|Title: British Israel: Peter, Pentecost and the Throne of David|
|Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Bible, Beliefs, Scriptures and 'The Word' > Please Consider - An examination of Revivalist teachings and 'doctrines'||Go to subcategory：|
Date Posted：16/04/2008 7:32 AMCopy HTML
Peter, Pentecost and the Throne of David
Let us look at the summary that Peter gives regarding the Throne of David on the day of Pentecost.
Acts 2:30,31,32,36 (KJV)
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, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses..............Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.
Peter, in Acts 2:30-31, 36 tells us that Christ's resurrection was the fulfillment "ACCORDING TO THE FLESH", of the promises given to David for the Throne.
Peter also tells us that David himself saw the fulfillment of these promises in the resurrection of Christ, no natural line was required. Neither Peter or David were looking for a twentieth (or even first century) literal king for the throne.
The verses quoted in Acts are taken from Psalm 132:11-12 as follows:-
Psalm 132:11-12 (KJV) The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children will keep my covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore.
As Peter quotes from these verses, it follows that he saw the fulfillment of them in Christ. Peter application of these verses to Christ simply destroyes the whole BI throne argument.
In Peter's discourse in Acts, not once did he refer to a literal throne. Not once in the NT is there any reference or even hinting to a natural throne still in existence. The natural children of David were disobedient and no longer sat on the Throne (see an overview of Jeremiah, and the conditional throne).
Christ came and fulfilled the promise.
Revivalists tend focus on Acts 2:38 and tongues and neglect other parts of Peter's discourse and their significance. Acts 2 was the new covenant, the proof of the fulfillment of the old and the beginning of the new. The outpouring of the Spirit showed that Christ was and is who he said he was.
IT ALSO PROVED THAT GOD HELD TRUE TO HIS PROMISE TO DAVID AND IS ONE OF THE main THEMES OF PETER'S DISCOURSE.
The NT thought is that Christ has now made us citizens of the "Commonwealth of Israel", his kingdom, because of his sacrifice (Eph 2:12). In the NT it has nothing to do with natural birth, but all to do with the spiritual birth. Of course a kingdom belongs to the King.
Paul tells us that in Romans 9 that those literally descended from Israel are not Israel in the true sense, but rather those who are the children of the promise (Gal 4:23-31).
The Gentiles can now be a part of the "Commonwealth of Israel" with Christ as their head, no matter what their nationality.
Read through Romans 9. Paul uses the analogy of the "Spiritual Israel" to prove that Gods promises have not failed. He in no way appeals to a literal Israel or Throne for support of Gods promises in any way shape or form. Paul uses several of the "BI" texts to show that these have been fulfilled in the "Spiritual Israel". In verse 25 he quotes the Hosea text that BI often quotes "I will call them my people, who were not my people.......(Hosea 1:10 & 2:23).
Read Hosea 1:10 and also see the reference to the "sand of the sea etc". It is all covered in the NT by the work of Christ and the "Spiritual Israel".
Paul saw these promises in Hosea fulfilled in his current situation. He saw no need to go and find a literal fulfillment in Britain (unless he was wrong?).
Why should we be any different?
The New Testament writers understanding of Israel and the Throne was about as far as you could get from the "national/natural" BI understanding. They saw the promises to David as being fulfilled in Christ, not Queen Elizabeth.