Judah's Scepter and the Throne of David

by

Philip du Nard

As we saw in the preceding study, the chief ruler was to come from the tribe of Judah and this is what is meant by Judah having the scepter.

We also saw that Judah was to hold the scepter until Christ came to assume it. While the traditional view accepts the fact that Christ will indeed assume it and rule, tradition does not accept the teaching that Judah has continuously held the scepter in any tangible way from Biblical times to the present. The historical record would, at first glance, seem to refute the promise and so theologians have tailored their interpretation of Holy Writ to this,

But when the historical clues of God's faithfulness are supplied, they still cannot then alter their tailored interpretation of Scripture which they adopted to get God out of a jam. It's too ingrained.

We might think it strange that, centuries later, the first king came from the tribe of Benjamin. God undoubtedly had his reasons but as subsequent scripture shows, Saul didn't work out so well and David, who was of the tribe of Judah, became king, first over Judah, and then over all Israel.

Saul became David's enemy and David's faith and endurance was severely tested for many years but finally, the Lord gave him the victory and established him on his throne and gave him rest from all his enemies. As students of the Bible know, a lot of space in the Scriptures is devoted to the story of David and how favored he was by God. He was to be the ancestor of Christ, the Messiah.

During this time of rest, David wanted to build a house for God and Nathan the prophet encouraged David in this but then God instructed Nathan to tell David that He, God, would build David a house instead, referring to his descendants and his throne. This is recorded in II Sam 7:1-11. This is also recorded in I Chron. 17

Then in verses 12-17, Nathan further declares, "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.
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.
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."

This is the sort of promise that has to sink in. If one reads the remainder of the chapter, it will be seen that David was overwhelmed and filled with awe that God would bestow such an eternal honor on him. God says David's, house, kingdom, and throne will last forever.

In I Chron. 28:4, David is quoted as saying, "Howbeit the LORD God of Israel chose me before all the house of my father to be king over Israel for ever: for he hath chosen Judah [to be] the ruler; and of the house of Judah, the house of my father; and among the sons of my father he liked me to make [me] king over all Israel:"

It should be plain to see from this utterance that David interpreted God's promise to him and his house to be the outworking of the earlier promise that father Jacob was inspired to bestow upon Judah. Where else would David have gotten the idea that God had chosen Judah to be the ruler? This lends support to the idea that the kingly line coming from Judah is what is meant by Judah having the scepter and not the existence of Judea as a political entity.

The Lord is contrasting Saul and David. Saul was king for awhile but fell out of divine favor and lost his throne. God is saying that even if David's descendants on the throne of Israel sin, God will punish them but the institution will still endure with a descendant of David remaining on that throne. He will not remove his mercy as he did from Saul. Thus, the throne would last forever. This certainly harmonizes with the view of Judah holding the scepter continuously until Christ comes to rule.

It all seems fairly straightforward. However, a superficial examination of historical events in the Bible has led students of the Scriptures to conclude that the promise does not mean what it sounds like, that the throne of David did come to an inglorious end due to national iniquity when the Babylonians came and upset things in 585 B.C., that it came to an end before Christ's first advent, to say nothing of His second, and that it will not be restored until Christ as the Son of David returns to reign and only then will the promise of an everlasting throne be realized. Or, sometimes the throne of David will be spiritualized and equated with the sovereignty that God has always had over creation in a lame attempt to reconcile appearances with the promise of continued existence. It will be said that Christ as the Son of David is ruling now as God. Certainly the deity of Christ and oneness with the Father is accepted by all Christians but Christ did not become the Son of David until several hundred years after it is believed that the Davidic throne came to end.

It is time to examine some more Scriptures to see how the promise determined what action God took towards David's descendants.

Upon David's death, his son Solomon assumed the throne in accordance with David's wishes. Solomon pleased God with his prayer for wisdom and the glory of Solomon's kingdom represented the height of Israel's national glory in Biblical times. But later in Solomon's reign, he departed from obedience to Jehovah, "loved many strange women," and, as a result, fell into idolatry and his reign became oppressive.

In  I Kings 11:9 we read: " And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,"

The judgment to follow is recorded in verses 11-13 "Wherefore the LORD said unto Solomon, Forasmuch as this is done of thee, and thou hast not kept my covenant and my statutes, which I have commanded thee, I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant. Notwithstanding in thy days I will not do it for David thy father's sake: [but] I will rend it out of the hand of thy son. Howbeit I will not rend away all the kingdom; [but] will give one tribe to thy son for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake which I have chosen."

Arguably, Solomon departed from faithfulness to God in a bigger and more outward way than did King Saul. Saul lost everything. God merely restricted Solomon's power, or actually, that of his son who was his successor. Why is that? Because God had made a promise to David. Solomon, as king, committed iniquity and so God punished him. But he did not take his mercy from Solomon as He took it from Saul.

God does not change and so this was to be the pattern thereafter. If, because of iniquity, there was to be a gap between the rule of one descendant of David and the rule of Christ, it might just as well have been at this point but, because of the promise, God says, in effect, no gap here.

The balance of chapter 11 describes how Jeroboam of the tribe of Ephraim was chosen to be king over the northern ten tribes of Israel and how the house of David was to have what was left. Chapter 12 describes the actual division into two kingdoms in the days of Rehoboam, son of Solomon.

What subsequent Bible history shows is that in the northern kingdom of ten-tribed Israel, it would not be uncommon for there to be a change from one dynasty or line of kings, to another. But in the southern kingdom of Judah, evil notwithstanding, there was only one dynasty or house, that of David.

In II Kings 8:16-19, Jehoram became king of Judah. He was wicked just like King Ahab of Israel who was an adversary to the prophet Elijah. But verse 19 says, "Yet the LORD would not destroy Judah for David his servant's sake, as he promised him to give him alway a light, [and] to his children. "

II Chronicles 21:5-7 expresses it a little differently: "Jehoram [was] thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: for he had the daughter of Ahab to wife: and he wrought [that which was] evil in the eyes of the LORD. Howbeit the LORD would not destroy the house of David, because of the covenant that he had made with David, and as he promised to give a light to him and to his sons for ever."

It should be plain to see that God dealt with the house of David differently than how he dealt with the house of Ahab.

In Psalm 89.the psalmist starts out the Psalm singing of the mercies and faithfulness of God and he evidently is specifically relating this to the enduring nature of David's throne as in verses 3-4,he restates the promise God made to him, "I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." David's throne was to be built up, or last, to all generations.

According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the Hebrew word that is translated as generations in this instance refers to a " revolution of time" which can be interpreted as an age or a generation. It is not the same word that is used when referring to "the generations of Noah," for example, or of any of the other patriarchs, which is a phrase often encountered in Scripture that is a reference to their descendants. Rather, it is the same word that the Psalmist uses when he writes in Psalm 33:11 that "The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations."

In interpreting this last quote, I think most Bible scholars who are not modernist theologians would agree that this means that God's Word and wisdom is applicable in every age or generation, including our own, no exceptions. Certainly there is great comfort for the Christian to know and believe that, according to the Scriptures, the thoughts of God's heart extends to our time and generation as well, and that we are thus not excluded and on our own.

Should we not be consistent and agree that David's throne was, according to the Scriptures, to be built up to all generations, including our own? Does not this glorify God more than the teaching that, contrary to the promise,there are a whole lot of generations where David's throne did not exist? This is not theological nitpicking. God's covenants and promises are foundational truths upon which our welfare depends.

There is more discussion of God's favor towards David starting at verse 20. Verses 28-37 declare, "My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make [to endure] for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments; Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my faithfulness to fail. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.It shall be established for ever as the moon, and [as] a faithful witness in heaven."

This is pretty emphatic language. Reference is made to the possibility of David's seed committing iniquity and in no uncertain terms we are informed that iniquity will invite punishment but not bring the throne to an end. Is there any iniquity in Christ? Certainly not! So we must not limit this glorious promise to the future reign of Christ.

So what do we do, conclude that David's throne exists only in the heavens in a vague, spiritual sort of way? The last part of the quote above said the throne would be"as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and [as] a faithful witness in heaven." The sun and the moon are in heaven, so to speak, but do the sun and the moon exist in the spiritual realm or are they entities that can be observed as a part of the physical universe? The latter, of course, is the case. This is how David's throne was to be. The sun and moon are faithful witnesses in heaven of God's glory. They would not be much use as witnesses if they existed only in the spiritual realm. They may not be universally recognized as declaring God's glory and the rainbow may not be believed by all to be a sign of the covenant God made with Noah after the flood but the point is, they are a part of the physical universe.

Likewise, David's throne, though not yet generally recognized for what it is, exists as a visible, functioning, earthly institution as a faithful witness of God's faithfulness.

How is it that Christian theologians have missed this down through the centuries? Perhaps the scripture that states, "[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter" expresses a principle that is involved here. God has concealed it until such time as it is appropriate to reveal it.

In the next article, we will examine what impact the fall of Jerusalem had on the throne of David and what the Scriptures have to say about what was to subsequently transpire.