siti
Well-Known Member
About 3000 years or so ago, according to tradition, God made a promise to King David that is recorded in 2 Samuel 7:8-17.
Through Nathan the Prophet, God tells David
That looks pretty unconditional - it even allows for David's seed to "commit iniquity" (in the time-honored tradition of Kings including their own forefather David of course) without losing the throne.
Of course it didn't really turn out like that - no sooner had the priestly hands of Zadok plonked the crown on the head of David's immediate "seed" Solomon, than he started to "commit iniquity" by doing exactly what God had (reportedly) told him not to do. (Compare, for example, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and 1 Kings 10:14-29). As a result, the record claims, God told him the Kingdom was to be ripped away from him (1 Kings 11:11) - only about 50 years after the promise He had made to David.
Now 50 years doesn't sound very much like "for ever" - but at least a little bit of the Kingdom remained under the Davidic line until about the end of the 5th century BCE when Jerusalem was sacked by Nebuchadnezzar. By my reckoning that means the "unconditional" covenant lasted for about 4 centuries - still quite a bit short of "for ever" - and was then terminated.
Ah! You say, but "David's seed" is not about Solomon or even natural Israel, it is about the Messiah. Well OK then - but what was all the stuff about the temple and building a house for God and all that? Why did Solomon (under inspiration presumably) think it was about him (2 Chronicles 6:16-17)?
Aha! You say (adding an extra a for emphasis) but there - see that last bit in verse 16:
That's why they "lost" the right to be Kings in David's line - because they didn't "walk in [God's] law" (unlike David which presumably means they were not lying, cheating, philandering and murderous tyrants but that's a story for another day). And that's why Jesus announced:
"Behold! Your house is left unto you desolate"
(Matthew 23:38; 1 Kings 9:5-8).
Ooh! (by way of a change from ah!) That puts a different slant on it altogether. That version of the covenant in 1 Kings 9 is not unconditional at all is it? It clearly says:
So now I must confess, I'm confused.
If the Covenant was unconditional, why was it "ripped away" from David's descendants on account of their "iniquity"? And why is there not still a King of Israel from David's line to this day?
And if it was conditional, how can anyone hundreds or thousands of years later legitimize a claim to the throne on the basis of being a descendant of David?
(I'm sure - if anyone is still there this far down an original post - you can see the dilemma - especially if you are a Christian).
Supplementary question: Are God's promises really worth the parchment they were written on?
Through Nathan the Prophet, God tells David
"I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee."
That looks pretty unconditional - it even allows for David's seed to "commit iniquity" (in the time-honored tradition of Kings including their own forefather David of course) without losing the throne.
Of course it didn't really turn out like that - no sooner had the priestly hands of Zadok plonked the crown on the head of David's immediate "seed" Solomon, than he started to "commit iniquity" by doing exactly what God had (reportedly) told him not to do. (Compare, for example, Deuteronomy 17:14-20 and 1 Kings 10:14-29). As a result, the record claims, God told him the Kingdom was to be ripped away from him (1 Kings 11:11) - only about 50 years after the promise He had made to David.
Now 50 years doesn't sound very much like "for ever" - but at least a little bit of the Kingdom remained under the Davidic line until about the end of the 5th century BCE when Jerusalem was sacked by Nebuchadnezzar. By my reckoning that means the "unconditional" covenant lasted for about 4 centuries - still quite a bit short of "for ever" - and was then terminated.
Ah! You say, but "David's seed" is not about Solomon or even natural Israel, it is about the Messiah. Well OK then - but what was all the stuff about the temple and building a house for God and all that? Why did Solomon (under inspiration presumably) think it was about him (2 Chronicles 6:16-17)?
Aha! You say (adding an extra a for emphasis) but there - see that last bit in verse 16:
"...yet so that thy children take heed to their way to walk in my law, as thou hast walked before me."
That's why they "lost" the right to be Kings in David's line - because they didn't "walk in [God's] law" (unlike David which presumably means they were not lying, cheating, philandering and murderous tyrants but that's a story for another day). And that's why Jesus announced:
"Behold! Your house is left unto you desolate"
(Matthew 23:38; 1 Kings 9:5-8).
Ooh! (by way of a change from ah!) That puts a different slant on it altogether. That version of the covenant in 1 Kings 9 is not unconditional at all is it? It clearly says:
"...if thou wilt walk before me, as David thy father walked, in integrity of heart, and in uprightness, to do according to all that I have commanded thee, and wilt keep my statutes and my judgments: Then I will establish the throne of thy kingdom upon Israel for ever, as I promised to David thy father, saying, There shall not fail thee a man upon the throne of Israel. But if ye shall at all turn from following me, ye or your children, and will not keep my commandments and my statutes which I have set before you, but go and serve other gods, and worship them: Then will I cut off Israel out of the land which I have given them; and this house, which I have hallowed for my name, will I cast out of my sight;"
So now I must confess, I'm confused.
If the Covenant was unconditional, why was it "ripped away" from David's descendants on account of their "iniquity"? And why is there not still a King of Israel from David's line to this day?
And if it was conditional, how can anyone hundreds or thousands of years later legitimize a claim to the throne on the basis of being a descendant of David?
(I'm sure - if anyone is still there this far down an original post - you can see the dilemma - especially if you are a Christian).
Supplementary question: Are God's promises really worth the parchment they were written on?
Last edited: