What Throne Is Jesus Currently Seated Upon? Part 1
A brief examination of Acts 2:29-36 and its eschatological implications
Introduction
The question of whether or not the risen and ascended Lord Jesus currently sits upon David’s throne in fulfillment of the promises of God in the Davidic covenant continues to be an important point of discussion in matters of eschatology. And while covenant theologians answer this question in the affirmative, dispensational theologians deny it.
This article will attempt to offer a perspective on Acts 2:29-36 from a covenantal and amillennial perspective. Amillennialism—commonly traced back to the views promoted by Augustine in his City of God in the forth century—is a view of the end-times which believes that the millennium of Revelation 20 began at the resurrection and ascension of Christ. This view also necessarily believes that Christ’s heavenly reign is his millennial reign. And contrary to the claims of its sharpest critics, amillennialism does not deny the existence of a millennial reign of Christ. Instead amillennialism promotes Christ as reigning now. In other words, amillennialism affirms that Christ is King!
For the credibility of amillennialism, the dispensationalist claim which says ‘the Bible no where teaches that Christ is currently reigning on the Davidic throne’ needs to be addressed seriously and, more importantly, biblically (truth be told, this claim has been answered and addressed many times over by able defenders of amillennialism). But if this claim is in fact true, then amillennialism has a huge theological problem. Proponents of this claim will say that it is impossible for Christ to be currently seated upon the Davidic throne because the Bible teaches that this enthronement will happen in the ‘literal, earthly millennium,’ which is to be preceded by the ‘Rapture of the church’ and the ‘seven-year Great Tribulation.’ And since these events have not yet occurred, they will say that Christ cannot possibly be seated upon David’s throne at this time. On this view, Jesus’ Davidic enthronement is still yet future according to the Bible’s own end-times prophetic calendar of events. And according to their system, they are right. If dispensationalism has gotten the end-times calender correct, amillennialism is necessarily false and unbiblical.
More to the point for the present article, if the the dispensationalist teaching on Christ’s current heavenly enthronement is correct, amillennialism has been debunked. But I would like to offer a humble response to this charge so commonly presented against amillennialism. And in order to do that, it is my contention that one New Testament passage in particular—and a few others which corroborate it—will be sufficient to support amillennialism’s claim that Jesus is currently reigning as King over God’s people as He is currently seated and enthroned upon the Davidic throne in heaven. And this means that dispensationalism’s claim about Jesus’ delayed, literal, and future earthly millenial kingdom may need to be reevaluated.
Peter’s Sermon, Acts 2:29-36
It is my contention that dispensationalism needs to reckon with a few verses in Acts chapter 2. Not only is Peter’s Pentecost sermon faomus and well-known, it is a wonderfully rich passage which covers the purpose of God in Christ for the redemption of sinners. And he ends the sermon with important eschatological implications. Beginning in verse 29, Peter confidently states:
29 “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,
“‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Acts 2:29-36 (ESV)
Here at the end of his sermon, Peter seems to say that Jesus is now currently seated upon David’s throne from the heavenly places. And by citing Old Testament messianic prophecies, he says that Jesus is the long-awaited Davidic King. Peter does not say that Jesus is soon to be King (at some future time), but that Jesus is King now. And if this was true in the first century according to an apostle of our Lord Jesus himself, it must certainly be true today! Peter draws attention to David’s prophectic announcement that this would take place. He identifies David as a “prophet” (vs 30), who “foresaw and spoke about the resurrection” of Jesus (vs 31), who is now “therefore exalted at the right hand of God” (vs 33). All this is brought to a head when Peter identifies Jesus as David’s son and David’s Lord from Psalm 110:1 and shows that Jesus’ ascension entails his Davidic enthronement. But let’s hear from some other important voices on the matter before drawing a definitive conclusion.
Acts 2:29-36, Exegesis And Interpretation
There is certainly much to unpack from the passage in Acts 2:29-36, but the aim of the essay is narrow, so I will keep the quotations relevant to the main issue at hand. Below are quotations dealing with exegesis and interpretation in favor of the amillennial position.
John Gill
Gill’s comments on Acts 2:30 are brief, but he says this passage teaches that Jesus is seated “on the throne of David his father.” But the commentary sends the reader to Gill’s comments on Luke 1:32 where he offers a more detailed explanation of Christ’s present enthronement:
“Christ, as God, is the Son of God, as man, the son of David; a name often given to the Messiah, and by which he was well known among the Jews; and as Christ descended from him as man, in a literal sense, he had a right to the throne of his father David; and the Jews themselves say, that he was … "nearly allied to the kingdom": but here it intends not his throne, in a literal, but in a figurative sense; for as David was a type of the Messiah in his kingly office, hence the Messiah is called "David their king", (Hosea 3:5) so his throne was typical of the Messiah's throne and kingdom; which is not of this world, but is in his church, and is set up in the hearts of his people, where he reigns by his Spirit and grace; and this is a throne and kingdom "given" by the Lord God. The kingdom of nature and providence he has by right of nature, as the Son of the Highest; the kingdom of grace, or the mediatorial kingdom, the kingdom of priests, or royal priesthood, is a delegated one; his Father has set him as king over his holy hill of Zion; and he is accountable for his government to him, and will one day deliver it up complete and perfect.”
So Gill sees Christ as presently reigning on David’s throne due to the nature of typology and the foward-looking aim of the old covenant scriptures. Gill sees the fulfillment of the promise to David as not demanding a literal, earthly fulfillment because that would be insufficent to see the grander, spiritual fulfillment of God’s promise. Interesting to note is Gill’s proof-text of Hosea 3:5, which he sees as fulfilled not in a future earthly, millennial kingdom-reign of Christ, but rather as being already fulfilled in the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord.
Matthew Poole
Poole’s comments are also insightful. Poole predated Gill by a century or so, but it is clear that Gill’s comments are in line with this interpretative tradition. And just like Gill’s commentary, Poole’s commentary sends the reader to his comments on Luke 1:31 where we find these words,
“…not the temporal kingdom, but the spiritual kingdom over the same people over whom David ruled, from whom he is descended. It appeareth from many passages in the prophets that David’s kingdom was a type of Christ’s … and also distinguishes the kingdom of Christ from all kingdoms of the world, which all shall have their periods; and also assures us of the continuance of the gospel church, which is Christ’s kingdom, till his kingdom of glory be revealed; and this agreeth with the prophecies of the Old Testament, concerning the kingdom of the Messiah, and the typical kingdom of David, Psalm 145:13 Isaiah 9:7 Daniel 7:14 Micah 4:7.”
What Poole says here is clear: David’s kingdom was a type of Christ’s kingdom, and Christ’s kingdom reign offically began at Christ’s ascension to the heavenly throne at God’s right hand. Note Poole’s prooftexts in particular of Isaiah 9:7 and Daniel 7:14. These are classic Old Testament passages which teach the future (according to the prophets) kingdom of the Messiah. And Poole and Gill both identify this kingdom as being inaugurated with Christ’s first coming rather than the second.1
Excursus: Luke 1:31-33; 2 Samuel 7:13
In Luke 1:31-33, the angel Gabriel tells Mary that the son she will bear is David’s kingly successor. Mary’s son will ascend the throne of his father David, and his kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom (here, Gabriel undoubtedly alludes to the messianic prophecies of Daniel 2:44 and 7:14). The note on Luke 1:32 in the ESV Study Bible says, “[Jesus] is the promised successor to the throne of David (see 2 Sam. 7:12-13, 16).” And the notes in the Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible on Luke 1:31-33 say essentially the same thing, identifying the reference to “the throne of his father David” in verse 32 with Christ as current Davidic King.
So it appears that the doctrine of Christ’s messianic, Davidic kingdom reign, in the redemptive-historical biblical theology of Luke-Acts itself, identifies Christ’s present heavenly session on the throne as direct fulfillment the promise of God to David in 2 Samuel 7:13. A helpful one-page article entitled ‘The Son of David’, which deals with this promise of God to David, can be found on page 441 of Reformation Heritage KJV Study Bible. This article affirms Jesus as “the true son of David,” and says that “in Jesus Christ God was faithful to this promise [found in 2 Sam 7:13] to David.” Again, the implication is clear: Jesus’ messianic enthronement upon David’s throne began at Christ’s ascension.
Back to Acts 2
Returning now to Acts 2:29ff., the claim made by dispensationalists that Christ could not possibly be on throne of David right now begins to weaken. To be sure, they have plenty of their own theological assumptions which inform this conclusion. But the biblical text itself should be allowed to speak on its own.
Allow me to be briefly summarize what has been said thus far.
First, in Acts 2, Peter seems convinced that the crucified, resurrected, and ascended Lord was currently seated upon his father David’s throne in the heavenly places. This is specifically seen in verse 33. So, Acts 2:29-35 is apostolic commentary, interpretation, and theological implications of the sufferings and glory of the now ascended Lord.
Second, this heavenly enthronement was in direct fulfillment of God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 7 as made clear by the angel Gabriel in speaking to Mary. God promised David an eternal successor to his throne who one day would reign forever. The Old Testament (and the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1) tells us that all but one of David’s sons died, never to be resurrected. But Jesus, David’s son and David’s Lord (Ps 110:1), would be resurrected to life forever and therefore be an eternal king.
And thirdly, we’ve seen witness of multiple sources commenting on these passages comming to the same conclusion. Though subsequent commentators are not infallible, their conclusions seems to be in line with the testimony of the scriptures themselves. In particular, these later commentators are simply agreeing with the apostles’ own theological conclusions.
A Few More Quotations
Before we conclude Part 1, I would like to present a few more quotations regarding Acts 2:29-35 and its implications regarding Jesus’ present kingly enthronement.
Cornelus Venema
In response to common dispensational teaching that kingdom was initially offered the Jews during Jesus’ earthly ministry but was retracted and postponed until the time of the earthly, millennial kingdom, Cornelus Venema says,
“Peter, in his sermon at Pentecost, claimed that with God’s raising of Jesus from the dead, ‘all Israel’ was to acknowledge that ‘God has made him both Lord and Christ’ (Acts 2:33-36). Christ is the Davidic King to whom the nations will be given as his rightful inheritance (see Acts 4:24-26). … Christ now reigns [as Davidic King] upon the earth through his Spirit and Word and manifests his kingly rule primarily through the gathering of his church from all tribes and peoples of the earth.” (Cornelus Venema, The Promise of the Future, 270-271)
O. Palmer Robertson
In his book Christ of the Covenants, Robertson gives a masterful and succinct treatment of the Davidic covenant and its subsequent fulfillment in Christ. Even more helpful is his direct response to the dispensationalist pushback (he notes John Walvoord’s claims in particular in the footnotes). In his chapter on the Davidic covenant, Roberston says,
In Acts 2:30-36, Peter indicates specifically that because David knew that God would seat one of his descendents on his throne, he spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah. In accord with the general New Testament approach, Peter binds together Jesus’ resurrection-ascension-session at God’s right hand as a single act of exaltation. God “raised” him, “exalted him” to his right hand, and :made him Lord and Messiah.” It is this unified act of exaltation that established Jesus to be the promised Messiah, the anointed King, the successor the David.” (O. Palmer Roberston, The Christ of the Covenants, 252)
Conclusion
In conclusion to Part 1, it seems that the dispensational teaching of a delayed kingdom—to be one day inaugurated in the supposed literal, earthly millennium—is difficult to see from a biblical perspective. Conversely, from a non-dispensational reading, the Bible itself seems to make a clear case that Jesus’ current heavenly enthronement marks the fulfillment of God’s promise in the Davidic covenant that David’s son would have possess a kingdom everlasting. According to amillennialism, Christ’s kingly Davidic reign has not been delayed as some have often claimed, but in fact it has already begun; and Christ’s kingdom will one day fully and finally be consummated after all his enemies are put under his feet in an act of total, kingly dominion (1 Cor 15:23ff.).
Let all the earth rejoice, Christ is King!
1 Give the king your justice, O God,
and your righteousness to the royal son!
2 May he judge your people with righteousness,
and your poor with justice!
3 Let the mountains bear prosperity for the people,
and the hills, in righteousness!
4 May he defend the cause of the poor of the people,
give deliverance to the children of the needy,
and crush the oppressor!5 May they fear you while the sun endures,
and as long as the moon, throughout all generations!
6 May he be like rain that falls on the mown grass,
like showers that water the earth!
7 In his days may the righteous flourish,
and peace abound, till the moon be no more!8 May he have dominion from sea to sea,
and from the River to the ends of the earth!
9 May desert tribes bow down before him,
and his enemies lick the dust!
10 May the kings of Tarshish and of the coastlands
render him tribute;
may the kings of Sheba and Seba
bring gifts!
11 May all kings fall down before him,
all nations serve him!Psalm 72:1-11 (ESV)
Categorically speaking, neither Gill nor Poole would fit within the “amillennial” camp of eschatology,. One reason is that they both promoted a form of millennialism (today this goes by the name “pre-millennialism”). But the point to be made here is this: although these men were premillennialists, they nonetheless saw a primarily spiritual fulfillment of the millennial kingdom reign of Christ. They would be better categorized under a loose heading of “historic” or “covenantal pre-millennialism.” This is something quite significantly different from modern-day “dispensational pre-millennialism.” Another reason they would not fit within the “amillennial” camp is that to use this sort of terminology to describe their eschatology would anachronostic—the term didn’t exist at that time. The term “amillennial” is relatively recent, historically speaking.