The Christian Theocracy

[Marilyn C]

God promised Abraham a nation consisting of his descendants, ie Israel, as well as a family of nations who share Abraham's faith. Israel became a theocracy and a model for future Christian nations to base their societies on God's laws, as well.

Some people argue that the NT does not describe a Christian Theocracy, and instead focuses only on individual salvation. But that isn't quite true. We do come to Christ as individuals, but we are called into society, the Church.

And Abraham's nation, Israel, did become a model for the nations that God also promised to Abraham. Paul argued that this was fulfilled in the Church.

However, in the time of the writing of the NT, the Church had only begun as a minority within Israel, and had only started an outreach to the nations. Christianity was just a minority religion until Rome adopted Christianity under Theodosius.

So Christian nations did eventually evolve after the pattern of Israel's theocracy, and we have called them "Christian nations" typically. Today, the term "theocracy" is avoided out of concern to disassociate with the Islamic theocracy and other religious theocracies. But Christian nations, no matter the form of government, is a theocracy when the country is a self-proclaimed Christian country, or Christian state.

The failure of Israel as a theocracy did not mean the failure of their model for all nations. On the contrary, they showed that a theocracy only works when its principles are being responsibly followed.

The theocracy of Israel succeeded even before Christ because it was not based on perfection, but on the idea of redemption. Now that redemption is complete in Christ, it is affirmed that theocracy is God's model for the nations.

We are to responsibly follow Christian principles as a Christian society, without necessitating perfection. Christ has forgiven our sins, and this forgiveness applies when we regularly practice repentance.

Those who want to return to pagan forms of government are Antichristian, and Christians should not give up their belief in the Christian government, even if they are outnumbered. It is our testimony that is critical, and not the success of our society.

Hi Randy,

The Body of Christ, the ekkelsia -the called out ones from Israel and the nations. (Gal. 3: 28)
Israel, the ekkelsia - the called out ones from the nations. (Acts 7: 38)
The Nations.

The World System.

The sphere dominated by the prevalence of sin, with its modes, manners, and ministrations; with customs, fashions, and laws. This whole system of things which is divorced from God and which offers position, and power to those who serve its interests.

This World System is under the sway of the evil one. (1 John 5: 19)

regards, Marilyn.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy,

The Body of Christ, the ekkelsia -the called out ones from Israel and the nations. (Gal. 3: 28)
Israel, the ekkelsia - the called out ones from the nations. (Acts 7: 38)
The Nations.

The World System.

The sphere dominated by the prevalence of sin, with its modes, manners, and ministrations; with customs, fashions, and laws. This whole system of things which is divorced from God and which offers position, and power to those who serve its interests.

This World System is under the sway of the evil one. (1 John 5: 19)

regards, Marilyn.

Yes, the world is defined by the human tendency towards making judgments independent of God's word. God's word was always meant to inform the human conscience as to what is good, what pleases God, so as to avoid what doesn't please God, namely sin.

So the world is dominated by this tendency towards making independent judgments, but we can't say that *everybody* in the world is part of this general review of "the world." God's redemptive plan always started out with, "Come out from them and do not partake of their sins with them."

And so, God gave Israel a philosophy of government that was free, and yet aligned with God's word. They were in the world, but not "of the world," so long as they lived by God's laws.

The theocratic form of government that evolved under the kings of Israel began with an independent impulse. But David managed to keep his rule in line with the Messianic expectation, and his order often conflicted with the tendency of the people towards wanting to do their own thing.

Obviously, with the people of Israel collapsing into idolatry and self-interest, they were doomed to fail under the covenant of Law. But David's standard of Messianic rule remained the rule up until the 1st Coming of Christ, and this theocratic form of government was then passed on to Rome, after a few centuries.

Of course, the Roman people were destined to follow the same path that the people of Israel took, leaning towards independence from God, and only a half-hearted commitment to the laws of God. The Catholic Church was bound to fall over time, maintaining more of a form of worship rather than a reality of faith.

The Protestant movement tried to correct the problems that had taken place in Catholicism, and it worked for awhile. Ultimately, they followed the same pattern as all those who went before. With each new movement there were always those who remained true, like King David, advocating properly for the Kingdom of God, not just in the future, but also as a model for current states.

Our Gospel does not call for us to impose a Christian theocracy upon peoples. But it does witness to its validity. It requires a large majority of people to embrace a Christian government. Once it is lost, it is not likely to be restored apart from major judgment from God.

 

[Marilyn C]

Yes, the world is defined by the human tendency towards making judgments independent of God's word. God's word was always meant to inform the human conscience as to what is good, what pleases God, so as to avoid what doesn't please God, namely sin.

So the world is dominated by this tendency towards making independent judgments, but we can't say that *everybody* in the world is part of this general review of "the world." God's redemptive plan always started out with, "Come out from them and do not partake of their sins with them."

And so, God gave Israel a philosophy of government that was free, and yet aligned with God's word. They were in the world, but not "of the world," so long as they lived by God's laws.

The theocratic form of government that evolved under the kings of Israel began with an independent impulse. But David managed to keep his rule in line with the Messianic expectation, and his order often conflicted with the tendency of the people towards wanting to do their own thing.

Obviously, with the people of Israel collapsing into idolatry and self-interest, they were doomed to fail under the covenant of Law. But David's standard of Messianic rule remained the rule up until the 1st Coming of Christ, and this theocratic form of government was then passed on to Rome, after a few centuries.

Of course, the Roman people were destined to follow the same path that the people of Israel took, leaning towards independence from God, and only a half-hearted commitment to the laws of God. The Catholic Church was bound to fall over time, maintaining more of a form of worship rather than a reality of faith.

The Protestant movement tried to correct the problems that had taken place in Catholicism, and it worked for awhile. Ultimately, they followed the same pattern as all those who went before. With each new movement there were always those who remained true, like King David, advocating properly for the Kingdom of God, not just in the future, but also as a model for current states.

Our Gospel does not call for us to impose a Christian theocracy upon peoples. But it does witness to its validity. It requires a large majority of people to embrace a Christian government. Once it is lost, it is not likely to be restored apart from major judgment from God.

Hi Randy,

I can see you have thought long and hard on this topic. Thank you for sharing in such detail. I can understand your desire for nations to turn to God and receive the Kingdom of God. And that is the Lord`s rule through whom He will give rulership - Israel. And that is only the earthly realm of God`s Great Kingdom.

Because we live on earth, we tend to see God`s purposes and plans as all revolving around that. However, God`s Great Kingdom involves all He created. God made it all and never gave it away from the third heaven, and the Universe and the earth. What God is doing is addressing RULERSHIP. It is not that God does not own or rule over the earth, (& everywhere else) but it is RULERSHIP that is rebellious in every area that God will deal with and bring in His righteous rulership - from the third heaven, in the Universe and on the earth. And that is a process. The eternal Purposes.

The various attempts of man to build a structure and call it the `Church` will all crumble for they are of man - Catholic, Protestant, and all the many denominations built of man. They are all power and control systems, `lording it over,` as Peter warned us of. The meeting on a Sunday is just a PUBLIC MEETING organised by man under the authrority of the government and subject to the anti-God laws - respect for all religions, tolerance of different sexual activities, etc.

The true Church, the Body of Christ, meet privately in small groups sharing equally amongst each other. (Eph. 5: 19, Col. 3: 16 etc) Jesus said, "Go make disciples...` (Matt. 28: 19) and NOT `Go make buildings and meetings.` Ask someone in your public meeting who is their disciple and I wonder if they can answer that. Man`s system squashes that desire, and makes it all about the `public meeting.`

The Body of Christ is built on Christ and the truths of Him. (1 Cor. 3: 11, Eph. 4: 11 -16)

regards, Marilyn.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hi Randy,

I can see you have thought long and hard on this topic. Thank you for sharing in such detail. I can understand your desire for nations to turn to God and receive the Kingdom of God. And that is the Lord`s rule through whom He will give rulership - Israel. And that is only the earthly realm of God`s Great Kingdom.

Because we live on earth, we tend to see God`s purposes and plans as all revolving around that. However, God`s Great Kingdom involves all He created. God made it all and never gave it away from the third heaven, and the Universe and the earth. What God is doing is addressing RULERSHIP. It is not that God does not own or rule over the earth, (& everywhere else) but it is RULERSHIP that is rebellious in every area that God will deal with and bring in His righteous rulership - from the third heaven, in the Universe and on the earth. And that is a process. The eternal Purposes.

The various attempts of man to build a structure and call it the `Church` will all crumble for they are of man - Catholic, Protestant, and all the many denominations built of man. They are all power and control systems, `lording it over,` as Peter warned us of. The meeting on a Sunday is just a PUBLIC MEETING organised by man under the authrority of the government and subject to the anti-God laws - respect for all religions, tolerance of different sexual activities, etc.

The true Church, the Body of Christ, meet privately in small groups sharing equally amongst each other. (Eph. 5: 19, Col. 3: 16 etc) Jesus said, "Go make disciples...` (Matt. 28: 19) and NOT `Go make buildings and meetings.` Ask someone in your public meeting who is their disciple and I wonder if they can answer that. Man`s system squashes that desire, and makes it all about the `public meeting.`

The Body of Christ is built on Christ and the truths of Him. (1 Cor. 3: 11, Eph. 4: 11 -16)

regards, Marilyn.

I disagree with your negative assessment of the church assembly, but I do sympathize in regard to its failiures. I've spent almost every week of my life in church, and can say, with experience, that there is a lot left to be desired! The pastor/father tends to dominate, afraid of letting the laity express itself in its manifold gifts. The fear is that inexperience will lead to disorder, making the minister's job more difficult.

But this means the leadership has little to guide or to control it. The board may become a virtual "Amen" chorus to whatever the pastor, who is paid, wishes to do. The Holy Spirit is utterly unable to correct or to balance things.

Still it is the best we have. I do like little Bible studies. But pastors try to control them also. So I do sympathize...deeply. However, as far as I'm concerned, the more churches there are the better.

 

[Keraz]

It requires a large majority of people to embrace a Christian government. Once it is lost, it is not likely to be restored apart from major judgment from God.

It is coming!
Isaiah 9:5-7 First, the Judgment/punishment by fire, then a few years later: the worldwide Christian Government.

 

[Davy]

I see it quite differently. I see Jesus having inherited the throne of David from the royal line from David to Zedekiah.

That belief of course is a tradition of men, an assumption, when God's Word does not show that. Why, you might ask? Because to believe that is to wrongly assume that David's throne is in Heaven, and that Jesus is already sitting upon it, when God's Word teaches no such idea.

Heb 1:1-3
1 God, Who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son, Whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by Whom also He made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
KJV

What you say is also against the very Scripture like Genesis 49:10 which I quoted, and is very easy to understand. Likewise with God's Promise to David that there would always be one of his seed sitting upon his throne unto all generations (that means flesh generations since Christ ascended to right hand of The Father's throne also, even today's generation ON EARTH).

So all you are doing is showing that you are not interested in keeping to what The Scriptures say on this matter, but instead would rather follow traditions that men devise instead. Thus you'll never get me to agree with what you're saying against The Scriptures of God's Word.

1 Kings 8:25-26
25 Therefore now, LORD God of Israel, keep with Thy servant David my father that Thou promisedst him, saying, "There shall not fail thee a man in My sight to sit on the throne of Israel; so that thy children take heed to their way, that they walk before Me as thou hast walked before Me."

26 And now, O God of Israel, let Thy word, I pray thee, be verified, which Thou spakest unto Thy servant David my father.
KJV

God said there won't fail a man in HIS SIGHT to sit upon David's throne; He didn't say in man's sight, which is what you are going by, since men's traditions wrongly think today David's earthly throne is no more upon this earth today.

 

[Randy Kluth]

That belief of course is a tradition of men, an assumption, when God's Word does not show that. Why, you might ask? Because to believe that is to wrongly assume that David's throne is in Heaven, and that Jesus is already sitting upon it, when God's Word teaches no such idea.

No, I don't at all assume that David's throne is in heaven! Why would you say that?

What you say is also against the very Scripture like Genesis 49:10 which I quoted, and is very easy to understand. Likewise with God's Promise to David that there would always be one of his seed sitting upon his throne unto all generations (that means flesh generations since Christ ascended to right hand of The Father's throne also, even today's generation ON EARTH).

It's a difference in interpretation. I believe what is said is that David's royal line would not fade away before Messiah comes to fulfil his destiny at the ultimate heir of David's throne. Jesus came the 1st time, but did not assume the throne. He said the Kingdom is "near," but not yet *here.*

I'm not going to turn a disagreement over interpretation into a brawl. Not interested in that.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It is coming!
Isaiah 9:5-7 First, the Judgment/punishment by fire, then a few years later: the worldwide Christian Government.

Okay, I can go with that. I do question, however, whether all nations will be Christian. I think there will be a powerful world government run by Christ and the Church from heaven. But I also believe there will be pagan nations that will have to live with this arrangement for a thousand years.

 

[Keraz]

Okay, I can go with that. I do question, however, whether all nations will be Christian. I think there will be a powerful world government run by Christ and the Church from heaven. But I also believe there will be pagan nations that will have to live with this arrangement for a thousand years.

ON EARTH, as Zechariah 14:16-21 plainly says.
The nations must be Christian too, coming to Jerusalem yearly to pay homage to Jesus.
There will be no sin, while Satan stays locked in the pit.

 

[WalkInLight]

God promised Abraham a nation consisting of his descendants, ie Israel, as well as a family of nations who share Abraham's faith. Israel became a theocracy and a model for future Christian nations to base their societies on God's laws, as well.

Some people argue that the NT does not describe a Christian Theocracy, and instead focuses only on individual salvation. But that isn't quite true. We do come to Christ as individuals, but we are called into society, the Church.

And Abraham's nation, Israel, did become a model for the nations that God also promised to Abraham. Paul argued that this was fulfilled in the Church.

However, in the time of the writing of the NT, the Church had only begun as a minority within Israel, and had only started an outreach to the nations. Christianity was just a minority religion until Rome adopted Christianity under Theodosius.

So Christian nations did eventually evolve after the pattern of Israel's theocracy, and we have called them "Christian nations" typically. Today, the term "theocracy" is avoided out of concern to disassociate with the Islamic theocracy and other religious theocracies. But Christian nations, no matter the form of government, is a theocracy when the country is a self-proclaimed Christian country, or Christian state.

The failure of Israel as a theocracy did not mean the failure of their model for all nations. On the contrary, they showed that a theocracy only works when its principles are being responsibly followed.

The theocracy of Israel succeeded even before Christ because it was not based on perfection, but on the idea of redemption. Now that redemption is complete in Christ, it is affirmed that theocracy is God's model for the nations.

We are to responsibly follow Christian principles as a Christian society, without necessitating perfection. Christ has forgiven our sins, and this forgiveness applies when we regularly practice repentance.

Those who want to return to pagan forms of government are Antichristian, and Christians should not give up their belief in the Christian government, even if they are outnumbered. It is our testimony that is critical, and not the success of our society.

A society dominated by love and concern for each citizen with justice and integrity is a christian theocracy.
Jesus never came to dominate but to save, to show the path of righteousness and love, to be the light in a dark place and offer real hope to those who had sold out to sin and destruction for bread to eat.

Our argument is not force of civil government and penal code, but of example and life living in our souls and spirits.
Theocracy tended to fail because it was not just and people were exploited for personal gain of those who held religious authority.
And those who held religious authority were often very poor on good economics or business.

A christian community based on volunteers is the best example of what the most dedicated can create, and often like all human endeavours it has its struggles and failures. I lived in such a community for 1.5 years and it was tough, because ones individual expression and freedoms where quite restricted and rather than being a freeing experience it was rather similar to being in a prison. We shared 4 people to a room, with minimal clothing options and quite a limited level of social interaction. Worse was the spiritual leaders where also the word leaders, so if their was failure or negligence in their work responsibilities there was no justice or means of resolution. This is why separation of church and state is essential for a true balance of spiritual authority and civil authority.

If you have ever been involved in doctrinal or personality splits within religious groups, the bile is horrendous and often is painted in terms worse than murder, because talking against God anointed is the same as talking against God is their emotional feeling. And the anger that arises is violent and aggressive. The spanish inquisition is a classic example of what happens when weeding out the evil in communities becomes real.

If you have come across the Jezebel spirit teaching and the need to throw out the enemy from communities or the NAR and shepharding which was often domination of a leader over all aspects of the churches lives. This has always been an issue in the authoritarian view of faith, but Jesus took the road of servant hood and meeting others needs and asking people to follow not commanding them to follow.

God bless you

 

[Randy Kluth]

ON EARTH, as Zechariah 14:16-21 plainly says.
The nations must be Christian too, coming to Jerusalem yearly to pay homage to Jesus.
There will be no sin, while Satan stays locked in the pit.

That sounds like pagan nations are being forced to acknowledge Christian nations?

 

[Randy Kluth]

A society dominated by love and concern for each citizen with justice and integrity is a christian theocracy.

You're starting off on the wrong foot when you say a Christian Theocracy must "dominate." Naturally, a society imposes laws like, "You shall not steal." But would you call that "domination?" No, a Christian Society is made up of Christians *by their choice.* The people said to Moses and to Joshua, "We will serve the Lord." That is not the kind of "domination" you're insinuating.

Jesus never came to dominate but to save, to show the path of righteousness and love, to be the light in a dark place and offer real hope to those who had sold out to sin and destruction for bread to eat.

That is partly true and partly false. It's true that he did not come to immediately issue in his Kingdom. But he did come, bringing judgment. He told Israel that they would be judged in their generation for all of their lawless behavior. In effect he was imposing moral order, or else...

Our argument is not force of civil government and penal code, but of example and life living in our souls and spirits.
Theocracy tended to fail because it was not just and people were exploited for personal gain of those who held religious authority.
And those who held religious authority were often very poor on good economics or business.

That would be the equivalent of saying it's wrong to have criminal and civil courts because there are bad judges. A functional theocracy argues for Christian nations. The failure of such nations does not argue against them.

A christian community based on volunteers is the best example of what the most dedicated can create, and often like all human endeavours it has its struggles and failures.

I'm sorry about your experience, but it isn't even close to what a society requires. Left to volunteering, how many taxes would the government receive? What then becomes of all the duties we expect from our government?

If you have ever been involved in doctrinal or personality splits within religious groups, the bile is horrendous and often is painted in terms worse than murder, because talking against God anointed is the same as talking against God is their emotional feeling. And the anger that arises is violent and aggressive. The spanish inquisition is a classic example of what happens when weeding out the evil in communities becomes real.

You're only proving that Christians can be as bad as pagans when they backslide or fall away. This does not argue against Christianity.

If you have come across the Jezebel spirit teaching and the need to throw out the enemy from communities or the NAR and shepharding which was often domination of a leader over all aspects of the churches lives.

I remember the Shepherding movement, and opposed it when it started. Some things are a matter of personal freedom and some are not. People shouldn't be free to commit crimes. A Christian society would not give liberty to sinners who destroy a Christian society. But having a Christian elder decide what job you should do and who you should marry is not the same thing.

Thanks for your comments. I hope we can come closer in our views!

 

[Keraz]

That sounds like pagan nations are being forced to acknowledge Christian nations?

For the Millennium, there will be no 'pagan nations'.
The only people that will remain alive when Jesus Returns, will be Christian peoples. They all acknowledge Jesus as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

 

[WalkInLight]

You're starting off on the wrong foot when you say a Christian Theocracy must "dominate." Naturally, a society imposes laws like, "You shall not steal." But would you call that "domination?" No, a Christian Society is made up of Christians *by their choice.* The people said to Moses and to Joshua, "We will serve the Lord." That is not the kind of "domination" you're insinuating.

Christian theocracy is dead, and only the right wing who spread conspiracy theories and turn non-christians into devils justify the need to take over.
Christians working within government and bringing salt and light to difficult decisions is still alive and kicking.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Christian theocracy is dead, and only the right wing who spread conspiracy theories and turn non-christians into devils justify the need to take over.
Christians working within government and bringing salt and light to difficult decisions is still alive and kicking.

Those who would prefer non-Christian, pagan governments in place of genuine Christian governments should be ashamed of themselves. They prefer rule by devils to rule by believers, imperfect though they are.

 

[WalkInLight]

Those who would prefer non-Christian, pagan governments in place of genuine Christian governments should be ashamed of themselves. They prefer rule by devils to rule by believers, imperfect though they are.

You are making a simple assumption that any government is necessarily religious to one degree or another.
Governments are there to govern, making daily decisions as to government investment and spending and pass laws and amend others.
You will find people of many different convictions or religious opinions in government. As long as they exercise justice and endeavour to work with integrity and make things run well, their actual convictions matter less.

I used to believe schools needed a christian emphasis, and mixed schools were not a good thing.
All my kids went to state schools, and received a good education, though had mixed emotional reactions to it.
Going to a mixed school helped them understand the opposite sex in a sensible way, and have friends despite their sex, and develop real friendships on a brother sister basis. My daughters used to do combined cadet force training at a local boys school. The boys were awkward and did not know how to handle girls and got it literally all wrong. Within this some christian input would have been helpful rather than following a purely secular line.

The dominance of left wing idiology in terms of race theory and power groups is destructive, while pointing out serious historical injustices and miss-understanding is very important. After meeting overt racists who happily claim to be christians, I doubt the term christian necessarily goes along with good governance.

It has been generally recognised the principles of English Common Law are a good governmental foundation to follow. And these principles are very biblical. Acknowledging this fact does not make it christian, though its foundations are biblical in origin, I think it is more important to show how nations prosper if they follow these basic precepts of justice, human rights and representation.

God bless you

 

[Davy]

No, I don't at all assume that David's throne is in heaven! Why would you say that?

If you do not believe David's throne is still here on earth, today, then it means to automatically default to a belief that either David's throne ended in Jeremiah's day and is no more (which denies God's promise to David), or... you believe Jesus in Heaven is already sitting upon David's throne. I expressed this once already in my previous posts. Didn't you read it?

It's a difference in interpretation. I believe what is said is that David's royal line would not fade away before Messiah comes to fulfil his destiny at the ultimate heir of David's throne. Jesus came the 1st time, but did not assume the throne. He said the Kingdom is "near," but not yet *here.*

Obviously a difference. I believe what the Scriptures declare. So let's not assume that I'm just pulling from some man's book, etc.

God's promise to David was that there would be one of David's seed to sit upon his throne unto all generations. Solomon repeated that promise also, so there's more than one example of that from 2 Samuel 7. The Genesis 49:10 prophecy to Judah about that royal sceptre rule was given about Judah for the "last days" per Genesis 49:1, Jacob speaking to his 12 sons. So that's yet another clue that David's throne is to continue ON EARTH all the way to the end of this world with one of David's seed sitting upon it.

So constant referring back to Christ's 1st coming when He was crucified, and it's obvious that He did not sit upon David's earthly throne then, still does not detract from those Scriptures I've pointed to about God's promise to the house of David unto all generations, even now sitting upon David's throne here on earth. And if you understand anything about Christian history, understanding this ought to be real easy to understand.

 

[Randy Kluth]

If you do not believe David's throne is still here on earth, today, then it means to automatically default to a belief that either David's throne ended in Jeremiah's day and is no more (which denies God's promise to David), or... you believe Jesus in Heaven is already sitting upon David's throne. I expressed this once already in my previous posts. Didn't you read it?

Didn't you read what I said? I said that David's throne itself ended with Zechariah, but that the promise of the throne would not end until the one came who was destined to fulfil it. In other words, the throne stopped existing, but remained viable until Messiah arrived, who would not immediately assume the throne, but would reveal himself the ultimate occupier of it.

The promise meant that nobody else would be able to invalidate this promise, so that it could not expire until it was fulfilled by the coming of Christ and by his ultimate occupation of that seat. In other words, it had to be fulfilled, and could not fail.

So we look at these things very differently. You see a continuous throne, and I do not. I just see a continuation of the hope until it is eventually fulfilled.

 

[Davy]

Didn't you read what I said? I said that David's throne itself ended with Zechariah, but that the promise of the throne would not end until the one came who was destined to fulfil it. In other words, the throne stopped existing, but remained viable until Messiah arrived, who would not immediately assume the throne, but would reveal himself the ultimate occupier of it.

That's really like double-speak, that the promise of the throne did not end, but the throne stopped existing. That's basically what you are saying, and I strongly disagree with it. It reveals you really do not understand what God promised David's seed regarding David's earthly throne.

Today, right now, there are still... members of the house of David sitting upon His throne, here on earth. It's just not in Jerusalem today, but is elsewhere. And when Jesus returns in our near future, that... is when He will inherit and sit upon David's throne, as written (Matthew 25:31-33).

 

[Randy Kluth]

That's really like double-speak, that the promise of the throne did not end, but the throne stopped existing. That's basically what you are saying, and I strongly disagree with it. It reveals you really do not understand what God promised David's seed regarding David's earthly throne.

Today, right now, there are still... members of the house of David sitting upon His throne, here on earth. It's just not in Jerusalem today, but is elsewhere. And when Jesus returns in our near future, that... is when He will inherit and sit upon David's throne, as written (Matthew 25:31-33).

You do realize, don't you, that when you throw these negative insinuations at me that you're insulting the vast majority of scholarship? It is not "double-speak," though you think that. Rather, it is reasoned thinking, in view of the reality that David's throne did, in fact, come to an end with Zechariah and the Babylonian Captivity.

So no, it isn't "double-speak." It is reality--something you should at the very least acknowledge. God's throne remains forever in heaven. But David's throne was on the earth, and ended with the Captivity.

What the prophecy appears to have promised is that David's throne would not be terminated indefinitely, but would have to be fulfilled by a descendant of David, a royal heir. That heir was Jesus, even though he did not assume the throne immediately. Since he lives forever, he can take his time before assuming that throne, and still fulfil the prophecy.