What is the throne of David that Jesus is supposed to sit on?

We remark, however, the perpetuity of the "throne of David." There shall be One who shall occupy it "thenceforth and ever." It is not a headship of the church; in which church there is "neither Jew nor Gentile." Such a place was never occupied by David. David was the sovereign of the Jewish nation. To rule over that nation is to sit on David's throne. To contend respecting any literal material throne, is but to trifle, and to degrade this theme. Even the place of the sovereign's presence is no essential of the question. Other revelations may determine that; but the thought here expressed is, that the very sovereignty which David exercised — the sovereignty over that very nation which had David for its king, shall come, in perpetuity, into Messiah's hands. Where his royal residence shall be is not in this prediction brought into question. The grand thought is, that the Wondrous One, whose names of majesty and glory are here given, shall exercise the very sovereignty that David held so long ago. Not until the nation be reconstituted, by the restoration of its scattered members, can this take place. Not until the nation, as a nation, has submitted to the true Messiah's sway, will "David's throne" be occupied as this prophecy reveals. The birth of the Sovereign is not necessarily his accession to the throne. The actual assumption of the reins of power — the actual exercise of such power — is not necessarily coeval with that which constitutes heirship and title to such power. Whatever Christ may be, or may not be, now unto the church; he surely does not now "sit on the throne of David" — he does not now exercise sovereignty over the nation of Jews. The nation is not yet subjected unto him.

At first sight one would take the expression ‘the throne of David’ to refer to David’s reign in around 1,000 BC. However, Luke uses this expression in a way that demonstrates how much wider its scope is. He tells us how Gabriel announced the coming of Christ as a Saviour, and then goes on to say: ‘He shall be great, and shall be called Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father’ (Luke 1:32). Clearly, in this verse, the ‘throne of David’ refers to the millennial reign of Christ. This is confirmed by the use of the name of ‘the Highest’ (or ‘Most High’), a title used for God in connection with the millennium. David’s reign foreshadowed the reign of Christ.

This time of Christ’s reign has not yet come. He has not yet taken his throne. At present, Christ is sitting on the Father’s throne (Rev. 3:21). When He subdues His enemies He will be sitting on the throne of David, the man of war (1 Chr. 28:3). Once the enemies are subdued He will reign as Solomon, the man of peace.

We have been seeing, both tonight and on former occasions, how Christ will "reign in Mount Zion and before his ancients gloriously." In what character does he possess this glory which will then be displayed? It is as the Son of David. Faith knows him to be the Son of David now; the One of whom it was said by the angel to his virgin mother, "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." (Luke 1:32-33.) What do we understand by this? A person once told me seriously, that his idea of those who held pre-millennial views was, that we believed the identical chair of state in which David sat — his literal throne — to be still somewhere in existence, and that in the millennium it would be occupied by Christ! I should not have ventured even to seem to trifle with the subject, and with your feelings, by repeating such a statement as this, had it not been made to me by an intelligent person, a minister of Christ. One need not, of course, disclaim such a thought. But if they be such ideas of premillennial doctrines as these, that lead our brethren to reject them — if this be what they understand by the personal reign, denouncing it, as they do, as a carnal expectation — why, then, on the one hand, we cannot be surprised at their opposition; while, on the other, it is to be regretted that they take no better pains to inform themselves what pre-millennial doctrines are. This only would I ask them, — What do they mean when they speak of "the throne of the Caesars?" How would any one understand the assertion that Louis Napoleon now occupies "the throne of the Bourbons and of Charlemagne?" Need we to explain to people that this means that he wields the authority once possessed by the Bourbons? - that he reigns over the country once ruled by Charlemagne? And what is meant in Scripture (for it is Scripture language, not ours) by Christ sitting on the throne of David? Surely it means that he is to exercise the authority once entrusted to David; that he is to rule over the nations of which David was king and lord. He is "of the seed of David according to the flesh." He was born "King of the Jews." And where Peter, speaking of the resurrection of Christ, quotes from David's words in Psalm 16, he thus explains them: "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," etc. (Acts 2:30-31.) So far from the death and resurrection of Christ setting aside his title and his claims as the Son of David, it was in resurrection that this title was to be verified — these claims fulfilled.

In the promise to David already quoted, God said, "I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more, as beforetime." Again, "Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever" (2 Sam. 7:10, 16). This promise has never been fulfilled to Israel; and the question is whether it is to have a literal fulfilment in their history, or a spiritual fulfilment in the Church. There is nothing in the prophecy that seems to point to the Church, nor anything in the Church that seems to point to the prophecy. Naturally interpreted, the promise is that Christ shall inherit the earthly power which David, as a mere imperfect type, wielded; that His throne shall be permanent; and that under his sway the security and blessing of Israel, only enjoyed in fading shadow before, shall truly commence.

That night Nathan received an important message. The Lord told Nathan that David thought of building Him a house, but that the Lord would build David a house. Then He promises him a son. "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever." Solomon is first in view, but he is only a type of Him, who said while on earth "a greater than Solomon is here." In Christ alone this great covenant-promise is to be fulfilled. Chastening for his offspring is announced, but a disannulment of the covenant is impossible, for God's gifts and calling are without repentance. "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 forever before thee, thy throne shall be established forever." More than that, this great covenant was confirmed by the oath of Jehovah. "Once I have sworn by My holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me" (Ps. 89:35-36). And when He was about to come, the Son of David according to the flesh, but also David's Lord, He who spoke these words to Nathan, it was divinely announced "the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David. And He shall reign forever and of His kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:32-33). That throne and that kingdom He has not yet received. He fills the Father's throne in the highest heaven, but all heaven and earth wait for the appointed time when He will come again to claim His crown-rights and receive the world-wide kingdom, which David in inspired songs of praise so often beheld (Ps. 72).

This is not connected here with the fact, "for he shall save his people from their sins," as in Matthew, where it was the manifestation to Israel of the power of Jehovah, of their God, in fulfilment of the promises made to that people. Here we see that He has a right to this name; but this divine title lies hidden under the form of a personal name; for it is the Son of man who is presented in this Gospel, whatever His divine power might be. Here we are told, "He" — the One who should be born — "should be great," and (born into this world) "should be called the Son of the Highest." He had been the Son of the Father before the world was; but this child, born on earth, should be called — such as He was down here — the Son of the Highest: a title to which He would thoroughly prove His right by His acts, and by all that manifested what He was. A precious thought to us and full of glory, a child born of a woman legitimately bears this name, "Son of the Highest" — supremely glorious for One who is in the position of a man and really was such before God.

But other things still were connected with the One that should be born. God would give Him the throne of His father David. Here again we plainly see that He is considered as born, as man, in this world. The throne of His father David belongs to Him. God will give it Him. By right of birth He is heir to the promises, to the earthly promises which, as to the kingdom appertained to the family of David; but it should be according to the counsels and the power of God. He should reign over the house of Jacob — not only over Judah, and in the weakness of a transitory power and an ephemeral life, but throughout the ages; and of His kingdom there should be no end. As indeed Daniel had predicted, it should never be taken by another. It should never be transferred to another people. It should be established according to the counsels of God which are unchangeable, and His power which never fails. Until He delivered up the kingdom to God the Father, He should exercise a royalty that nothing could dispute; which He would deliver up (all things being fulfilled) to God, but the royal glory of which should never be tarnished in His hands.

As far as the Jews are concerned in His blessings, He is as if He did not exist. It is blessedly true, as we Christians know, that God raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory of a new kind, altogether outside of prophecy, not David's throne in Zion, but God's throne in heaven. How absurd to confound with this the throne of David! David never reigned in heaven, and Christ does not reign on earth; and that theologians confound the two wholly different things is an error which not only makes their scheme fabulous, but lowers His glory and our hope from heaven to earth. The proper character of Christianity is lost, and Israel are naturally defrauded of their peculiar prospects.

14 It appears to me, that much of the crudeness of this pamphlet flows from ignorance of the true nature of the Gentile and Jewish dispensations. The throne of David and the throne of His glory are different things, doubtless; but let us see how this subject is pursued by the writer. "There must be," says he, "two comings in judgment; one before, one after the millennium: one to sit on the throne of David, the other on the throne of His glory." But His sitting on the throne of David is not His coming in judgment at all, but the consequence of His judgment of the Gentile nations. But, as proof of the distinction, he refers to the attendants of the Lord - "one," says he, "with His own glory and His saints, the other with the holy angels, and His Father's glory." The passage of Scripture in which this is spoken of furnishes no such distinction. He says, coming with His saints in His own glory is the first coming - coming with the angels in His Father's, the second; the first applying to judgment of antemillenarians. See Mark 8:38. I find, "Whosoever, therefore, shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Here, this so-called latter coming is expressly applied to those who have not owned Him during His humiliation; and the same observation may apply to Matthew 16:27. If it be alleged that this is at the raising of the rest of the dead, what shall we say to Luke 9:26? "For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the angels." And on the other hand, what shall we say, if we compare Jude, where He is said to come with ten thousand of His saints to execute judgment on similar offenders? And not only does the voice of the archangel and the trump of God minister to the raising of the dead in Christ at what this statement would call His first coming, but we are expressly told, in the epistle to the Thessalonians, that, when He comes, according to their views (on which we say nothing), antemillennially, when He shall come to be glorified in His saints, and admired in all them that believe, giving rest to those that have suffered with Him in His humiliation - the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels. It appears to me, that this also flows from ignorance of the plan and scope of Scripture, i.e., of the counsels of God in Christ our common Lord. But it proves neglect of Scripture. On the whole, a greater confusion of Scripture, and substitution of human conjectures and supposition, can hardly be supposed, than the latter part of the tract.

It is Messiah in His kingdom, not suffering on earth nor coming from heaven, but the rightfully reigning king of Israel, and hence later on designated as David, the true Beloved under whose sceptre the whole people will be once more re-united, never again to be divided by folly, never more to fall by idolatrous sin or any other.

He (not Mary) would be great, called "the Son of the Highest," a dignity far higher than could be given to Him by Mary, indeed an eternal dignity. Therefore the Lord God would give to Him the throne of His father David. First mentioned is His being Son of the Highest, His eternal deity; then Son of David, which involves His manhood, being born of Mary. David's throne will be given to Him in the Millennium, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob, with no other ever rising to take that throne. His kingdom will be perpetual (vs.32-33).