Post by Admin on Mar 31, 2024 11:52:27 GMT -5
The Promise of a Restored Kingdom
I. Introduction
1. The return of the Judean exiles and their labors in rebuilding the temple and restoring
Jerusalem were astonishing feats of divine providence, and they were achieved in fulfillment
of Yahweh’s word through His prophets. They were significant and crucially important in the
Lord’s purposes, but they didn’t fulfill His covenant promises to Abraham and David.
2. These circumstances provided a remedy to Israel’s physical exile, but didn’t address the
underlying and essential relational exile that was the cause of physical exile. That “exodus”
and restoration would not occur until Yahweh was reconciled to His people, and that
depended on actual satisfaction for their covenant infidelity and guilt.
3. Thus the post-exile prophets proclaimed Yahweh’s intent to return to Zion to deal fully and
finally with all that had alienated Him from His covenant children. He would return as
Redeemer and Healer, specifically in connection with the coming of His messianic servant.
4. And because that servant would be the son covenanted to David (the Branch), his redeeming
and reconciling work would see David’s house, throne and kingdom restored and Yahweh’s
own everlasting “house” constructed.
5. Most importantly, the prophets were clear that this new kingdom would transcend its former
Davidic form; Yahweh wasn’t going to revive the kingdom David presided over, but usher in
the ultimate, consummate kingdom the Davidic predecessor only portrayed and prefigured.
II. The Promise of a New Davidic Kingdom
A. An Everlasting Kingdom – The Realization of Righteousness
1. Unlike the Israelite theocracy, this renewed kingdom would endure forever (2 Sam. 7). It
would correspond to its predecessor as being Yahweh’s kingdom defined and governed by
His covenant with His subjects, and it’s precisely in that respect that the Israelite kingdom
could (and did) fail. The kingdom’s continuance depended on Israel’s faithfulness to the
covenant, so that it was Israel’s covenant violation that brought the kingdom to its end.
2. The implication, then, for the future kingdom is that its human subjects would prove
perpetually faithful to the covenant relationship once Yahweh had restored it. Moses
promised this cleansing and renewal of human hearts, and the prophets carried forward this
theme. * cf. Deut. 30:1-6 with Isa. 54; Jer. 32:36-41; Ezek. 36:16-27; Hos. 1-2
3. Thus the renewal of the covenant relationship would see the renewal of the covenant people;
they would become in truth the image-children that the covenant specified. And this is the
sense in which the renewed covenant would be “new”: It would be the realization in truth
and perfection of all that God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendents had purposed,
embodied and prescribed. * Jer. 31:31-34
4. This, then, explains how this new covenant and its administration would be defined by
righteousness. Righteousness is rightness: a thing’s conformity to its created nature and
function. Israel’s covenant with God prescribed their sonship on behalf of the creation, and
so covenant renewal would see realized the “righteousness” of authentic human sonship.
5. Most importantly, the prophets situated the messianic figure at the very center of all of this.
And, though they were unclear about his exact role in this covenant and kingdom renewal,
they associated him particularly with two key dynamics of it: The return of Yahweh as
Israel’s Redeemer, and the priestly remediation of Israel’s guilt and uncleanness. These
themes are especially prominent in Isaiah’s prophecy and find their focal point in Isaiah’s
servant theology and “servant songs” developed in chaps. 40-55.
a. Somehow, this individual would address both aspects of the exile. That is, he would
effect Yahweh’s return to Zion as Redeemer, but in order to liberate His captive people.
b. He would bring together both covenant parties, but in the true and ultimate sense. He
wouldn’t simply see them both return to dwell together in Zion as formerly, but would
fully reconcile them by fully resolving the alienation between them through his own
priestly mediation. * cf. Isa. 49:1-13, 53:1-54:17, 59:1-61:11
B. A New Kingship – The Davidic Priest-King
1. A new kingdom requires a new king, and the Scriptures (reflecting the Davidic Covenant)
identity this person as the covenant son of David. * Isa. 9, 11; Jer. 23, 30-33; Ezek. 34, 37
2. David was the great prototype of this son, and this includes his priestly quality as Yahweh’s
chosen king. This was noted above in relation to resolving the problem of exile and bringing
reconciliation, but Zechariah added to this depiction in two crucial ways, one directly and
the other by implication:
a. First, he associated this person’s regal and priestly ministration with the construction of
Yahweh’s sanctuary. The Lord’s Spirit was to be the power behind this work (4:1-9), but
David’s branch would carry it out as Yahweh’s enthroned priest (6:9-15).
b. But Zechariah’s action in crowning the high priest and his prophetic interpretation of it
also carried a startling implication: Yahweh intended to formally merge the kingship and
priesthood in this Davidic “branch.”
3. Considered in itself, a merging of the kingship and priesthood signaled the end of the
Israelite covenant structure, which held the two roles inseparably apart. There could be no
king-priest under the Sinai Covenant, for it granted the priesthood to Levi, whereas the Lord
had already assigned the kingship to Judah (Gen. 49:10).
a. Yahweh had pledged to David that a son from his line would build His house, and that He
would establish David’s house, throne and kingdom forever through that son. But
Zechariah later revealed that this son would build the Lord’s house as a king-priest,
which indicated that his kingdom and rule would fall outside of the Israelite covenant.
b. All of this implied that renewal of the covenant relationship would involve a fundamental
change to the covenant itself, a fact underscored by the Hebrews writer (7:11-12). But the
Scriptures also insist that this alteration would be a matter of transformation in
fulfillment, not abrogation (cf. Mat. 5:17-20). David’s branch would fulfill the regal and
priestly vocation of human sonship that the covenant prescribed, but such that his
faithfulness would secure the renewal of the entire covenant household; in this son of
Abraham, Israel would be liberated and restored to become Israel in truth. * Isa. 49-53
C. A New Creational Kingdom – The Restoration of Sacred Space
1. Yahweh had pledged to raise up David’s fallen house (Amos 9:11) and establish his throne
and kingdom in a future covenant son, who would then build His sanctuary as His enthroned
king-priest in the power of His Spirit. But this “house” was to be Yahweh’s ultimate dwelling
place, and the prophets spoke of it in terms suggesting that it would transcend the second
temple the exiles constructed in Jerusalem. * cf. Zec. 2:1-13, 8:1-8; Isa. 2:1-4, 60:1-14,
62:1-12; Jer. 3:11-18, 30:17-22; Ezek. 37:1-28, 43:1-12; Joel 3; Zeph. 3:14-20; Hag. 2:1-9
2. And as the Jerusalem temple (which represented the seat of Yahweh’s throne) was the focal
point of the kingdom David established, so the sanctuary to be built by David’s “branch”
would be the focal point of his kingdom. If, then, the latter sanctuary represented the
perfecting of Yahweh’s relationship with His people through complete and abiding
reconciliation, the kingdom associated with it must share the same characteristics.
a. Indeed, the Scriptures present it as a kingdom defined by perfect intimacy between
Yahweh and His restored household (“I will be your God and you will be My people”),
which corresponds to it being a kingdom defined by the righteousness of a human
community conformed to its created nature and function in God’s design. * Isa. 59-62
b. And if the sons of the kingdom are righteous in this way (fully conformed to their created
nature and role), this kingdom must extend to embrace the entire created order. For man
was created image-bearer to be image-son – a regal and priestly being created to
administer the Creator’s relationship with the rest of His creation (Gen 1-2). When the
divine-human relationship is rightly ordered, so is the Creator-creation relationship.
3. The kingdom that has Yahweh and His human subjects living in perfect intimacy is the
kingdom that finds the whole creation experiencing this intimacy. Thus the prophets spoke of
the coming messianic kingdom in the language of new creation. * Isa. 11:1-10, 51:1-16,
65:17-19, 66:22-2; Hos. 2:14-23; Amos 9:11-15; Mic. 4:1-4
4. And so the kingdom promised to David would be defined by the full resolution of exile:
a. It would see Yahweh end His own exile and return to Zion as Israel’s Redeemer, thereby
ending the exile of His covenant household and regathering it to Himself.
b. But Israel’s exile was only a narrow expression of mankind’s exile – the exile that
originated in Eden. Yahweh would return as Israel’s Redeemer, but with an eye to the
entire human race, whom Israel’s election and restoration were to serve. He was going to
liberate and recover His covenant people, but in order that they should proclaim His
liberation to all the world’s captives, thus fulfilling their covenant vocation.
c. And when the Creator-Father and His image-children were fully reconciled, the
creation’s exile would also come to an end. The creation’s agonized groaning in its
bondage to the curse would turn to exultation and celebration when at last the sons of
God were revealed in the glory they share with the unique Son. * Romans 8:18-23
Thus the kingdom promised to David and proclaimed by the prophets is the creation’s realized
perfection, the destiny for which God brought it into existence. It is the kingdom in which all
creation is summed up in David’s son and David’s God is at last and forever “all in all.”
I. Introduction
1. The return of the Judean exiles and their labors in rebuilding the temple and restoring
Jerusalem were astonishing feats of divine providence, and they were achieved in fulfillment
of Yahweh’s word through His prophets. They were significant and crucially important in the
Lord’s purposes, but they didn’t fulfill His covenant promises to Abraham and David.
2. These circumstances provided a remedy to Israel’s physical exile, but didn’t address the
underlying and essential relational exile that was the cause of physical exile. That “exodus”
and restoration would not occur until Yahweh was reconciled to His people, and that
depended on actual satisfaction for their covenant infidelity and guilt.
3. Thus the post-exile prophets proclaimed Yahweh’s intent to return to Zion to deal fully and
finally with all that had alienated Him from His covenant children. He would return as
Redeemer and Healer, specifically in connection with the coming of His messianic servant.
4. And because that servant would be the son covenanted to David (the Branch), his redeeming
and reconciling work would see David’s house, throne and kingdom restored and Yahweh’s
own everlasting “house” constructed.
5. Most importantly, the prophets were clear that this new kingdom would transcend its former
Davidic form; Yahweh wasn’t going to revive the kingdom David presided over, but usher in
the ultimate, consummate kingdom the Davidic predecessor only portrayed and prefigured.
II. The Promise of a New Davidic Kingdom
A. An Everlasting Kingdom – The Realization of Righteousness
1. Unlike the Israelite theocracy, this renewed kingdom would endure forever (2 Sam. 7). It
would correspond to its predecessor as being Yahweh’s kingdom defined and governed by
His covenant with His subjects, and it’s precisely in that respect that the Israelite kingdom
could (and did) fail. The kingdom’s continuance depended on Israel’s faithfulness to the
covenant, so that it was Israel’s covenant violation that brought the kingdom to its end.
2. The implication, then, for the future kingdom is that its human subjects would prove
perpetually faithful to the covenant relationship once Yahweh had restored it. Moses
promised this cleansing and renewal of human hearts, and the prophets carried forward this
theme. * cf. Deut. 30:1-6 with Isa. 54; Jer. 32:36-41; Ezek. 36:16-27; Hos. 1-2
3. Thus the renewal of the covenant relationship would see the renewal of the covenant people;
they would become in truth the image-children that the covenant specified. And this is the
sense in which the renewed covenant would be “new”: It would be the realization in truth
and perfection of all that God’s covenant with Abraham and his descendents had purposed,
embodied and prescribed. * Jer. 31:31-34
4. This, then, explains how this new covenant and its administration would be defined by
righteousness. Righteousness is rightness: a thing’s conformity to its created nature and
function. Israel’s covenant with God prescribed their sonship on behalf of the creation, and
so covenant renewal would see realized the “righteousness” of authentic human sonship.
5. Most importantly, the prophets situated the messianic figure at the very center of all of this.
And, though they were unclear about his exact role in this covenant and kingdom renewal,
they associated him particularly with two key dynamics of it: The return of Yahweh as
Israel’s Redeemer, and the priestly remediation of Israel’s guilt and uncleanness. These
themes are especially prominent in Isaiah’s prophecy and find their focal point in Isaiah’s
servant theology and “servant songs” developed in chaps. 40-55.
a. Somehow, this individual would address both aspects of the exile. That is, he would
effect Yahweh’s return to Zion as Redeemer, but in order to liberate His captive people.
b. He would bring together both covenant parties, but in the true and ultimate sense. He
wouldn’t simply see them both return to dwell together in Zion as formerly, but would
fully reconcile them by fully resolving the alienation between them through his own
priestly mediation. * cf. Isa. 49:1-13, 53:1-54:17, 59:1-61:11
B. A New Kingship – The Davidic Priest-King
1. A new kingdom requires a new king, and the Scriptures (reflecting the Davidic Covenant)
identity this person as the covenant son of David. * Isa. 9, 11; Jer. 23, 30-33; Ezek. 34, 37
2. David was the great prototype of this son, and this includes his priestly quality as Yahweh’s
chosen king. This was noted above in relation to resolving the problem of exile and bringing
reconciliation, but Zechariah added to this depiction in two crucial ways, one directly and
the other by implication:
a. First, he associated this person’s regal and priestly ministration with the construction of
Yahweh’s sanctuary. The Lord’s Spirit was to be the power behind this work (4:1-9), but
David’s branch would carry it out as Yahweh’s enthroned priest (6:9-15).
b. But Zechariah’s action in crowning the high priest and his prophetic interpretation of it
also carried a startling implication: Yahweh intended to formally merge the kingship and
priesthood in this Davidic “branch.”
3. Considered in itself, a merging of the kingship and priesthood signaled the end of the
Israelite covenant structure, which held the two roles inseparably apart. There could be no
king-priest under the Sinai Covenant, for it granted the priesthood to Levi, whereas the Lord
had already assigned the kingship to Judah (Gen. 49:10).
a. Yahweh had pledged to David that a son from his line would build His house, and that He
would establish David’s house, throne and kingdom forever through that son. But
Zechariah later revealed that this son would build the Lord’s house as a king-priest,
which indicated that his kingdom and rule would fall outside of the Israelite covenant.
b. All of this implied that renewal of the covenant relationship would involve a fundamental
change to the covenant itself, a fact underscored by the Hebrews writer (7:11-12). But the
Scriptures also insist that this alteration would be a matter of transformation in
fulfillment, not abrogation (cf. Mat. 5:17-20). David’s branch would fulfill the regal and
priestly vocation of human sonship that the covenant prescribed, but such that his
faithfulness would secure the renewal of the entire covenant household; in this son of
Abraham, Israel would be liberated and restored to become Israel in truth. * Isa. 49-53
C. A New Creational Kingdom – The Restoration of Sacred Space
1. Yahweh had pledged to raise up David’s fallen house (Amos 9:11) and establish his throne
and kingdom in a future covenant son, who would then build His sanctuary as His enthroned
king-priest in the power of His Spirit. But this “house” was to be Yahweh’s ultimate dwelling
place, and the prophets spoke of it in terms suggesting that it would transcend the second
temple the exiles constructed in Jerusalem. * cf. Zec. 2:1-13, 8:1-8; Isa. 2:1-4, 60:1-14,
62:1-12; Jer. 3:11-18, 30:17-22; Ezek. 37:1-28, 43:1-12; Joel 3; Zeph. 3:14-20; Hag. 2:1-9
2. And as the Jerusalem temple (which represented the seat of Yahweh’s throne) was the focal
point of the kingdom David established, so the sanctuary to be built by David’s “branch”
would be the focal point of his kingdom. If, then, the latter sanctuary represented the
perfecting of Yahweh’s relationship with His people through complete and abiding
reconciliation, the kingdom associated with it must share the same characteristics.
a. Indeed, the Scriptures present it as a kingdom defined by perfect intimacy between
Yahweh and His restored household (“I will be your God and you will be My people”),
which corresponds to it being a kingdom defined by the righteousness of a human
community conformed to its created nature and function in God’s design. * Isa. 59-62
b. And if the sons of the kingdom are righteous in this way (fully conformed to their created
nature and role), this kingdom must extend to embrace the entire created order. For man
was created image-bearer to be image-son – a regal and priestly being created to
administer the Creator’s relationship with the rest of His creation (Gen 1-2). When the
divine-human relationship is rightly ordered, so is the Creator-creation relationship.
3. The kingdom that has Yahweh and His human subjects living in perfect intimacy is the
kingdom that finds the whole creation experiencing this intimacy. Thus the prophets spoke of
the coming messianic kingdom in the language of new creation. * Isa. 11:1-10, 51:1-16,
65:17-19, 66:22-2; Hos. 2:14-23; Amos 9:11-15; Mic. 4:1-4
4. And so the kingdom promised to David would be defined by the full resolution of exile:
a. It would see Yahweh end His own exile and return to Zion as Israel’s Redeemer, thereby
ending the exile of His covenant household and regathering it to Himself.
b. But Israel’s exile was only a narrow expression of mankind’s exile – the exile that
originated in Eden. Yahweh would return as Israel’s Redeemer, but with an eye to the
entire human race, whom Israel’s election and restoration were to serve. He was going to
liberate and recover His covenant people, but in order that they should proclaim His
liberation to all the world’s captives, thus fulfilling their covenant vocation.
c. And when the Creator-Father and His image-children were fully reconciled, the
creation’s exile would also come to an end. The creation’s agonized groaning in its
bondage to the curse would turn to exultation and celebration when at last the sons of
God were revealed in the glory they share with the unique Son. * Romans 8:18-23
Thus the kingdom promised to David and proclaimed by the prophets is the creation’s realized
perfection, the destiny for which God brought it into existence. It is the kingdom in which all
creation is summed up in David’s son and David’s God is at last and forever “all in all.”