The Meaning of Matthew 5:17-19, Part 3: The Meaning of “Abolish”

by Michael J. Vlach

@mikevlach

Below is Part 3 of an ongoing series on “The Meaning of 

Matthew 5:17-19.”

With my last post, I argued that “the Law or the Prophets” and “Law” in Matthew 5:17-18 referred to the Old Testament in its entirety. This is contrary to the popular idea that Jesus was addressing the Mosaic Law only, especially with Matthew 5:18. The purpose of this post is to examine the term, “abolish,” in 5:17. What did Jesus mean when He said that He did not come to “abolish” the Law or the Prophets?

A Word about Word Studies

This study and the one after this will focus on the meanings of the terms “abolish” and “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17-18. But first a note about words and word studies is appropriate.

As with all words, there is usually a range of meaning for a term depending on how it is used. If used extensively, most words have two or more meanings. That is how language usually works. For example, the Greek term pneuma in the New Testament, often translated “spirit,” can refer to the Holy Spirit (Eph. 1:13), wind (John 3:8), breath (2 Thess. 2:8), the immaterial part of a person (Luke 8:55; Acts 7:59), angels (Heb. 1:14), demons (Matt. 8:16), and other things. Context will decide which sense was in the author’s mind.

Obviously when Jesus said, “The wind [pneuma] blows where it wishes” in John 3:8 we are not free to plug in any of the options we want. “Wind” is the clear meaning here based on the context. Jesus did not mean “demons” or the “immaterial part of a person.” So while consulting dictionaries and lexicons for meanings of words is definitely helpful, ultimately the meaning of a word must be determined by the context in which it is used.

This point will be particularly significant when we look at the word pleroō, translated “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17. There are several ways pleroō is used in Matthew’s gospel and the New Testament. So we have to balance two things with word studies. First, we pay close attention to how a word is used in Scripture. But two, ultimately meaning is determined with the immediate context. This warning is not that big of an issue with the word “abolish,” since the meaning of this term is quite obvious in Matthew 5:17. But it will be more of an issue with “fulfill” since there are several different views of what this term means in 5:17.

Meaning of “Abolish” (kataluō)

The word “abolish,” which is used twice in Matthew 5:17, is the Greek term kataluō. In 5:17 the term is an infinitive verb, katalusai:

 “Do not think that I came to abolish (katalusai) the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish (katalusai) but to fulfill.” 

Kataluō is found 15 times outside of Matthew 5:17. Eight of these involve the idea of “destroy” or “demolish” concerning a temple. For example, Acts 6:13-14 states:

They put forward false witnesses who said, “This man [Stephen] incessantly speaks against this holy place and the Law; for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy [katalusei] this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us” (Acts 6:13-14).

Concerning the Jerusalem temple in Matthew 24:2, Jesus said:

And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down [kataluthēsetai].”

We are accurate to conclude that the idea of “destroy,” “demolish,” “overthrow,” “abolish,” and “tear down” is the meaning of katalusai in Matthew 5:17. The NASB, ESV, and NIV all interpret katalusai as “to abolish.” The HCSB translates it “to destroy.” Any of these descriptions works. This is a case where the term in Matthew 5:17 fits very closely with most uses of this term in the New Testament.

In order for Jesus to makes such a statement there must have been an accusation that He sought the destruction of the Law and the Prophets. But Jesus combats this idea. He did not come to abolish, destroy, or tear down the Law or the Prophets. He came to fulfill them.

In sum, when we combine the meaning of “abolish” with “the Law or the Prophets” in 5:17 the idea is this: Contrary to what some of His opponents asserted, Jesus did not come to abolish, destroy, or tear down the Law or the Prophets (i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures).

With my next post I will explain what it means for Jesus to “fulfill” the Law or the Prophets. Concerning this term much more debate exists.

The Meaning of Matthew 5:17-19, Part 2: Understanding “the Law or the Prophets”

by Michael J. Vlach

@mikevlach

In Part 1, I mentioned that a decision must be made concerning what Jesus meant by “the Law or the Prophets” in Matthew 5:17 and “Law” in 5:18. While this issue might not seem that significant at first glance, it is important for a correct understanding of Matthew 5:17-19. The purpose of this post is to survey the issues here and comment on what I think is the best understanding.

Before we start, though, I understand that the issues we are beginning to discuss are heavily debated And reasonable people can disagree with my findings.

To begin, note Jesus' words in Matthew 5:17-18:

“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” 

Meaning of “the Law or the Prophets” in 5:17

Ten other times, “Law” and “Prophets” are coupled in the New Testament—Matthew 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; 24:44; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 24:14; 28:23; and Romans 3:21. The joining of “the Law” and “the Prophets” together refers to the entirety of the Hebrew Scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament. The “Law” in this context refers to the Torah or first five books of the Bible. And “Prophets” refers to the rest of the Old Testament books. As Grant Osborne observes, “‘The law or the prophets’ means the whole of Scripture” (Matthew, 181).

Jesus’ mention of “or” (ē) instead of the usual “and” (kai) when connecting “the Law” with “the Prophets” does not change this reality. The point is that Jesus did not come to abolish “the Law” as part of God’s Word “or” “the Prophets” as part of God’s word. Together, there are no parts of the Hebrew Scriptures that Jesus came to abolish. In sum, we are on solid ground to view “the Law or the Prophets” in 5:17 as referencing the entirety of the Old Testament.

Meaning of “Law” in 5:18

But determining what Jesus meant by “Law” in Matthew 5:18 is more challenging and debated:

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished (emphasis mine).

Here Jesus mentioned “Law” but not “Prophets.” What should we conclude from this? Is Jesus drawing specific attention to the Mosaic Law commandments only? This is the majority view among commentators. Or is He using “Law” here as shorthand for “the Law” and “the Prophets” just mentioned in 5:17? With this understanding, this second use of “Law” also refers to the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole.

Three arguments exist for the ‘Mosaic Law only’ view. First, Jesus just mentions “Law.” By leaving out “Prophets” here He is focused solely on the Mosaic commands. Second, the context indicates He is focused on Mosaic Law commands. In verse 19, Jesus will mention “these commandments.” And in verse 20, He will discuss a righteousness needed to enter God’s kingdom. Then with Matthew 5:21-48 Jesus will bring up six Mosaic commandments showing that the Law was His emphasis. Third, most uses of “Law” in the New Testament focus on Mosaic Law commandments.

On the other hand, some believe “Law” in 5:18 is shorthand for the entire Hebrew Scriptures. So the Old Testament as a whole is in view, not just Mosaic Law commands. Several arguments exist for this view. First, since Jesus just mentioned “the Law or the Prophets” in 5:17 it seems unlikely that He would exclude “the Prophets” in 5:18. Second, the conjunction “for” (gar) connects the “Law” and “Prophets” of 5:17 with 5:18. So the message of 5:18 seems to be an explanation of what was stated in 5:17. This would have to include Hebrew Scriptures outside just the Mosaic commands. Third, with 5:17 Jesus speaks of fulfilling the Law and the Prophets, and in 5:18 He speaks of accomplishing all the details of the Law. It seems odd that the accomplishing of 5:18 would be distinct from the fulfilling of Matthew 5:17. Fourth, while it is true that “Law” most often refers to Mosaic commandments, it is not uncommon for “Law” to be used of the Old Testament as a whole. As Schreiner observes:

In some texts “Law” alone seems to refer broadly to the Old Testament Scriptures (Matt. 22:36; Luke 10:26; John 7:49; 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; 1 Cor. 9:8-9; 14:21, 34; Gal. 4:21), though in some of these texts a particular precept from the Mosaic law may be in view as well (John 7:49; 1 Cor. 9:8-9; 14:34) (Schreiner, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law, 21).

Fifth, in the only other case where the three elements of Mosaic Law, Prophets, and “fulfill” occur, the emphasis is on prophecies of the Old Testament being fulfilled, not just Mosaic Law fulfillment:

Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

In looking at the two views, I think the second view is more convincing and is more likely to be accurate. It seems best to view “Law” in 5:18 as shorthand for “Law” and “Prophets” and to see Jesus as including the entire Old Testament corpus with His second use of “Law.” With 5:17-18 Jesus addressed more than Mosaic Law commands. He made a statement about the fulfillment of the entire Hebrew Scriptures. Perhaps Jesus includes the prophecies, covenants, messianic predictions, and principles of the entire Old Testament. With Luke 24:44 we know that He included prophecies about his death and resurrection.

But what about the argument that the context of Matthew 5:17-48 is focused on the Mosaic Law commandments? There are several responses. First, the broader view of “Law” does not exclude the possibility that Jesus could make statements about the Mosaic Law. A statement about the “Law” does not mean the “Prophets” are excluded from the discussion. Second, as will be shown in a later post, “these commandments” in 5:19 might not refer to Mosaic Law commands. A reasonable case could be made that “these “commandments” refers to the entirety of the Old Testament instruction. Or, “these commandments” could refer to Jesus’ authoritative words in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). At the end of the Sermon, Jesus draws attention to “these words of Mine” (Matt. 7:24, 26). Also, while Jesus will bring up six Mosaic commands in 5:21-48, He could be doing so to contrast Mosaic Law instruction with the New covenant instruction He is now offering. The main point here is that it cannot be assumed that the context of Matthew 5 demands that “Law” in Matthew 5:18 means only the Mosaic Law.  

The Debate on This Issue

This debate concerning what Jesus meant by “the Law or the Prophets” and second use of “Law” in 5:18 was tackled by the contributors in the book, The Law, the Gospel, and the Modern Christian. Taking the broader view that Jesus was referring to the entire Old Testament Wayne Strickland stated:

In Matthew, the phrase “the Law and the Prophets” refers not simply to the Mosaic law, but to the entire Old Testament (cf. 7:12; 11:13; 22:40). Thus the term “law” in the following verse [5:18] is an abbreviated way of referring to the same Old Testament. It should also be noted that the explicit reference to “Prophets” indicates that the author is speaking of prophecy. That fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old Testament is in view is signaled by the phrase “until everything is accomplished” in verse 18. (p. 258)

Douglas Moo pushed back on Strickland’s understanding saying Strickland’s view “skews not only the meaning of this passage but one’s general theological synthesis” (p. 313). Moo says the phrase, “the Law and the Prophets” “focuses not on the prophecies of the Old Testament but on the legal, or commanding, aspects of the Old Testament” (p. 314). Thus, Moo thinks the context supports a narrower understanding concerning Mosaic commands.

But if “Prophets” are in the near context of Jesus’ discussion in 5:17 it makes sense that Jesus includes the Prophets in 5:18. That is hardly a skewed understanding, but a contextual one. Also, I am not sure how a statement that the Old Testament Scriptures must be fulfilled in their entirety is a threat to a “general theological synthesis.”

Conclusion

In sum, I believe “the Law or the Prophets” in 5:17 and “Law” in 5:18 refer to the Old Testament as a whole. I would not say this understanding is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt or that reasonable people cannot disagree. But I think this understanding is more likely than not, even probable. I certainly think it is reasonable and worthy of consideration. On the other hand, I think the Mosaic Law-only view is harder to prove. I also would be cautious of any theological system or view that bases the weight of its validity on a narrower understanding of “Law” in Matthew 5:18.

My next post we will look at the meaning of “abolish” and “fulfill” in Matthew 5:17-18 and how these terms relate to “the Law or the Prophets.”

The Meaning of Matthew 5:17-19: Part 1

by Michael J. Vlach 

@mikevlach

I have had a desire for some time to write on the meaning of Matthew 5:17-19. As I began to construct a blog post, it quickly became clear that a one-part entry would not be sufficient. So I am addressing this passage in a series, with this being Part 1. 

The purpose of this post is to introduce Matthew 5:17-19, and point out five key interpretive decisions that must be made here.  

For clarification, I am not offering a comprehensive biblical theology or systematic treatment of the Law of God in the Bible. That would take a large book. Nor is this a comprehensive examination of every view of Matthew 5:17-19, although I will mention some of the various views later. My goal primarily is to understand what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:17-19. We must let an accurate understanding of Matthew 5:17-19 inform our understanding of the Law and not force a predetermined view on this text.

Let us begin by reciting the text:

Matthew 5:17-19

 In Matthew 5:17-19, Jesus states:

¹⁷ “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. ¹⁸ For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. ¹⁹ Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (NASB).

Jesus’ words here reveal His understanding of the “Law or the Prophets” and His relationship to them.  

5 Major Interpretive issues

There are five parts of Matthew 5:17-19 where a significant interpretive decision must be made. How one decides on these will influence how one views this passage as a whole. Also, a wrong move on any of these five areas could mean an incorrect understanding of the passage. Precision of interpretation is crucial here.

First, what does Jesus mean by “the Law or the Prophets” in 5:17? Is Jesus singling out the Mosaic Law code for a specific explanation? Or is He referring to the entire Hebrew Scriptures, what Christians often call the Old Testament? This issue is very strategic for understanding what Jesus is doing.

Second, what does Jesus mean by “Law” in 5:18? Does He mean the same thing as “the Law or the Prophets” in 5:17 (i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures) or is He specifically focused on the Mosaic Law code here? 

Third, what does Jesus mean by “abolish” in 5:17? He uses this term twice, but what does this term mean?

Fourth, what does Jesus mean by the term “fulfill” in 5:17? Does he mean “establish” or “uphold”? Does He mean “deepen” or “extend”? Does He mean “fulfill” in the sense of finding completion in Him? Or does He mean that a literal fulfillment of what was stated must be accomplished? Grasping the meaning of plerōsai here is very important for an accurate understanding.

Fifth, what does Jesus mean by “these commandments” in 5:19?  Why does Jesus shift from nomos (“Law”) to entole (“commandments” or “instructions”)? Are these terms parallel in meaning or different? Does “these commandments” refer to the commandments of the Mosaic Law legal code? Or does it refer to the instructions of the entire Old Testament? Or does it refer to the words of Jesus from 5:21 through chapter 7? Again, the implications of this issue are significant.

My next post will start addressing these questions and issues.

A Case For Premillennialism

by Michael J. Vlach

I have presented a case for Premillennialism in two forms.

One is a book.

The other is a chapel message I did at The Master's Seminary (49 minutes).

Since Premillennialism is linked with so many Bible passages I focus mostly on a positive case for Premillennialism.

These two sources can be found below (click on links):

Premillennialism (book)

Chapel Message

Is Jesus Currently on David's Throne?: Peter's Use of Psalm 132:11 in Acts 2:30

by Michael J. Vlach 

Twitter: @mikevlach

The purpose of this blog post is to examine Peter’s use of Psalm 132:11 in Acts 2:30 with a view toward grasping Peter’s understanding of the throne of David concept.

Acts 2 describes the baptizing and filling ministry of the Holy Spirit after Jesus’ ascension. This is all related to Jesus, the resurrected Messiah, who currently is at the right hand of the Father. Jesus is the One who has poured forth the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33). The culmination of Peter’s argument in Acts 2 is found in his declaration that God has made the resurrected Jesus “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36).

Three quotations from the Psalms are found in Acts 2:29-36— Psalms 16, 132, and 110. The focus of this blog post, though, is on Peter’s use of Psalm 132:11 in Acts 2:30 and how this relates to the throne of David issue. Peter declared:

And so, because he [David] was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne (Acts 2:30).

Much debate exists on the implications of this verse, mostly concerning whether it implies that Jesus is currently sitting upon David’s throne today in heaven. Does Peter’s quotation of Psalm 132:11 indicate a change or advancement concerning the concept of David’s throne from a physical-earthly reality to a spiritual one. This topic involves both how Peter uses Psalm 132:11 and what this means for understanding the throne of David.

To understand Peter’s uses of Psalm 132:11 I will present both the context of the Old Testament passage and the New Testament situation in which Psalm 132:11 is quoted.  I will argue that Peter quotes Psalm 132:11 contextually, and he is not transcending or changing the meaning of the throne of David from its normal meaning of an earthly throne. Thus, Acts 2:30 is an example of a New Testament person quoting an Old Testament prophetic text contextually with the expectation that this Old Testament text will be fulfilled literally in the future.

Psalm 132

Psalm 132 is a psalm of ascents where the psalmist pleads with God to remember David and the Davidic Covenant (see 2 Sam. 7). As The Moody Bible Commentary states, “This psalm is the climax of the Psalms of Ascents. In it the psalmist emphasizes that all of Israel’s future hopes are dependent upon the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant” (p. 866).

After noting the humility of David (vv. 1-9) the author of Psalm 132 states:

For the sake of David Your servant,
Do not turn away the face of Your anointed.
 The Lord has sworn to David
A truth from which He will not turn back:
“Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.
“If your sons will keep My covenant
And My testimony which I will teach them,
Their sons also shall sit upon your throne forever” (vv. 10-12).

Peter will focus mostly on verse 11 and its statement that God will set a descendant(s) upon David’s throne. The context of the Davidic Covenant and Davidic throne is 2 Samuel 7 (cf. 1 Chron. 17). Second Samuel 7:16 states, “Your [David’s] house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.” Thus, Psalm 132:10-12 is reaffirming key aspects of the Davidic Covenant first given in 2 Samuel 7.

An inductive study of various Bible passages reveals that the throne of David is related to both function and location. Functionally, it will involve both kingly authority and rule. Concerning location, it will involve an earthly geographical realm. The one who functionally rules from David’s throne will do so from and over the location of Israel. These two aspects are found in Luke 1:32b-33 when the angel Gabriel told Mary:

the Lord God will give Him [Jesus] the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” (Luke 1:32b-33).

Thus:

            Function: “He will reign”

            Location: “over the house of Jacob”

On multiple occasions, the throne of David is linked geographically with Jerusalem and Israel. Second Samuel 3:10 speaks of “the throne of David over Israel and over Judah, from Dan even to Beersheba.” With 1 Kings 9:5 God told Solomon, “then I will establish the throne of your kingdom over Israel forever, just as I promised to your father David, saying, ‘You shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’” Jeremiah 17:25 links the throne of David with “Judah” and “Jerusalem.” On nine occasions David’s throne is called the “throne of Israel” (1 Kings 2:4; 8:20, 25; 9:5; 10:9; 2 Kings 10:30; 15:12; 2 Chron 6:10, 16), emphasizing that this throne is earthly in location. It should also be noted that this throne in Israel will eventually impact the whole world. Psalm 72:8 indicates that the reign of the Messiah will extend throughout the whole earth:

May he also rule from sea to sea
And from the River to the ends of the earth.

This locational emphasis concerning David’s throne is important since some have tried to argue that this throne is only about function, not location. But this is not true and is a false dichotomy. Both function and location are important.

Also, since the Davidic throne is established by God it is called “the throne of the Lord” in 1 Chronicles 29:23. This indicates the throne of David has the Lord as its source. It is the Davidic throne that the Lord has established on earth. First Chronicles 29:23 is not a statement that the Lord’s throne in heaven is blurred into the Davidic throne so that there is no distinction between them.

Acts 2:30-36

With Acts 2, Peter argued that Jesus is the resurrected Messiah and Lord who has poured out the Holy Spirit upon His people. Just prior to Acts 2:30, Peter quoted Psalm 16 to show that David consciously predicted the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 2:22-29). Then with Acts 2:30-32 Peter stated:

Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay. This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses. 

Peter said David was a “prophet” who consciously predicted the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, we have inspired commentary from Peter concerning what David believed about the coming Messiah. David possessed a specific messianic hope and predicted the resurrection of the Messiah we now know as Jesus.

With Acts 2:30-32 Peter quotes both Psalm 132:11 and Psalm 16:10. The former is a Davidic Covenant verse, and the latter emphasizes God’s “Holy One” who will not undergo decay.

Concerning Psalm 132:11, Peter draws upon the truth that God swore to David to sit one of David’s descendants on David’s throne in Jerusalem. So when Peter combines Psalm 132:11 with Psalm 16:10 he seems to be saying this: Since David knew the Messiah is destined to sit upon and reign from David’s throne forever, the Messiah must be raised from the dead. A dead Messiah cannot sit upon David’s throne, so the Messiah must be resurrected. Peter is not saying that Jesus currently is upon David’s throne, but the resurrection means God’s promise to seat a descendant of David upon David's throne forever is alive and well. 

Peter’s understanding of the Davidic throne in Acts 2 is consistent with the meaning of Psalm 132:10-12 and 2 Samuel 7. Nothing in Acts 2 indicates a change or addition has occurred concerning the Davidic throne concept.

Addressing the Heavenly Davidic Throne View

This understanding above concerning an earthly Davidic throne seems natural and likely. But not everyone accepts it. Some believe that Peter’s quotations of Psalm 132:11 (in Acts 2:30) and Psalm 110:1 (in Acts 2:34-35a) indicate a reinterpretation of the Davidic throne from an earthly reality to a heavenly reality. This is often seen in non-dispensational understandings of the kingdom in which physical realities are often spiritualized or reinterpreted to spiritual realities. For example, concerning Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ ascension in Acts 2, George Ladd said: “This involves a rather radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament prophecies, but no more so than the entire reinterpretation of God’s redemptive plan by the early church” (A Theology of the New Testament, 373).

For some theologians, David’s throne is now a heavenly entity and no longer refers to an earthly throne or position of authority in Jerusalem. Another view is that Peter is adding a spiritual dimension to the Davidic throne while not denying an earthly aspect of it in the future (some Progressive Dispensationalists). Both understandings, though, affirm that a heavenly Davidic throne is in view in Acts 2:30-36.

The argument that Peter is viewing David’s throne as a heavenly reality in Acts 2:30-36 is sometimes linked with the fact that Jesus’ session in heaven coincides with Peter’s reference to David’s throne in Acts 2:30. This understanding seems to rely on the following logic:

            The resurrected and ascended Jesus is now heaven.

            Peter quotes a passage involving the Davidic throne

Therefore, Jesus must be sitting upon David’s throne in heaven. 

But instead of simply linking heaven with David’s throne, it is more likely that Peter is making a cause-and-effect argument here. Jesus’ ascension to heaven is a step in the process to Jesus reigning from David’s throne in the future, which is what Psalm 110:1-2 actually predicts. Thus, the correct link between Jesus, heaven, and David’s throne is this—the resurrected Jesus who currently is in heaven is destined to reign upon David’s throne.

Notice that Peter does not say Jesus has been exalted to the throne of David in Acts 2:33. Instead, Peter says Jesus has been “exalted to the right of hand of God.” The Scripture consistently presents God’s throne as existing in heaven. Isaiah 66:1a states, “Heaven is my throne.” Psalm 11:4 declares, “the Lord’s throne is in heaven.” Yet David’s throne is consistently presented as an earthly reality involving Israel and the nations upon the earth (2 Sam. 3:10; 1 Kings 2:12; Jer. 17:25; Luke 1:32-33; Matt. 25:31).

Also, Peter’s emphasis in Acts 2:33b is not on Jesus reigning. Instead, Jesus is receiving and pouring forth the Holy Spirit. One would expect a statement about Jesus reigning if Peter linked the right hand of God with the Davidic throne. In addition, after Acts 2:30-36 there are thirteen statements that Jesus is at the “right hand” of God, but none say He is sitting upon the throne of David. The New Testament writers seem intentional about identifying Jesus as being at the right hand of God but not on the throne of David.

Thrones and Sitting

Another argument for the heavenly Davidic throne view concerns the issue of sitting, which Peter mentions concerning both David’s throne and the right hand of God:

David’s throne: to seat one of his descendants on his throne (Acts 2:30).

God’s throne: “Sit at My right hand, (Acts 2:34).

Since both Psalm 132:11 and Psalm 110:1 speak of the Messiah as sitting in these contexts some think the Davidic throne of Psalm 132:11 and the right hand of the father of Psalm 110:1 must be the same. Or to put another way:

           

            Psalm 132:11 speaks of a descendant of David sitting on David’s throne.

            Psalm 110:1 speaks of the Messiah sitting at the right hand of God.

            Therefore, David's throne and the right hand of the Father are the same.

But the act of sitting alone does not imply the two thrones are the same. The act of sitting can apply to the Father’s throne in heaven (Psalm 110:1) and David’s throne in Jerusalem (Psalm 132:11). In fact, Jesus makes such a distinction in Revelation 3:21:

He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne [David’s throne], as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne [Father’s throne].

So the two thrones are distinguished. Also, it appears that the act of sitting applies to two different thrones at two different times. Jesus is currently seated at the right hand of the Father now (“I also overcame”), and will in the future grant to overcomers the right to sit upon the throne of David (“I will grant to him”).

Another point to consider is that Jesus himself placed His Davidic throne assumption in the future in Matthew 25:31:

“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.”

Here Jesus’ sitting upon His glorious throne must be future since it is linked with His coming in glory with His angels. Matthew 25:32 then links this throne with the judgment of the nations, which is a future event on earth.

Matthew 19:28 also teaches that Jesus’ Davidic throne reign is future and connected with other future events such as the coming “regeneration” or renewal of the earth (palingenesia) and the rule of the apostles over the twelve tribes of Israel:

And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Finally, Psalm 110:1-2 explicitly teaches that the Messiah would have a session at God’s right hand in heaven “until” the time Messiah begins His earthly reign from Jerusalem. So why would a quotation of Psalm 110 by Peter be taken to mean that Jesus is upon David’s throne in heaven now? Psalm 110 predicted that a session of the Messiah at God’s right hand (v. 1) will eventually lead to a reign from Jerusalem (v. 2). Also, Hebrews 10:12-13 states that Jesus is at the right hand of God “waiting” to reign:

but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 

The right hand of God is linked with God’s throne in heaven. It is not simply a place of authority with no regard for a locale. In Acts 7:49, Stephen quoted Isaiah 66:1 saying, “Heaven is My [God’s] throne.” Then while being stoned we are told that Stephen saw “Jesus standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:55), and then he said, “‘Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” (Acts 7:56). Stephen saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God at God’s heavenly throne. So just as David’s throne has a locale in Jerusalem, the right hand of God has a heavenly locale at God’s throne in heaven. These thrones are not the same—one is heavenly and the other is on earth.

Conclusion

The purpose of Acts 2:30-36 (and all of Acts 2) is to show the people of Israel that the resurrected Jesus is both Lord and Messiah. Jesus is at the right hand of God and He has poured out His Holy Spirit upon His followers. Peter is not stating that Jesus has assumed a transcended, heavenly Davidic throne to rule over a redefined spiritual kingdom.

In sum, Peters’ quotation of Psalm 132:11 in Acts 2:30 is contextual and relies upon the literal meaning of Psalm 132:11 which speaks of a descendant of David sitting upon the Davidic throne in Israel. Peter argues that Jesus is the One destined to reign upon the Davidic throne on earth. Because of this, Jesus could not remain dead after His crucifixion. He must be resurrected. So Peter’s use of Psalm 132:11 is an example of a New Testament person (Peter) relying upon the literal meaning of an Old Testament text (Psalm 132:11), and seeing the fulfillment of this passage as needing to occur in the future.

This understanding does not mean there are no Davidic Covenant implications in this age. Jesus, the ultimate Son of David, has been manifest and we know who He is (Matt. 1:1). He is now at the right hand of God in heaven as David predicted (see Psalm 110:1). Also, the New Covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit which stems from the Messiah is being poured out on all believers today. Gentiles, in addition, are experiencing messianic salvation as Gentiles in this age (Acts 5:14-18; with Amos 9:11-12). But to hold that Acts 2:30-36 indicates Jesus is sitting upon and reigning from David’s throne in this age goes beyond what Peter in Acts 2 is saying.

Paul's Use of Isaiah 59:20-21 in Romans 11:26-27

by Michael J. Vlach

One example where a New Testament writer views an Old Testament prophetic passage as needing to be fulfilled literally in the future is Paul’s use of Isaiah 59:20-21 in Romans 11:26-27:

and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
²⁷ “This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

This statement by Paul comes in the context of his discussion concerning why God’s Word has not failed concerning Israel in Romans 9-11. In showing how Paul uses this passage I start with explaining Isaiah 59:20-21 in its original context.

Isaiah 59:20-21 in Context

Isaiah 59:20-21 reads:

“A Redeemer will come to Zion,
And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” declares the Lord.

²¹ “As for Me, this is My covenant with them,” says the Lord: “My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your offspring, nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring,” says the Lord, “from now and forever.”

The last two major sections of Isaiah are chapters 49-57 and 58-66. Isaiah 49-57 focuses on the coming Suffering Servant who will vicariously atone for the sins of His people. We now know that Jesus is this Suffering Servant. Isaiah 58-66 then focuses on the glorious kingdom blessings that will come to Israel and the world. Israel will be restored and the nations of the earth will then bless Israel.

Together, these two sections focus on salvation and kingdom. So when Isaiah 59:20-21 will speak of the Lord’s salvation of Israel, the backdrop of this truth is the work of the Suffering Servant.

Isaiah 59 is a strategic chapter since it addresses: (1) Israel’s sin (vv. 1-8); (2) Israel’s national confession of guilt (vv. 9-15a); (3) the Lord’s rescue of Israel (vv. 15b-19); and (4) the salvation of Israel and Israel’s inclusion into the New Covenant (vv. 20-21).

Starting with Isaiah 59:15b, the Lord, who is presented as Israel’s interceder, is said to be displeased that there was “no justice” and “that there was no one to intercede” for Israel. So He decides to act alone on Israel’s behalf against the nations. This interceding on Israel’s behalf will include both national deliverance from Israel’s enemies and spiritual salvation for Israel from her sins.

Isaiah 59:16-19 emphasizes the coming wrath of God against the nations, even distant nations—“Wrath to His adversaries, recompense to His enemies; to the coastlands He will make recompense” (59:18). This is clearly a physical deliverance from oppression. This also is the message of Zechariah 14 and Isaiah 63:3-6 which speak of the Lord’s physical deliverance of Israel from her enemies. Also, in the New Testament Zacharias declared that the coming Messiah (Jesus) would bring “Salvation from our enemies” (Luke 1:71). He also said that in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant God would “grant us that we being rescued from the hand of our enemies” (Luke 1:74).

Yet in addition to national deliverance from enemies, the “Redeemer” of Isaiah 59:20 is also a Savior from sin. Much of Isaiah 58-66 concerns Israel’s sinfulness and Israel’s national confession of sin. Isaiah 59 began with, “Behold, the Lord’s hand is not so short that it cannot save” (v. 1). That this includes salvation from sin is supported by the fact that Isaiah 59:1-15a is all about Israel’s sin and confession of sin. So the “Redeemer” of verse 20 is more than a deliverer from oppressing nations He is also a Savior from sin. This Redeemer is also the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52-53 who “bore the sin of many and interceded for the transgressors” (53:12). Also, this “Redeemer” comes “to those who turn from transgression in Jacob” (59: 20). So the Redeemer’s coming to Zion is linked with forgiveness of sins in Israel.

This salvation that the Redeemer brings is linked with Israel’s inclusion and participation in the New Covenant—“‘As for Me, this is My covenant with them,’ says the LORD: ‘My Spirit which is upon you. . . .’” (21a). The “My covenant” here most probably is the New Covenant. Jeremiah 31:31, 34 explicitly links the New Covenant with Israel’s forgiveness of sins. Ezekiel 36 also links the Holy Spirit with the New Covenant—“I will put My Spirit within you” (Ezek. 36:27a). This inclusion of Israel into the New Covenant is also linked with Abrahamic Covenant blessings since the New Covenant is an extension of the Abrahamic Covenant.

In sum, Isaiah 59 reveals that Israel’s sin will one day be recognized by the people of Israel. When this occurs, the Lord will act alone on Israel’s behalf to rescue Israel from her enemies. He also comes to Israel with salvation, a salvation based on the work of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 52-53. This salvation means inclusion into the New Covenant.

Romans 11:26-27

So how does Isaiah 59:20-21 connect with Romans 11? In Romans 9-11 Paul addressed the situation of Israel’s unbelief and whether God’s Word has failed (see Rom. 9:1-6). He explains that Israel missed God’s righteousness since the nation pursued righteousness through the works of the Mosaic Law and not through faith in Jesus who is the end of the Law (see Rom. 9:30–10:4).

Paul explains that God’s Word has not failed. In doing so he appeals to past, present, and future truths. Concerning the past, Israel is still related to adoption, the covenants, the promises, temple service, the patriarchs, and Jesus the Messiah (see Rom. 9:4-5). Concerning the present God has kept a remnant of believing ethnic Israelites (Rom. 11:1-6). This remnant is a guarantee that God has not permanently rejected the nation Israel. In the present God is also saving many Gentiles. In fact, the salvation of Gentiles is being used by God to make corporate Israel jealous (11:11).

Concerning the future, God will save and reinstall national Israel to Abrahamic covenant blessings after the “fullness of the Gentiles” (Rom. 11:17-25). This “fullness of the Gentiles” relates to God’s purposes for Gentiles in this age including their salvation and role of provoking Israel to jealousy. This leads to the salvation of Israel as Paul states in 11:25-26a:

For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; ²⁶ and so all Israel will be saved.

“All Israel” in Scripture refers to the nation Israel as a whole at any given point in time when Israel is being addressed. Since the context is future-oriented here, the “all Israel” refers to Israel as a whole at some point in the future.

To support the assertion that “all Israel will be saved” Paul draws upon Isaiah 59:20-21a in Romans 11:26b-27:

and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
²⁷ “This is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”

Here Paul relies upon Isaiah 59:20-21a in a contextual way. The Isaiah passage predicted a coming salvation of Israel as a corporate entity that reverses the nation’s unbelief and that is Paul’s point too. The coming of the Redeemer, who is Jesus the Messiah, will be linked with the salvation of national Israel and Israel’s inclusion in the New Covenant. That is the message of both Isaiah and Paul. To compare:

Isaiah 59:20-21: Predicts a coming salvation of national Israel and inclusion of Israel into the New Covenant.

Romans 11:26-27: Predicts a coming salvation of national Israel and inclusion of Israel into the New Covenant.

 “To” or “From” Zion

While the meaning of Isaiah 59:20-21 in Romans 11:26-27 is established, I need to mention some issues concerning “Zion.” Isaiah 59:20 says the Deliverer will come “to Zion,” but Paul says the Deliverer will come “from [ek] Zion.” Zion is consistently used of an earthly mountain in Jerusalem. But some think that since Paul says the Deliverer is returning “from Zion,” that “Zion” in Romans 11:26 must refer to Heaven. If this is the case the normal earthly sense of “Zion” would not occur in 11:26.

But a heavenly understanding of “Zion” is probably not accurate. Paul’s use of “Zion” in Romans 9:33 concerned earthly Zion, and Paul is probably not changing the meaning of “Zion” in 11:26. But why does Paul say “from” and not “to” concerning Zion? Is Paul being creative in his interpretation?

I do not think so. Paul may be drawing upon Psalm 14:7 which states that Israel’s salvation will “come from Zion.” But even if he is not, the different prepositions (“to” and “from”), while acknowledged, should not be pushed too much. The Old Testament prophets spoke of both a coming “to Zion” and “from Zion,” almost equally with no radical distinction between the two.

Paul’s use of “from Zion” could emphasize Jesus’ rule from earthly Zion (i.e., Jerusalem) as a result of Jesus’ return “to Zion.” In Psalm 110:1-2, the Messiah is said to rule “from Zion” in Jerusalem after a session in heaven at God’s right hand. But for this rule “from Zion” to occur a return “to Zion” (i.e. Jerusalem) had to happen.

Isaiah himself declared both concepts. In addition to saying the Deliverer comes “to Zion” (Isa. 59:20), Isaiah also says, “For the law will go forth from Zion” (Isa. 2:3, emphasis added). So the prepositions “to” and “from” are closely related.

In sum, the statements that the Deliverer is coming “to Zion” (Isa. 59:20) and “from Zion” (Rom. 11:27) are closely linked and can be harmonized. Paul could refer to Jesus’ rule “from Zion” (earthly Jerusalem) that is connected with Jesus’ second coming “to” Jerusalem as stated in Isaiah 59:20.

Conclusion

Paul’s use of Isaiah 59:20-21a in Romans 11:26b-27 is contextual. He relies upon Isaiah’s intent. This is an example of a New Testament writer expecting a literal fulfillment of an Old Testament prophetic text that has not been fulfilled yet.