by Alan Summers, Scotland
THE BASIS OF THE RIGHT TO REIGN
THE RIGHT TO REIGN – IS IT LITERAL?
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM
DEFINITIONS
The title of the chapter refers to Christ’s right to rule on the throne of David. In approaching this subject, I should define what I understand by these expressions. In this chapter I shall assume that Christ’s ‘right’ is to be distinguished from Christ’s suitability. The kings that succeeded to the throne of David were often unsuited to the responsibility of being king. Many were idolators. Some were faithless. Nevertheless, they had a ‘right’ to reign. This was because God promised that the kingdom David had established would be ruled by David’s seed. Hence by being David’s heir they had a right to reign. The right to reign was a hereditary right. It was transmitted by virtue of lineage, not aptitude.
What do we mean by the “throne of David”? It is perhaps a statement of the obvious that this is not a literal throne. The “throne of David” is an expression that refers to a position of authority given to David and his heirs to rule over the kingdom he established. Jeremiah uses the expression (or similar) repeatedly: “the throne of David” Jer.17.25; 22.2,4,30; 29.16; 36.30; “David’s throne” Jer.13.13; “David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel” Jer.33.17. The expression refers to the kings who followed David and ruled the kingdom he established. Since thrones are a symbol of royalty the expression is indicative not merely of leadership but regal authority. Unlike other forms of leadership kingship passes by dynastic succession from generation to generation.
THE KING OF ISRAEL
The first kings mentioned in Scripture ruled the ancient kingdoms of the Middle East, Gen.14.1. Kingship long pre-dated the foundation of the Davidic monarchy. The first king of Israel was Saul. Prior to his appointment Israel had been ruled in a variety of ways. To begin with, Moses provided leadership. He was primarily responsible for Israel’s internal affairs and its relationship with other nations. Aaron was responsible for the priesthood and Tabernacle. At the risk of oversimplifying matters, Moses provided secular leadership and Aaron provided spiritual leadership. The best description of this model of government is theocracy. It was ‘one nation under God’. Jehovah was its king, 1Sam.8.7; 12.12. Thereafter, leadership was supplied by men like Joshua and Caleb. Subsequently judges led the people. They were a mixture of freedom fighters and statesmen. It was not a very satisfactory period in Israel’s history.
After the restless era of the Judges the people began to see the advantage of unified leadership, Judg.17.6; 21.25. Although Jehovah saw their demands as a rejection of His authority, 1Sam.8.7,8; 12.12, it should not be thought that He rejected monarchical rule. In fact, the ascent of a king to the throne of Israel had long been foreseen. The Lord promised Abraham that kings would be among his progeny, Gen.17.6. Jacob prophesied that Judah would be the royal tribe, Gen.49.10. In the wilderness God laid down the conditions for the future kings of Israel: “When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, ‘I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;’ thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother” Deut.17.14,15.
The difficulty was that the people took matters into their own hands. Instead of waiting on God they clamoured for a king. Although God gave them what they wanted, it did not work well. Samuel anointed Saul, a Benjamite, 1Sam.9.21; 10.1. It did not take long for his weaknesses to become obvious. Samuel then anointed David, 1Sam.16.13; compare 2Sam.2.4; 5.3. Thereafter the crown passed to the tribe of Judah. David was, unlike Saul, a man after God’s own heart. As we shall see, God promised that his house would rule Israel forever.
After David’s death his son Solomon ruled. After his death Israel rejected the Davidic monarchy, 1Kgs.12.16-19. The ten tribes chose a descendant of Joseph, Jeroboam, to be king. His dynasty did not last long. His son was killed by Baasha, from the tribe of Issachar, 1Kgs.15.27, and the throne passed to his family. The short history of Israel’s monarchy is a story of bloodshed and idolatry. The throne changed hands regularly and Israel eventually fell to the Assyrians.
Judah, by contrast, retained the Davidic monarchy. This was no surprise. David was, after all, of the tribe of Judah. Benjamin was the only tribe that remained loyal to the Davidic throne. This may in part have been because its tribal territories were close to Jerusalem. Nevertheless, even though Saul had been a Benjamite, his tribe did not seek to challenge the right of David’s house to reign. Although Judah outlasted Israel it too eventually fell. Babylon conquered them and they went into exile in Babylon. The last Davidic king was Zedekiah, 2Kgs.25.3-7. No Davidic king has reigned over Judah since then.
After the Exile many Israelites returned and began the task of rebuilding Jerusalem and the Temple. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah chronicle the period after the return. Zerubbabel, their leader, 1Chr.3.19, was of Davidic descent. But he was only a “governor” Hag.1.14. The Persians did not permit a restoration of the monarchy and the throne of David remained vacant.
As the years rolled by, Persia’s power declined and Rome became the dominant power in the region. When the Lord Jesus was born, an Edomite (or Idumean) called Herod sat on a throne and, through his sons, controlled a group of mini-kingdoms called Judaea, Perea, and Decapolis. They were client states of the Roman Empire. Although Herod and his sons were styled ‘kings’, their power was limited.
THE BASIS OF THE RIGHT TO REIGN
The basis of David’s right to reign is found in a passage that has come to be known as the Davidic Covenant: “‘And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, 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 … but My mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.’ According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David” 2Sam.7.12,13,15-17. The covenant promised that after his death David’s seed would continue to reign over his kingdom. It was an eternal covenant, 2Sam.23.5; 2Chr.13.4,5.
If the covenant promised that David’s seed would reign over his kingdom, why did the kingdom split in two? If the covenant was eternal, why did the frontiers of David’s kingdom not hold? The explanation in part is that God made it clear that the promises in the Davidic Covenant were contingent on the faithfulness of David’s seed to God: “And the word of the Lord came to Solomon, saying, ‘Concerning this house which thou art in building, if thou wilt walk in My statutes, and execute My judgments, and keep all My commandments to walk in them; then will I perform My word with thee, which I spake unto David thy father: and I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake My people Israel’” 1Kgs.6.11-13. The Lord promised David that Solomon would establish his kingdom forever “if he be constant to do My commandments and My judgments, as at this day” 1Chr.28.7.
But God’s promises are never frustrated by faithlessness. While the Old Testament anticipated the failure of David’s natural seed, the prophets spoke of a day when another Heir would arise Who would be entirely faithful to God. Hence the Davidic Covenant would find its fulfilment in the Messiah rather than in the sinful sons of David.
A parallel can be seen in what is sometimes called the ‘Palestinian Covenant’. God promised Abraham that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan forever, Gen.13.15; Lev.26.14,32-42. Before they entered the Land this general promise to Abraham was refined. Israel was warned that if it disobeyed God, it would lose the Land, and that restoration would only occur if it repented and turned to God, Deut.29.9,25-28; 30.1-10. The invasions by Assyria and then by Babylon were the result of the Nation’s disobedience, 2Kgs.17.1-18; 24.1-25.11. The exile in Babylon was followed by a partial return. Even though there is a state called Israel today, it still has not recovered its inheritance. Scripture prophesies that national repentance will occur one day at the return of the Messiah. At that point Abraham’s promised inheritance will be enjoyed to the full.
THE MESSIAH
In the Old Testament there are a great variety of prophecies that show how God intended to fulfil the Davidic Covenant. In summary, they anticipate an heir of David who would succeed where David’s children failed.
Born to a Virgin
Isaiah spoke to king Ahaz and upbraided him for his infidelity. He prophesied that because “the house of David” would not heed God’s words another heir would arise. In his prophecy he anticipates the Messiah, Who would belong to David’s line but Who would also be “Mighty God”:
Isaiah says: “Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel’” Isa.7.13,14.
Later, he says: “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” Isa.9.6,7.
These two prophecies are part of the same oracle and describe the same Person. The Son born of a virgin would sit “upon the throne of David”. This shows that even before Judah went into exile God was looking forward to the day when kingship would be vested in the Son of God.
Born in the City of David
“But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” Mic.5.2; “Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Beth-lehem, where David was?” Jn.7.42.
Micah was a contemporary of Isaiah and prophesied when the Davidic dynasty was still in power in Judah. The identification of Bethlehem as the place from which the Messiah would come is consistent with the belief that the Messiah would be of the line of David. Bethlehem was David’s town of birth. His family had been there from the time of the Judges. His great-grandmother Ruth the Moabitess, Ruth 4.13-22, had married Boaz and settled in Bethlehem.
As the quotation above from John chapter 7 shows, the Jews thought that since the Lord Jesus came from Nazareth, in the region of Galilee, He could not be the Messiah. They did not know that He was born in Bethlehem, and raised in Nazareth. Micah’s prophecy supports the Davidic origins of the Lord Jesus.
Born after David’s House had Fallen
“And there shall come forth a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord” Isa.11.1,2.
The “stem” of Jesse is better translated “stump”. A stump is what is left after a tree has been felled. These words speak of the apparent end of Jesse’s family tree. Jesse is of course David’s father. When these words were written Ahaz, David’s heir, was still on the throne of Judah. These words anticipate the Exile, when Judah’s last king was deposed by Babylon. But the prophecy makes clear it would be a temporary cessation of power. Out of the stump a “Rod”, or “shoot”, would sprout. This aptly describes the five-hundred-year gap between the Exile and the birth of the Lord Jesus. When it seemed all hope of a king from David’s line had gone the Lord Jesus was born. He was a “Rod out of the stem of Jesse”.
THE BIRTH OF A NEW KING
The Lord Jesus is thought to have been born about 4 BC. Scripture proclaims that He was born “King of the Jews” Matt.2.2. The familiarity of the ‘Christmas’ story sometimes blinds us to the remarkable accompaniments of His birth. On the whole signs are not given to Gentiles. But when Jesus was born there was a visible sign to Gentiles in the star of Bethlehem. The Jews did not consult the heavens. The Old Testament forbade divination, Deut.18.9-14, which includes astrology, Isa.47.13; Deut.4.19; Jer.10.1,2. But other nations did. For one special event in history the God Who rules the heavens chose to reveal Himself where the pagans were looking. Most consider the Magi were from Babylon. These “wise men” from the East interpreted the new sign in the heavens as proof that a king had been born. They were the first to call Jesus “the King of the Jews” Matt.2.2. The two following quotations represent a cross section of opinion about this remarkable star:
“The orbits and conjunctions of planets could be calculated in advance by this time, and one explanation of the star whose rising they saw identifies it with the conjunction of the planets Jupiter (the star of the world ruler) and Saturn (the star of Palestine) in the constellation Pisces (the sign of the last days) in the summer and autumn of 7 BC. Whether this be so or not, their quest brought them (naturally) to Herod’s palace, where it caused great alarm.”1
- 1 Bruce, F.F. “Matthew” in “Open Your Bible Commentary”.
“It ought to be plain that this was not a star such as others that our astronomers observe and study. It appeared and then vanished; finally it reappeared, moved on before the magi, and then stood above where the child was in Bethlehem. No star such as we note in the distant skies could behave in this manner. What these magi saw was a startling phenomenon, shining brightly like a star but so low in the heavens that it could stand above a house and indicate it in distinction from other houses.”2
- 2 Lenski, R.C.H. “The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel.” Augsburg Publishing House, 1964.
The wise men went to the wrong place to begin with. They assumed that the King of the Jews would be born to the ruling house and so they went to Jerusalem. But Herod was not of David’s line. However,
Herod’s advisors knew that David’s ancestors came from Bethlehem, Matt.2.5,6. So they were sent to look for the King in Bethlehem. “Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Beth-lehem-judah, whose name was Jesse …” 1Sam.17.12.
“And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child” Lk.2.4,5.
There is no indication that Joseph or Mary saw themselves as heirs to the throne. Although both were of the tribe of Judah, Lk.1.27; 2.4, and belonged to the house of David, they were both obscure people. This is unsurprising. David had many heirs. The question was: which of these descendants would be the Messiah? The eligibility of the true “seed” was governed by Scripture. His qualifications were summarised as follows:
“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” Lk.1.32,33.
The Messianic heir to the throne of David would be “the Son of the Highest” as well as the “seed of David”.
THE SURVIVAL OF THE LINE
At this point it may be worth saying something about the line of succession. Genealogies occupy large portions of Scripture. They do not make easy reading and are seldom taken up in ministry. But they have an important place in God’s Word. They place the Bible’s record of human ancestry squarely in the realm of factual narrative. Although the genealogies of Scripture do not always supply every generational link and although there are difficulties in working out ‘who is who’ at times, their content and style is evidently that of factual narrative. They are emphatically not fictional or mythological. This is significant for a variety of reasons, not least because those that take the Lord’s ancestry back to Adam enable the reader to work out the approximate duration of human history. The genealogies that begin with Adam not only supply names but also life spans. From this information it is clear that man has not been on planet earth for millions of years and did not evolve from sub-human ancestors.
Three Post-Exilic Books contain extensive genealogies that cover the period of captivity: 2Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah contain ancestral trees of many people including that of David’s house.
In the so-called ‘Intertestamental Period’ there is strong evidence that Israel kept records of ancestry. Julius Africanus reported that Herod destroyed Jewish family archives, including those of the house of David, to prevent challenges to his own mixed pedigree:
“But as there had been kept in the archives up to that time the genealogies of the Hebrews as well as of those who traced their lineage back to proselytes, such as Achior the Ammonite and Ruth the Moabitess, and to those who were mingled with the Israelites and came out of Egypt with them, Herod, inasmuch as the lineage of the Israelites contributed nothing to his advantage, and since he was goaded with the consciousness of his own ignoble extraction, burned all the genealogical records, thinking that he might appear of noble origin if no one else were able, from the public registers, to trace back his lineage to the patriarchs or proselytes and to those mingled with them, who were called Georae.”3
- 3 Eusebius of Caesarea. “Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine.” Ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert. “A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume 1.” Christian Literature Company, 1890.
Josephus referred those who questioned his own pedigree to the public records. He was born in AD 37, shortly after the Lord’s death, and evidently had access to extensive genealogical records as appears from his book The Works of Josephus. In the extract below he describes them as the “public records”.
“Now, I am not only sprung from a sacerdotal family in general, but from the first of the twenty-four courses; and as among us there is not only a considerable difference between one family of each course and another, I am of the chief family of that first course also; nay, further, by my mother I am of the royal blood; for the children of Asamoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king, for a long time together I will accordingly set down my progenitors in order. My grandfather’s father was named Simon, with the addition of Psellus; he lived at the same time with that son of Simon the high priest, who first of all the high priests was named Hyrcanus. This Simon Psellus had nine sons, one of whom was Matthias, called Ephlias; he married the daughter of Jonathan the high priest; which Jonathan was the first of the sons of Asamoneus, who was high priest, and was the brother of Simon the high priest also. This Matthias had a son called Matthias Curtus, and that in the first year of the government of Hyrcanus: his son’s name was Joseph, born in the ninth year of the reign of Alexandra: his son Matthias was born in the tenth year of the reign of Archelaus; as was I born to Matthias in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar. I have three sons: Hyrcanus, the eldest, was born in the fourth year of the reign of Vespasian, as was Justus born in the seventh, and Agrippa in the ninth. Thus have I set down the genealogy of my family as I have found described in the public records, and so bid adieu to those who calumniate me [as of a lower original].”4
- 4 Josephus, Flavius, ‘‘The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unbridged’’. Hendrickson, 1980.
Although Matthew and Luke do not cite their sources, I think it is probable that they used the Jews’ genealogical records to trace the line of the Lord Jesus back through David. Luke supplies, as we shall see, a list of ancestors whose names do not feature in the Old Testament record.
In this connection, it is worth noting that lineages can be maintained over long periods of time. Although the lineage of David and the royal line terminates with the Lord Jesus, it is evident that other lineages will survive into the future. The twelve tribes of Israel will be identifiable during the Tribulation, Rev.7.4. In the end times there will be priests of Levitical stock, Ezek.44.9-31. How is that possible? Scientific research has shown that the DNA of the priesthood still survives. Studies carried out on those with a priestly surname, for example, Cohen, Kahane, have demonstrated a large percentage of common ancestry:
“These results support the hypothesis of a common origin of the CMH [Cohen Modal Haplotype] in the Near East well before the dispersion of the Jewish people into separate communities, and indicate that the majority of contemporary Jewish priests descend from a limited number of paternal lineages.”5
- 5 Hammer, Michael F. et al. “Extended Y Chromosome Haplotypes Resolve Multiple and Unique Lineages of the Jewish Priesthood” in “Human Genetics 126”, 2009.
THE KING OF THE JEWS
Genealogies matter when discussing the right of the Lord Jesus to the throne of David. The Lord Jesus claimed to be the King of Israel and His disciples believed He was their King, Matt.27.11; Lk.23.3; Jn.1.49; 12.13. They did so even though David’s ancestors no longer ruled Judah or Israel. They did so even though Joseph and Mary were not pretenders to the throne. They did so even though the Lord Jesus never challenged the Romans or the kings that ruled in Israel. Their belief that He was their King stemmed from a belief that He was the Messiah. The Lord Jesus fulfilled the criteria. He was a son of David. He performed miracles that attested to His Deity. He was wise and holy. The only puzzle for the disciples was that He did not set up an earthly kingdom. They knew that the Messiah was the One Who would “restore again the kingdom” Acts 1.6.
The Romans did not concern themselves with His teaching. They simply knew He was called “King” and as such He represented a threat to their power in the region. Hence at the end they wrote “King of the Jews” in the placard placed above His head at the cross, Matt.27.37. That He had never actively challenged Roman power or sought to topple Herod was not their concern. In fact, as the Lord’s ministry progressed He made it clear that He had come to establish a spiritual kingdom. He placed the realisation of an earthly kingdom in the future, at His return in glory.
THE LORD’S GENEALOGY
There are two genealogies in the New Testament: one in Matthew’s Gospel and one in Luke’s Gospel. They are different in length and have different starting points. Matthew’s main object is to show that He is Son of David, Matt.1.1. Luke’s main object is to show that He is Son of God and Son of Adam, Lk.3.38. Both genealogies place David in the Lord’s lineage, Matt.1.6; Lk.3.31.
The purpose of a genealogy is to show that there is a hereditary link between generations. Unless Matthew and Luke thought that Jesus had a hereditary link with the forebears mentioned in their genealogies, they would not have set them out. It has often been noted, however, that the genealogies between David and the Lord Jesus follow different lines. That is because there was no single line of succession.
In this connection it is necessary to notice that there was no law of primogeniture in the Old Testament. David was not Jesse’s eldest son. Solomon was not David’s eldest son. He was not even Bath-sheba’s eldest son. David’s first son, Amnon, was killed. His second son, Daniel (also called Chileab), is not mentioned as an heir, 2Sam.3.3; 1Chr.3.1. The Old Testament indicates that God was free to choose who should be king. Solomon was king by Divine appointment. He was chosen because God loved him, 2Sam.12.24,25; 1Chr.28.5. From this it is evident that the throne of David passed from generation to generation by a combination of hereditary right and Divine choice. That said it would appear that many of the later kings of Judah ascended the throne because they were the eldest son. But no Old Testament law established primogeniture. It follows from this that as the years passed David’s line proliferated. Hence it was legitimate for Luke to take a different line from Matthew. He was not bound to follow the succession of kings of Judah.
It is also evident that both genealogies run through male progenitors. Both genealogies are lists of male names. Although women are mentioned by Matthew they are not mentioned as part of the line. The only female mentioned by Luke is Mary, the final link in the chain. Matthew traces via David’s son, Solomon, and Luke traces via Nathan, another of David’s sons. Luke ignores the kings of Judah.
But these lines of succession through male heirs came to an end with the Lord Jesus. The Lord Jesus was born to a virgin, Matt.1.18-25; Lk.1.34,35. In other words, the male lines contributed nothing to the birth of the Lord Jesus. This finds expression in their genealogical account:
- “And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” Matt.1.16;
- “And Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli” Lk.3.23.
Had Matthew wished to assert that the Lord Jesus’ membership of the house of David came by Joseph he would have said, ‘and Joseph begat Jesus’. Instead, he refers to “Mary, of whom was born Jesus” making it clear that He had no natural connection to Joseph. Luke makes the same point in a different way. He says that people “supposed” Joseph to be Jesus’ father. Given his account of the virgin birth it is clear Luke is emphasising that this was a false supposition.
This creates a conundrum: if the line passes through the males and could not be transmitted by Joseph, in what way is He of the house and lineage of David? The answer is twofold:
First: Jesus’ legal father was of the house of David, Matt.1.20; Lk.2.4. I use the expression ‘legal’ father not to suggest that Joseph ever adopted Jesus. There is no indication that the Jews had a law of adoption (unlike the Romans). But he was His legal father in the sense that he stood in loco parentis. He was the head of the home in which the Lord Jesus grew up and he had responsibility for his family including the Lord Jesus. Matthew places the Lord Jesus in the line of David because Joseph took on the role of father.
Second: Luke emphasises another link. Luke shows that Mary was of the house of David: “And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary” Lk.1.26,27.
Although the words “of the house of David” may grammatically refer to Joseph, since he is the nearest antecedent of the words “of the house of David”, Mary is the person who is the subject matter of this section. Luke is explaining why the angel was sent to her. It seems clear to me that Luke is saying that Mary, like Joseph, was of the house of David. Some have thought that since Elisabeth was a “cousin” Lk.1.36, of Mary, and Elisabeth was a Levite and one of the daughters of Aaron, Lk.1.5, that Mary must also have been of Levitical stock. But this is not so. Elisabeth may have been Mary’s cousin but it does not follow that Mary’s parents were Levites. Her uncle or aunt may have married outside the tribe of Judah. In any event most translations do not accept that she was a full cousin and translate the word “kinswoman” J.N.D., or “relative” E.S.V.
The point is this: the “mother” of the Lord Jesus, Jn.2.1,3, was a member of the house of David. “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” Lk.1.31-33.
I do not consider that she simply carried the Lord Jesus. She “conceived” in her womb, Lk.1.31; 2.21. Conception refers to the commencement of human life and locates that commencement in the womb of the virgin. While this conception was given by the Holy Spirit, she was still the “mother” of the Lord Jesus. The details of how it was done are hidden from view. Without a human link to Mary, He would not have been the “seed of David” Rom.1.3; 2Tim.2.8. Moreover, He would not have been the “seed” of the woman, Gen.3.15; Gal.4.4, Who would bring salvation to the world. It is noteworthy that Luke says that Joseph was the “supposed” father of Jesus. This stresses that he had in fact no parental link to the Lord Jesus. His role was that of an adoptive parent. But Luke does not say that Mary was the ‘supposed’ mother of the Lord Jesus. In order to be “verily God, yet become truly human” He had to be Mary’s son. In order to be the descendant of David He had to have a link to Mary. In order to be the Messiah of Israel and the true heir to David’s throne He had to be the descendant of David.
THE RIGHT TO REIGN – IS IT LITERAL?
Some suggest that the Davidic Covenant was fulfilled when Jesus rose from the dead and sat on the throne in heaven. But this was not the prophets’ understanding of the promises to David. They spoke of a day when one of David’s sons would set up His throne in Israel and Judah and reign as David had done: “In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old” Amos 9.11. This promise is quoted by James in Acts chapter 15: “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” Acts 15.16.
Although some have thought that the “tabernacle” mentioned by Amos is a physical structure it is more likely that the “tabernacle” is the house of David, that is, his lineage. The Lord Jesus revived the line of Davidic kings. He revised it and completed it. There will be no other after Him. The “tabernacle” of David will be fully restored when He sets up His kingdom.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM
This chapter shows that when the Lord Jesus was born in Bethlehem, He was born a king. His right to reign depended on His lineage but also depended on His Messianic credentials. The line of succession to the throne in Jerusalem was interrupted at the Exile. But the seed lived on and was transmitted to Joseph and Mary. The Lord Jesus was the true “seed” that arose from the ruins of the tabernacle of David. The chapter that follows will show how the kingdom He established during His earthly ministry will one day take on a visible form and the Lord Jesus will rule over the kingdom of His father David and be the King of kings and Lord of lords. He alone will have the right to reign on the throne of David.