rev 5

Outstanding post Aaron. Well articulated.

 

[Covenanter]

We've been through this before. In fact, I did a whole thread on figures of speech once. If it is a figure of speech we exegete it as such. If it is not a figure of speech, it is literal. That is how we humans communicate, and we got that from God, who invented language.

That is a serious misunderstanding. Scripture is both history & typology, literal & figurative. All Scripture is subject to interpretation with respect to God's purposes in Christ.

Rather, we should look for the relevance of prophecy to the immediate hearers, & then look for its fulfilment in the life & ministry of the LORD Jesus Christ.

I did this, and no non-literalist on this thread has answered me yet. Every single mention of the throne of David until Is. 9 was a literal meaning. So how did it suddenly become metaphorical in Is. 9?

Who said "metaphorical?" You! We are dealing with what Hebrews calls "examples & shadows" - Heb 8:5 - and what Isaiah calls "signs and symbols" - Isaiah 8:18. Start reading Isaiah 9 from 8:1 through to 9:7 and you will see that the whole passage is figurative - Israel is in darkness, Messiah will bring light.

Clear instruction & prophecy is given in figurative language. Figurative language so easy to understand that you call it "literal." Isaiah's baby is given a significant name, as was Ahaz' baby "Immanuel." - 7:14.

Here is the BDB Hebrew lexicon definition of the Hebrew word for throne:

"1) seat (of honour), throne, seat, stool
1a) seat (of honour), throne
1b) royal dignity, authority, power (figuratively)"
This is all irrelevant to my OP. I wish someone would actually answer the OP.

Why do you reject the obvious meaning in the passage - 1b? It agrees with what I wrote - "The concept of sitting on a throne is partly figurative - a king doesn't need to sit on a throne to be king - it is a sign of office."

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."

Once again my point: v. 6 is held to be literal by all. So why do some interpret v. 7 as symbolic, with no actual throne/reign of David for the Messiah?

Excellent! That was the intent.

Peter answers you in Acts 2 -

29 ‘Fellow Israelites, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30 But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31 Seeing what was to come, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead, nor did his body see decay. 32 God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of it. 33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,

‘“The Lord said to my Lord:
‘Sit at my right hand
35 until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.’”

36 ‘Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah.’
​

How can you maintain that our glorious Saviour God, our LORD Jesus Christ, King of kings & LORD of lords, will leave his heavenly throne to sit on a physical throne in an earthly city?

 

[John of Japan]

Lol, "Throne = reign." a tacit admission that the chair is really a symbol.

Yes, a metaphor for "reign." How have I said any different? I thought everyone knew that from the OP.

But Christ has already conquered the world. 1 John 5:4 . (I bet you even sing that song.) And we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us. Romans 8:37 .

You're mixed up. Spiritual victory does not equal physical victory. In the providence of God, Satan is currently the ruler of the physical earth. "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2).

Christ asked the Jews, "Whose son is Messiah?" They answered, David's. Christ said, "Haven't you read that David said, 'The LORD said unto my Lord, sit on my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool'? If David calls Him, Lord, how is He his son?" Because, Jesus isn't really David's son. According to the flesh, He was known as the Son of David, but now that He died and rose again, we henceforth know Him no more after the flesh. 2 Corinthians 5:16 .

2 Cor. 5:16 proves none of what you are trying to say. It's your pseudo-Gnosticism surfacing again. That verse does not mean that there is no longer anything physical about Christ. That would be heresy. He still has human DNA, as proven by His scars received on earth, and it is still the DNA of His physical ancestor David.

In short, David's throne was always Christ's. David just borrowed it. It pointed to Christ's rule over the household of faith and victory over the world.

So far I agree.

NOT a reestablishment of earthly, temporal rule and setting up one family of the earth over the others, and reactivation of butchery as a mode of worship.

Now I have no idea what you are talking about. "Reactivation of butchery as a mode of worship"? Really?

What a small, inglorious thing you guys are looking forward to.

Are you kidding me? Jesus ruling the world is "small" and "inglorious"???? That's sacrilegious.

The 1000 year reign of Christ will be glorious and huge. It will glorify God in so many ways. How could it possibly be "small, inglorious"?

 

[John of Japan]

That is a serious misunderstanding. Scripture is both history & typology, literal & figurative. All Scripture is subject to interpretation with respect to God's purposes in Christ.

Um, that's pretty much what I said.

Who said "metaphorical?" You! We are dealing with what Hebrews calls "examples & shadows" - Heb 8:5 - and what Isaiah calls "signs and symbols" - Isaiah 8:18.

Please look up "metaphorical" in the dictionary. You are misunderstanding the meaning of the word.

Start reading Isaiah 9 from 8:1 through to 9:7 and you will see that the whole passage is figurative - Israel is in darkness, Messiah will bring light.

You are once more missing the point of the OP. Do you actually think that the prophecy of the incarnation in Is. 9:6 is not literal? Do you believe that Jesus is not a "Wonderful Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace"?

Clear instruction & prophecy is given in figurative language. Figurative language so easy to understand that you call it "literal." Isaiah's baby is given a significant name, as was Ahaz' baby "Immanuel." - 7:14.

Okay, so the prophecies of Christ's first coming were not literal? He was not born of a virgin at Bethlehem, did not flee with His family to Egypt, etc., etc.????

Why do you reject the obvious meaning in the passage - 1b? It agrees with what I wrote - "The concept of sitting on a throne is partly figurative - a king doesn't need to sit on a throne to be king - it is a sign of office."

You are once again being insulting, the reason I put you on ignore before. You are accusing me of rejecting Scripture. That is a terrible accusation to make, and untrue. Rejecting your interpretation is not rejecting Scripture.

How can you maintain that our glorious Saviour God, our LORD Jesus Christ, King of kings & LORD of lords, will leave his heavenly throne to sit on a physical throne in an earthly city?

Because that's what the Bible maintains in Is. 9:7 and many, many other passages. Do you somehow think that a physical throne is evil, or not worthy of Christ after His wonderful incarnation, becoming human?

Also, simply because Christ will sit on David's throne does not mean he is no longer King of the Kingdom of God. That's pretty obvious to me.