by Angus Harley

David’s kingship is said by Dispensational Theology (DT) to be a pattern for Jesus’ kingship. David came as king to earth before he actually reigned as a king on earth. He will reign as king on earth during the literal millennial period.

In this simple summary, the reader will have noticed that I’ve avoided the Jewish angle. In what I am attempting in this article the Jewish question is just a distraction. What I will do is look at David’s kingship from the point of view of before and during his reign, and then demonstrate from the NT how the Gospels use this info on David as a shadow of Jesus’ kingship. 

David’s example as king

What follows are a few simple observations concerning David and his kingship specifically as related to before, and at the commencement of, his reign. 

Time of David’s kingship. In 1 Samuel 16:1, Saul is rejected as king over Israel by Yahweh. Consequently, Samuel is sent to anoint David as the new king:

“Now the Lord said to Samuel, “How long will you grieve over Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and go; I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have selected a king for Myself among his sons.” ” 

Subsequently, David was made king when was he was anointed (1 Sam.16:12, 13). He was the Lord’s king from that moment. Yet, as we will now see, this was before his reign as king. 

Time of David’s reign. His reign over the people began when he was formally made king by the people, before Yahweh, and a covenant was made between them and him to be their king:

“1 Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “Behold, we are your bone and your flesh. 2 Previously, when Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and in. And the Lord said to you, ‘You will shepherd My people Israel, and you will be a ruler over Israel.’” 3 So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, and King David made a covenant with them before the Lord at Hebron; then they anointed David king over Israel. 4 David was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned forty years. 5 At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty-three years over all Israel and Judah” (2 Sam.5:1-5).

Please observe that David’s formal entrance into his kingship, and the commencement of his reign, came with a city (Hebron) that presumably housed his throne, and that David was a ruler and a lord, too. Kingship, ruler, lordship- a three-for. Notice, too, how David was at that time re-anointed, formally, to be a reigning king.

David’s kingship prior to his reign was demonstrated by the anointing of the Spirit. David’s kingship began immediately upon his anointing at first by Samuel. There is no suggestion that he was king merely in title. This is demonstrated by the fact that he received the Spirit of the Lord, “Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward” (1 Sam.16:13). Notice how at the time of his public anointing in front of all Israel, that the Spirit was not merely a ‘piece of clothing’, but was active in David as king immediately, “the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward“. 

Yahweh’s choice and Israel’s later reaction must be distinguished. We must distinguish, then, between Yahweh’s act of marking out his anointed one with the Spirit, and Israel later approving of him as king in a ceremony. Their approval is sealed by a covenant, city, throne, anointing, etc..

Coronation marks the time  of the commencement of reign. 2 Samuel 5:1-5 is also indicating that David was coronated (as if he had a crown put on his head), and it is then that his formal kingship, and his reign over the people, begins. He was not coronated prior to this. Nor did he reign prior to this. He was not “made king” with a reign until 2 Samuel 5. 

David’s actions as king must be divided into pre-reign and reign. There were regal (kingly) actions of David prior to his reign, and regal (kingly) actions stemming from his reign. Davidic regal action extends from the pre-reign era into reign era.

Saul follows a similar, but not identical, pattern as king. In 1 Samuel 10:24, Saul is formally made king, coronated, before the people, and with their approval. Yet, before this, he was anointed as king (10:1), and then subsequently anointed with the Spirit to prophesy (10:6, 10). His anointing with oil, reception of the Spirit, and kingly action in prophesying, all happened before his formal acceptance by the people, before he was coronated as king, and before he returned to his city of Gibeah to reign (10:26). 

Strikingly, Saul is later marked out by being abandoned as king by Yahweh: he removed his Spirit from Saul. To confirm this movement from kingship to non-kingship, Yahweh sends, instead, an evil spirit to assail Saul.

This Spiritual divestment is contrasted to David as king as invested with the Spirit of God:

“13 Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the Lord came mightily upon David from that day forward. And Samuel arose and went to Ramah. 14 Now the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him. 15 Saul’s servants then said to him, “Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you.”” (1 Sam.16:13-15)

By the end, Saul had a regal reign, regal name, regal authority, a regal city, and a regal throne. He was still called the anointed! All the markers of a coronated king. Yet, because he was not marked out by the Spirit of God, he was no longer Yahweh’s king. He was regal in name only, as far as Yahweh was concerned. David at that point, by contrast, was regal in reality because he had the Spirit. However, he lacked a reign, a city, a throne, a formal covenant and anointing, and all the people declaring his kingship. But all that mattered was that David had the Spirit as king, being explicitly approved of by Yahweh and his prophet Samuel. Saul was explicitly disapproved of. Of course, David’s status as king was later to change at the time of his coronation and reign. Put another way, there is the status of a title (king versus, say, a servant), and there is the status of the office (awaiting to reign versus reigning).

David’s humiliation as Yahweh’s king. Saul’s pre-reign kingship was exceptionally brief. Not so David’s. His pre-reign kingship was long and extended, and was marked from beginning to end with persecution. Saul, the king in name only, pursued David the true king to kill him. It was a clash of anointeds, of kings. David may not have been reigning at that point, but he was, as a fugitive king, most definitely ‘over’ a people: those who were faithful to him, and especially those who accompanied him in his wilderness sufferings. There may have been no formal ‘kingdom’, no reign, but there was a king who was over his people.

Illustrating David’s kingship. The above is no different in practice to presidents who have been elected but not formally inaugurated into office. King Charles became king the second his mother died; but he was not coronated until later. Only at his coronation did his reign begin. During WW2, de Gaulle was the de facto leader of the French military and the nation, even though he was in exile in the UK, in a state of humiliation, with no power, and had not been appointed by the French people. He was formally recognized after the war as the head of the military, and was appointed by the nation as the leader of the interim government.

The Gospels and their application of David’s example

NCT hermeneutic. As NCTers, we are not disposed to submit to the DT hermeneutic that puts the OT before the NT. Our understanding of Jesus’ kingship in the Gospel, and the rest of the NT, is not determined by the OT. Rather, the OT testifies to him; the OT is fulfilled in him. Not the other way round. This is crucial for us to understand as NCTers. David’s experience of kingship does not control Jesus’ kingship. Yet, it is apparent that Jesus’ kingship on earth and in heaven uses the broader outlines of David’s kingship. This is to say that, David’s kingship broadly foreshadowed Jesus’, not the other way round.

Not recognizing kingly (regal) action. Standard DT will tell you that Jesus came as king. This is accurate. It is also the case that the Jewish nation rejected him as king. 

What DT is not clear about is the capacity in which Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of David. This may seem odd, given that DT recognizes Jesus as king, and that he told people that he was king and that his kingdom was “at hand”. Yet, in reading DT I did not get a sense that it believes Jesus, in making these comments about his kingdom, is acting in a regal and kingly fashion. Certainly, his baptism and reception of the Spirit is not seen by DT as a kingly anointing by the Father. It would seem, then, that to DT, Jesus on earth is in name king but is not king in action, not even in terms of his proclamations about his kingdom. In that regard he is merely a prophet proclaiming about his kingdom to come. 

An inherent problem with this view is that it delimits the functionality of kingship according to its the reception by the nation of Israel. David was anointed as king without the approval of Israel. Only after his anointing did some Jews approve. More pointedly, it was upon his reign alone that the whole nation approved. Similarly, Jesus’ kingship was not at all predicated upon the approval of the masses.

The other issue facing DT is that of rejecting kingly/regal actions outside of the status of reigning. DT has painted itself into a corner. According to DT, Jesus was not acting as king on earth because he was not reigning on earth. Yet, David was not reigning as king on earth, but he was still king and was acting as king. Regal actions do not equate to reigning. A point I have labored to stress throughout the section on David.

Jesus’ regal action on earth is so abundantly obvious from the Gospels that it beams a giant negative light on DT’s position. Jesus is called the ‘Christ’, the ‘Son of David’, ‘Son’, and ‘Lord’. It is preposterous to suggest that these were mere titles whilst he was on earth. They were offices, for he was acting as the Christ, the Son of David, Son, and Lord. He never refused genuine appeals to his royal names, and always acted upon those appeals.

Jesus’ anointing with the Spirit. Like David and Saul, Jesus received the Spirit before his formal reign. Unlike them, Jesus was not formally anointed with real oil whilst on earth. He was, however, anointed with the Spirit, which happened at his baptism in water. In Matthew 3, John the Baptist had just been preaching about the kingdom of God and its nearness, and the need to repent. Immediately after this, John baptizes Jesus in water, upon which Jesus receives the Spirit, and the Father declares that Jesus was his Son. This is all Messianic in nature. John the Baptist is functioning as a Samuel to a David. He is the prophetic head. John did not understand this, but that makes no difference to the Father’s purpose. What did Jesus preach in the power of the Spirit? ” “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”” (Matt.4:17). His prophetic message as the king was of a kingdom-Gospel. Jesus, also by the Spirit, as the Son of David, healed many people, and did other mighty miracles, mimicking the mighty outpouring of the Spirit on David. And then, on top of all of this, his disciples and the people constantly declared him as the Christ, Lord, Son of David, and Son of God. All the titles associated with David’s kingship are heaped on him, and he never once rejects them, nor come even remotely close to refining their comments.

Jesus’ kingship on earth was in a state of humiliation. Just like David before his reign, throughout Jesus’ ministry, he was persecuted, harassed, harangued, and eventually was murdered. Why? Because he was king. The Romans created a derogatory plaque for his death that called him the king of the Jews. Herod  the king, like Saul, had tried to take out his regal competition. 

Jesus’ kingship had not entered into its reign whilst on earth. Just as David’s kingship preceded his reign, so too with Jesus’. Indeed, it was impossible for his reign to precede his humiliation, for Jesus’ kingdom is not at all earthly. Listen to what the king declares:

“Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm”” (John 18:36). 

An earthly kingdom, such as of the Romans or the Jews, was completely fleshly in nature, a material kingdom, with regal power-projection that was entirely bound up with this physical world. Such was David’s kingdom.

Jesus’ kingdom, being the real deal, was none of those things. It was heavenly, with the Father, in heaven, and was entirely Spiritual and invisible. To enter into his reign- not into his kingship- Jesus had to be received into heaven by his Father to be installed as king at his right hand. This happened at his resurrection, or, more accurately, at his glorification in heaven, the royal ‘city’ with its throne (see John 4:19-24).

Jesus resists the people making him king, resists being enthroned, up unto the cross. Throughout his ministry, Jesus resisted the Jewish people and their attempts to make him king. Only the Father could formally install him as king, as Yahweh did with David. Approaching the time of the cross, Jesus rode upon a colt (John 12:14; Zech.9:9) to fulfill the beginning of the process of his divine, not earthly, installment according to the Lord in heaven’s timetable and will. Jesus is being rejected as an earthly king (he was going to be crucified by the Jews, and his kingdom was not of this world). Only a remnant of the Jews welcomed Jesus. Yet, this rejection becomes the springboard for his true kingdom that is spiritual and heavenly. By his crucifixion in this world, by the hands of its material kingdoms (as embodied in the union of Roman and Jew), Jesus breaks their power by enduring punishment, persecution, and death, for the sake of his own true citizen-disciples: those who accompanied him in his ‘wilderness wanderings’ on earth. Unlike David, this Son of David had to die. Only then was was his throne in heaven established. He overcame the kingdoms of this world not by an earthly rule, but by the Spiritual power of the other world and its heavenly and invisible kingdom.

The true king of the true Israel is marked out by a formal covenant. Jesus’ kingly covenant is the New Covenant in his blood. This is of immeasurable relevance, for his kingdom was founded on blood; it is a spiritual kingdom dealing with sin, therefore, not with human and material kingdoms and affairs. This New Covenant functions to remove the attention from earth to heaven, therefore.

Notice, too, who are the ‘Israel’ who endorse this covenant: his disciples! One disciple is immediately marked out as a fake Israelite, Judas. Indeed, it is the New Covenant process itself that identifies him as apostate, for during this Covenant, Judas takes the sop. It is this ‘Israel’ of the wilderness- prior to Jesus’ reign- that is then carried on over into the era of his reign, as proved by the fact that the Son of God, the king from above, is re-anointed, like David, with the Spirit that he then pours out on his assembly gathered there in Jerusalem (Acts 1).

Responding to objections

In this final section I will respond to objections to my argument. I’m not entertaining all the usual DT Gospel counter-arguments, only those which are relevant to my argument. I’ll put DT’s arguments in italics and inverted commas (‘ ‘).

‘Jesus did not reign on earth. You are wrong, therefore.’

The reader who has carefully read my article will see that I utterly deny that Jesus was ‘reigning’ as king on earth. I say it time without number, and even put it in bold text- deliberately! Yet, in my experience in speaking to Dispies, they entirely ignore my view on this issue, and commence to put words in my mouth.

So, I will help those Dispies, who are at this second doing this, to properly critique my view. You ought to say something like this, ‘Harley does believe, very clearly, that Jesus was not reigning on earth, and that Jesus’ reign was in heaven alone. He also adds that this reign began only when Jesus ascended to the Father’s right hand. However, Harley contradicts himself by his view that Jesus was acting in the capacity of king whilst on earth, for Jesus could not act as king without a reign as king.’ This is a fairer critique of Harley’s position.

Another major criticism of DT is that it conveniently ignores the ‘three-for’ effect. David as anointed was ruler, lord and king. So, here’s my question for DTers: was Jesus Lord before his ascension? It is a simple question requiring a simple yes or no answer. In my experience, this question is bypassed by DTers. Now, if he was Lord, was he acting as Lord? Again, a simple question that needs a very simple answer.

Of course, a main counter-argument to such a DT criticism is that David was acting as king long before his enthronement.

Finally, and more importantly, the NT has interpretive priority, and it alone establishes the true boundaries of Jesus’ kingship, not David’s ‘reign’.

‘Jesus’ kingdom is clearly earthly, for it spreads throughout this earth.‘

One of Jesus’ biggest problems was that he had to re-educate his wilderness followers (aka, disciples) of the true nature of the Messianic kingship. Just as Samuel whined about Saul, John the Baptist was ‘doing a Samuel’ by complaining about Jesus. If the Samuel of the NT- John the Baptist- didn’t properly comprehend Jesus’ true kingship from heaven, what chance did the lesser disciples have of comprehending his reign?

Jesus prophetically predicts, as the Son of David, the growth of his kingdom and its Gospel, not as an earthly kingdom, but as one spiritual kingdom invading another spiritual realm. He was the strong man entering another’s house and overpowering him (Matt.12:29). He was taking on Satan, the spiritual and invisible ruler of this world, and breaking his power and rule. This was an invisible, spiritual warfare, wherein the power of the heavenly kingdom was breaking the power of the Satanic kingdom that was ‘lodged lick a tick within the skin of’ the kingdoms of the earth. Jesus is the superior king, with the superior kingdom, for it is heavenly and Spiritual in nature.

The aim of Jesus’ kingship and its invasion was not to restore order to this world and its kingdoms, but to break this world’s Satanic ruler and his reign, so as to take to himself the spoils of war (souls) and bring them into his own kingdom from above. We can illustratively depict this difference by reference to the US in WWII. The US soldiers and power belonged, properly, to the United States itself. It invaded Nazi held lands and deposed the Nazis. The US did not go on to ‘reign’ in France, Germany, or any other part of the world. The US military returned to its true home of the land of the United States. As with all illustrations this one is limited to the contrast between two powers and kingdoms, both spiritual, one from heaven, and the other- evil- that was behind this world.

‘The Gospels don’t refer to Jesus ‘reigning’ after his ascension.’

True. But the Gospels do anticipate this reign, ” “He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end”” (Luke 1:33; ). The Gospel of the ‘kingdom’, plus all the regal titles, and added to these all his regal actions in the Spirit, demonstrate he was king, and, by their very existence, they anticipate his installment or coronation to reign.

‘You don’t understand the proleptic nature of Jesus’ kingdom. His kingdom was in stages, and the final stage of the Davidic kingship will be his thousand year reign on earth.’

I think it safe to say that my view does not reduce Jesus’ kingship to one giant form of reigning. I do see stages: pre-reign and reign. Indeed, there is further evidence that his reign is itself broken down into stages: he reigns now and has defeated his enemies principle, but must bring the hammer down to complete his victory as reigning king. I will happily concede, given the above, that there are the common denominators of kingship, victory, Spirit, and authority from pre-reign to reign and within the stages of the reign itself. However, these common features do not bulldoze the eras or stages in Jesus’ kingship. The model I propose strongly magnifies kingly differentiation, but it gives to it a completely different background and setting to that of DT.

There is more to say on Jesus’ Davidic kingship, but I will come to this in another article. For the moment, I will draw a line under things.