This article will examine the Davidic Covenant, as understood within Dispensational and Particular Baptist theological frameworks. In keeping with the pattern of this section of the Dismantling Dispensationalism series, each of the three main classifications of Dispensationalism will be categorized with the primary source that corresponds thereto. Moreover, relevant citations from a Particular Baptist (1689 Federalism) primary source will be used to convey how the Davidic Covenant is widely understood within that theological tradition. After analyzing each apposite citation at the beginning of this article, we will conclude by summarizing key areas of continuity and discontinuity between Dispensationalism’s and 1689 Federalism’s understanding of the Davidic Covenant.

*Sources For Each Variation of Dispensationalism:^[1]

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism-

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1988. 

Revised Dispensationalism-

MacArthur, John, and Richard Mayhue, eds. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017. 

Progressive Dispensationalism^[2]–

Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock, eds. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

*Source For a Particular Baptist Theological Perspective:

Renihan, Samuel D. The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019.

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism on the Davidic Covenant

The following excerpts represent the most pertinent references to the Davidic Covenant from the “standard” systematic theology textbook within Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism. Due to the extensive treatment of the Davidic Covenant by Christian theologians, and in light of the tendency to make continual references to the Davidic Covenant within a systematic theology, I have done my very best to provide an all-encompassing portrait of how Classic/Traditional Dispensationalists think about this aspect of Scripture’s theology of the covenants. These excerpts were carefully selected after assessing every explicit reference to the Davidic Covenant in the “standard” systematic theology textbook for Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism.

The covenant God made with David (2 Sam. 7:11-16) is like the gracious covenant He made with Abraham; both are unconditional and everlasting in their duration. The Davidic Covenant guaranteed that a descendant of David would sit on his throne forever. The details of the covenant in 2 Samuel 7 include the fact that David was to have a child not yet born who would succeed him on the throne. This son who was Solomon would build the temple that David desired to build. The throne of Solomon’s kingdom would continue forever, and it would not be taken away from him even if he sinned. The covenant included the fact that David’s posterity, his throne, and his kingdom would be established forever. Though the throne of Solomon would continue forever, it is not promised that Solomon’s posterity would sit on the throne. Later in the genealogies of the New Testament it becomes clear that Christ’s physical lineage from David would go through David’s son Nathan rather than Solomon and would terminate in Mary the physical mother of Christ in contrast to Joseph, who is in the physical lineage of Solomon which had been cursed.[3]

There are many confirmations of [the Davidic Covenant] in the Old Testament, and the unconditional character of the covenant is especially supported in Psalm 89:3-4, 28-29, 32-37. All conservative scholars agree that the Davidic Covenant was fulfilled in Christ,   but those who oppose the concept of a millennial kingdom on earth attempt to equate the throne of David with the throne of God in heaven. However, David’s throne was never a heavenly throne; it was related to the earth and to political government over the land of    Israel. This is the way it was interpreted in Israel at the time Christ was on earth, and it was supported by the message of the angel to Mary that Christ would inherit the Davidic throne (Luke 1:31-33). Christ is not fulfilling this covenant in heaven at the right hand of the Father. Fulfillment requires that Christ will return and establish His kingdom on earth as predicted in many Old Testament passages and in Revelation 20. The language of the           Old Testament is so specific that only a literal fulfillment in harmony with many other Old Testament promises will satisfy these promises. An analysis of the covenant as it is stated and confirmed in the Old Testament indicates that David, Solomon, and Mary understood the covenant to be literal (2 Sam. 7:18-19; 2 Chron. 6:14-16; Luke 1:31-33).   A literal fulfillment was universally expected by the Jews. One of the reasons Christ was born as a Descendant of David was to qualify Him for this throne. The Scriptures teach that Christ’s present throne is not the throne of David and that He is anticipating that in the future millennial kingdom, when the foes of God are put down, He will reign on the     Davidic throne (cf. Ps. 110). David’s kingly line, throne, and kingdom will be fulfilled primarily in the Millennium but it will merge with the kingdom of God in eternity.[4]

Revised Dispensationalism on the Davidic Covenant

The following excerpts represent the most apropos references to the Davidic Covenant from the “standard” systematic theology textbook within Revised Dispensationalism. Due to the extensive treatment of the Davidic Covenant by Christian theologians, and in light of the tendency to make frequent references to the Davidic Covenant within a systematic theology, I have done my very best to provide a lucid picture of how Revised Dispensationalists understand this aspect of Scripture’s theology of the covenants. These citations were carefully selected after reviewing every explicit reference to the Davidic Covenant in the “standard” systematic theology textbook for Revised Dispensationalism.

Progressive Dispensationalism on the Davidic Covenant

Although there is not currently a “standard” systematic theology textbook published by Progressive Dispensational scholars, we have determined that the following volume is as useful as any other on this subject:

Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1992).

Moreover, for the purposes of this article, supplemental commentary on the Davidic Covenant is provided from Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock’s, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1993). In that volume, Blaising and Bock expand on the central features of the Davidic Covenant that were briefly encapsulated in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition. Thus, for the reader’s optimal benefit, a quote will be shared from both of these representative works of Progressive Dispensationalism.

David, the second king of Israel, is presented in Scripture as a man of faith in the Lord.     He is described as a man after God’s own heart (1 Sam. 13:14; 1 Kings 15:5)… He is presented in Scripture as one who exemplified the relationship with God expected in the   Mosaic covenant. At the high point of David’s reign… [he] proposed to build a “house”    (temple) for the Lord. The Lord blessed David by giving him a promise. The Lord would build David a house (a dynasty), and one of his sons would build the temple for the Lord. This promise is developed as a cluster of promises found chiefly in 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17, but reiterated and supplemented in Psalms 89, 110, and 132… Although 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 17 do not use the term covenant, we do find it in later passages… Like the covenant with Abraham, the covenant with David is a grant covenant. It is the formal establishment of a grant or gift to David, the servant of the Lord. It consists of promises to David, and is often referenced in just that way, as the promise of the Lord to David (2 Sam. 7:28; 1 Kings 2:4, 24; 5:12; 8:20, 24-25, 56; 9:5; 2   Kings 8:19; 1 Chron. 17:26; 2 Chron. 1:9; 6:10, 15-16; 21:7). As a covenant of grant, the Davidic covenant is unconditional. David, a man of faith, receives these promises believing that God will fulfill them. God declares His intention to carry out these blessings to David as an act of His grace. Accordingly, conditions are absent when the promise is revealed to David (2 Sam. 7; 1 Chron. 17). And God’s intention to fulfill the promise is repeated in the subsequent history of the Davidic kings despite many acts of disloyalty on their part (see 1 Kings 11:11-13, 34-36; 15:4-5; 2 Kings 8:19; 2 Chron. 21:7; 23:3). However, when the covenant is transferred to Solomon, it is placed in a conditional form (1 Chron. 28:5-6)… God’s promise to raise up a descendant is unconditional. But a continuous, uninterrupted reign is not. That is conditioned upon the faithfulness of the Davidic kings… The conditional form of the Davidic covenant given to Solomon parallels the conditional form of the Abrahamic promise given to Israel as the Mosaic covenant. As we have seen, the Mosaic covenant did not compromise the original intention expressed in the Abrahamic covenant. Rather, it made possible a historical experience of the Abrahamic blessing in the specific form of Mosaic covenant blessing. God’s intention to bless descendants of Abraham is firm, but whether or not He will give certain blessings to a particular generation of those descendants at a specific time in history was conditioned by the terms of the Mosaic covenant. Even so, Israel experienced many blessings from God throughout the history of the Mosaic covenant despite examples of covenant unfaithfulness. And as we have seen, God’s unconditional intention to bless was often reconfirmed throughout that history as a promise to be realized in the future. The same is true regarding the Davidic covenant. God promised David that He would establish the kingdom of his son(s). But when a specific son was chosen, so that the possibility of inheriting the promise was narrowed to the descendants of that son of David, the promise was conditioned on covenant faithfulness. God’s intention to fulfill the Davidic promise remained firm, however, as can be seen in the narratives of the succession of Davidic kings. Disobedience to the Mosaic law brought various kinds of punishments. Yet the Lord maintained the Davidic throne because of the grant covenant made to David (see 1 Kings 11:11-13, 34-36; 15:4-5; 2 Kings 8:19; 2 Chron. 21:7; 23:3). Eventually, when the Lord judged the Davidic house, vacating the throne of David (see the curses in Jer. 22:28-30; 36:30-32), the conditionality of an uninterrupted line was clearly demonstrated… For a long time, David did in fact lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel. However, prophecies about a future Davidic king and the rebuilding of the house of David reaffirmed the ultimate intention of God’s covenant to David. Repeating the language of the Davidic covenant, the prophets declared that the      Lord would raise up a descendant of David (Isa. 9:6; Jer. 23:5) and establish his kingdom      (Isa. 9:7; 16:5; 28:16). He will be a shoot or branch off the stump of the fallen tree (Isa.    11:1; Jer. 23:5; 33:15), the rebuilt tabernacle of the fallen house of David (Amos 9:11- 12). Much of prophecy concerns the character of this future Davidic king: He will be righteous and will rule with righteousness and justice (Isa. 9:7; 11:3-4; 16:5; 28:17; Jer.    23:5; 33:15), and he will be wise, filled with the Spirit in wisdom, piety, and the knowledge of God (Isa. 9:6; 11:2; Jer. 23:5). As a result of his wisdom and righteousness, he will completely fulfill the condition placed on the sons of David, so much so that Jeremiah speaks of the promise of not lacking a man to sit on the throne as sure as the everlasting fulfillment of the Noahic covenant (Jer. 33:14-26).[8]

1689 Federalism on the Davidic Covenant

The following excerpts represent a synopsis of the Davidic Covenant from a Particular Baptist theological framework. Although there is not currently a “standard” systematic theology textbook that holistically represents the Particular Baptist tradition, most contemporary Particular Baptists recognize Samuel Renihan’s, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019) as being a faithful portrayal of what they believe.

A Critical Analysis of the Primary Sources

Now that the reader has been acquainted with a thorough overview of how the Davidic Covenant is understood by Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists, it is necessary to survey where these theological traditions agree and disagree. Thus, at minimum, all classifications of Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism would share agreement on these distinctives:

1. Although the primary passage describing the Davidic Covenant does not explicitly regard God’s promises to David as a “covenant” (i.e., 2 Sam. 7:8-16), the validity of the Davidic Covenant is confirmed in Psalm 89:3-4
2. There are unconditional aspects of the Davidic Covenant
3. The Davidic Covenant is an everlasting covenant, with the guarantee that only descendants of David have a legal right to his throne
4. Israel would receive undisturbed peace from enemies, and would be a blessing to surrounding Gentile nations
5. Solomon will build the temple of God

While there may be more tenuous areas in which Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists share consensus about the Davidic Covenant, these five basic distinctives can be derived from a straightforward reading of each respective tradition. Before delving into the evident areas of disagreement between the varieties of Dispensationalist and Particular Baptist thought, it is necessary to highlight an observable area of Dispensationalism’s inconsistency from the first point cited above. Despite the word “covenant” being absent in 2 Samuel 7:8-16, Dispensationalists are willing to acknowledge the validity of the Davidic Covenant on the basis of Psalm 89:3-4. However, despite the reference to Adam “breaking the covenant” in Hosea 6:7, Dispensationalists are not willing to acknowledge the validity of the covenant of works on the basis of there being no explicit mentioning of the word “covenant” in Genesis 1-3.[11] If we are able to allow Scripture to interpret and clarify Scripture in the case of the Davidic Covenant, why are we not allowed to do the same in the case of the covenant of works? This is a challenge that Dispensationalists must be tasked with addressing.

Having noted this glaring hermeneutical discrepancy, for the remainder of the article, two main areas of disagreement between Dispensational and Particular Baptist beliefs about the Davidic Covenant will be reviewed. Both subjects generating disagreement amongst these traditions will be presented in the form of a question:

Was the Davidic Covenant an Entirely Unconditional Covenant?

As noted above, Classic/Traditional and Revised Dispensationalists see the Davidic Covenant as being an entirely unconditional covenant whereas Progressive Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists do not. Although each tradition recognizes the unconditional aspects of the Davidic Covenant, the totality of what Scripture has to say about this covenant indicates the prevalence of conditionalities. There are at least two explicit conditionalities contained in the primary passage recounting the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:8-16). The commentary below attempts to summarize how Progressive Dispensationalism and 1689 Federalism overlaps in their perception of the Davidic Covenant’s conditional components.

1. The building of God’s temple by the descendant of David is not only required by him but will likewise be inextricably tied to the descendant’s kingship over Israel (2 Sam. 7:13; 1 Kings 8:27-29). In other words, the abiding validity of the Davidic Covenant is contingent on King Solomon’s obedience to build the temple of God, and as the king of Israel, Solomon will be tasked with leading the nation under God’s sovereign lordship (Deut. 17:14-20). Solomon’s commission to build the temple of God and lead Israel as a theocratic nation appear to be clear conditions associated with the Davidic Covenant.
2. The blessing of God upon the descendant of David is conditioned upon his obedience to God (2 Sam. 7:14). If David’s descendant disobeys God, he will be disciplined by God as a father would discipline a son. Inversely, if David’s descendant obeys God, he will not receive discipline from God; instead, he will receive blessing. There are several Old Testament passages that reiterate these principles, demonstrating how these conditional stipulations of the Davidic Covenant were maintained throughout Israel’s history (1 Kings 8:25-26; 9:4-9; 11:11-13; Ps. 132:11-12).

Has the Davidic Covenant been Entirely Fulfilled?

Every variation of Dispensationalism answers this question in the negative: the Davidic Covenant will not be entirely fulfilled until Jesus Christ reigns on the earth from the Davidic throne.[12] However, it’s important to note that Progressive Dispensationalists are not far from their Particular Baptist counterparts on this matter. Unlike Classic/Traditional and Revised Dispensationalists, adherents to Progressive Dispensationalism are willing to acknowledge an invisible fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant on the basis of Acts 2:29-36.[13] This is a significant concession by Progressive Dispensationalists, because it demonstrates a willingness to seriously consider how the New Testament utilizes—and builds off of—the Old Testament. Progressive Dispensationalists see deeper biblical-theological realities engrained in the Davidic Covenant, which doesn’t limit its fulfillment to a future, earthly, Israel-centered, millennial reign of Jesus Christ (Rev. 20:1-6). Nevertheless, because of its a priori commitment to premillennialism, Progressive Dispensationalism still insists that a visible fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant must occur in the future in order to satisfy the demands thereof. In the final analysis, just as an amillennial eschatology will influence how one reads the totality of Scripture, so also will a premillennial eschatology. Although it is not foundational to Christian orthodoxy, the doctrine of the last things is certainly not adiaphorous.

By virtue of how the New Testament refers to the Davidic Covenant (Luke 1:31-33, 68-79; Matt. 22:41-46; Acts 2:29-36; 15:13-21; etc), 1689 Federalism does not require there to be any future, physical, or national fulfillment of the divine promises to David. For the purposes of illustrating this contention, the Revised Dispensationalism framework that was previously shared has been reoriented to fit a Particular Baptist understanding of the Davidic Covenant.

• In Christ, David’s name has been made great through his Son and Lord (Matt. 22:41-46).

• In Christ, all Believers have an eternal home in His kingdom (Heb. 11:13-16). In Matthew 2:15, Matthew cites Hosea 11:1 in reference to the nation of Israel and directly applies it to the Lord Jesus Christ as being the true Israel of God. As such, all of Christ’s people are members of the true Israel and possess an eternal home in His kingdom (John 14:1-4).

• In Christ, all Believers will be given undisturbed rest from their enemies by virtue of dwelling with Him in the kingdom of Heaven (Rev. 21:1-4).

• In Christ, the dynasty of David endures forever because of Christ’s legal right to the throne of David through the genealogy of Joseph (Matt. 1:1-17), and His eternal Lordship over this age and the age to come (Phil. 2:9-11).

• Whereas Solomon built the physical temple of God in the nation of Israel (1 Kings 8:1-66), Jesus Christ is David’s greater Son and is a greater Solomon (Matt. 12:42). As such, Jesus Christ has established His kingdom forever and is continuing to build the temple of God as we speak. Christ is sovereignly drawing His elect to Himself to become spiritual partakers of His body: the eschatological temple of God (John 2:19-21; 2 Cor. 6:16-18).

• Whereas God had to discipline Solomon at times due to His unfaithfulness (1 Kings 11:11-13), God the Father never had to discipline His only begotten Son (John 8:28-29). The Lord Jesus Christ was perfectly obedient at every point in His earthly life, where He perfectly accomplished the redemption for all of His people (1 Pet. 2:21-24).

• In Christ, the throne of David has been established forever because the kingdom of Jesus Christ will have no end; indeed, it will endure for eternity future (Rev. 21-22).

Although Dispensationalists may deem these conclusions as “allegorizing” or “spiritualizing” Old Testament promises, at least two rebuttals can be offered in response: (1) the burden of proof is on the Dispensationalist to explain how New Testament chapter and verse references to the Davidic Covenant’s fulfillment necessitates additional fulfillment; (2) if Revelation 20:1-6 does not refer to a literal, future, earthly, millennial reign of Jesus Christ (as will be argued later in this series), there remains no biblical-theological basis to argue for the Davidic Covenant to be fulfilled beyond how it is already portrayed in the New Testament. At some point in the future, perhaps these challenges will be addressed by a Dispensational reader of this blog series.

In the next article of this series, we will continue our examination of “Dispensationalism’s Defunct Covenant Theology” by exploring how this system engages with the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34; Luke 22:20; Heb. 8:7-13; etc). Stay tuned!

Soli Deo Gloria!

---

[1] In keeping with each of the previous articles of this series, these four literary works will serve as the primary sources for the Classic/Traditional, Revised, and Progressive varieties of Dispensationalism, in supplementation to what is representative of a Particular Baptist theological framework.

[2] For the benefit of the reader, a lengthy elaboration on the Davidic Covenant has been provided from Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1993). Given the lack of a “standard” systematic theology textbook within the Progressive Dispensationalism tradition, the author felt it was necessary to consult an additional resource in supplementation to the primary text that has been utilized to expound Progressive Dispensationalism throughout this series. Exact citations from the SCRIBD edition of Progressive Dispensationalism will be provided in conjunction with the excerpts cited from Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church.

[3] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1988), Page 415.

[4] Chafer, Systematic Theology, Pages 415-416.

[5] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Page 877.

[6] MacArthur and Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Pages 877-878.

[7] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), Page 319.

[8] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 1993), SCRIBD, Pages 217-226.

[9] Samuel Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019), Pages 124-129.

[10] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Pages 129-131.

[11] This observation was referenced in a previous article in this series: https://covenantconfessions.com/examining-dispensationalisms-defunct-covenant-theology-a-rejection-of-the-covenants-of-redemption-works-and-grace/

[12] Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism (see full quote above): “David’s throne was never a heavenly throne; it was related to the earth and to political government over the land of Israel. This is the way it was interpreted in Israel at the time Christ was on earth, and it was supported by the message of the angel to Mary that Christ would inherit the Davidic throne (Luke 1:31-33). Christ is not fulfilling this covenant in heaven at the right hand of the Father. Fulfillment requires that Christ will return and establish His kingdom on earth as predicted in many Old Testament passages and in Revelation 20.”

Revised Dispensationalism (see full quote above): “Jesus’s ultimate assumption of the throne of David and his kingdom reign await his second coming in glory (Matt. 25:31), when the earth will be renewed and he and the apostles will rule over a united and restored nation of Israel (Matt. 19:28).”

[13] The motif of invisible/visible fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant is elaborated in Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), Pages 49-53. “Being seated on David’s throne is linked to being seated at God’s right hand. In other words, Jesus’ resurrection-ascension to God’s right hand is put forward by Peter as a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, just as the allusion to Joel fulfills the new covenant. To say that Peter is only interested to argue that Messiah must be raised misses the point of connection in these verses and ignores entirely the allusion to Psalm 132 and the Davidic covenant. This passage and Luke 1:68-79 also counter the claim that no New Testament text asserts the present work of Jesus as a reigning Davidite sitting on David’s throne. The throne Jesus is said to sit is the one promised to David’s descendant through the Davidic promise of 2 Samuel, which was initially passed on through Solomon. Jesus sits here as David’s promised Son on David’s promised throne… But Jesus rules from heaven, not earth, and thus the kingdom is invisible only in the sense that the rule does not originate visibly from earth. And yet this invisible kingdom, lacking a visible king, is a “sneak preview” kingdom in that this new community is to show God’s active power in the transformation of sinners from sin to righteousness (1 Cor. 1:18-25; Rom. 1:16-17). The transformation previews what the consummate rule of righteousness and justice for all in the coming phase of the kingdom will be like. Thus there is continuity with the future kingdom in the present kingdom, though there is a distinction in the visibility of the King in the two phases of the reign and in the fact that the current kingdom lacks political, nationalistic elements” (49-53).