‘Radical Reinterpretation,’ New Testament Priority, and the Hermeneutics of George Ladd

As I continue my discussion on Historic Premillennialism (HP), I want to focus my thoughts on the hermeneutics of HP’s #1 defender in the 20^th century—George Ladd. Specifically, I want to address Ladd’s views on how the New Testament (NT) uses the Old Testament (OT). Since Ladd is often looked to as a primary leader of HP, his views on hermeneutics should be examined to help us understand HP or at least modern expressions of HP.

In regard to how the NT uses the OT, I will point out that Ladd affirmed three things: (1) the NT used the OT non-contextually; (2) the NT reinterpreted the OT; and (3) the NT has priority over the OT.

Non-contextual Use of the OT

Ladd believed that the NT writers used OT prophecies non-contextually:

The fact is that the New Testament frequently interprets Old Testament prophecies in a way not suggested by the Old Testament context.[1] (emphasis is Ladd’s)

Responding in agreement to Ladd’s statement, the amillennialist, Anthony A. Hoekema, wrote, “I agree with him [Ladd] that the Old Testament must be interpreted in light of the New Testament and that a totally and exclusively literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is not justified.”[2]

Ladd also argued for deeper meaning for OT passages given by the NT: “Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted in the light of the New Testament to find their deeper meaning.”[3]

NT Reinterpretation of the OT

In addition, Ladd believed in NT reinterpretation of the OT. In doing so he argued that physical promises to Israel are “reinterpreted” and may find their spiritual fulfillment in the church:

The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm.[4]

Two passages highlight Ladd’s methodology. First, concerning Matt. 2:15 which states, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son,” Ladd offered the following:

In Hosea [11:1] this is not a prophecy at all but a historical affirmation that God had called Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus. However, Matthew recognizes Jesus to be God’s greater son and deliberately turns a historical statement into a prophecy. This is a principle which runs throughout biblical prophecy. The Old Testament is reinterpreted in light of the Christ event. (Emphasis is Ladd’s)[5]

Second, Ladd held that Rom 9:24–26 is evidence that the Christian church fulfills promises made to national Israel. He states, “Paul deliberately takes these two prophecies about the future salvation of Israel and applies them to the church. The church consisting of Jews and Gentiles has become the people of God. The prophecies of Hosea are fulfilled in the Christian church.”[6]

Third, according to Ladd, Jesus’ exaltation as discussed in Acts 2 means “new redemptive events in the course of Heilsgeschichte (“salvation history”) have compelled Peter to reinterpret the Old Testament.”[7]

 At times, Ladd escalates the concept of “reinterpretation” to “radical reinterpretation.” In regard to Peter’s understanding of Jesus’ ascension in Acts 2, 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.[8] 

In regard to Heb 8:13 and the new covenant Ladd states: “Here again we have a radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament prophets. . .”[9]

NT Priority over the OT

Along with the concept of “reinterpretation” or “radical reinterpretation” of the OT, Ladd explicitly affirmed NT priority over the OT. He did this when comparing Dispensationalism with non-dispensationalism:

Here is the basic watershed between a dispensational and a non-dispensational theology. Dispensationalism forms its eschatology by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament and then fits the New Testament into it. A nondispensational eschatology forms its theology from the explicit teaching of the New Testament. It confesses that it cannot be sure how the Old Testament prophecies of the end are to be fulfilled for (a) the first coming of Christ was accomplished in terms not foreseen by a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, and (b) there are unavoidable indications that the Old Testament promises to Israel are fulfilled in the Christian church.[10]

One important thing to note here is that Ladd views NT priority over the OT as more than just being his own personal view—it is a “watershed” issue that separates non-dispensational theology from dispensational theology. Thus, one can determine whether he or she is a dispensationalist or not based on this understanding. As a dispensationalist, John Feinberg affirms this difference:

Nondispensationalists begin with NT teaching as having priority and then go back to the OT. Dispensationalists often begin with the OT, but wherever they begin they demand that the OT be taken on its own terms rather than reinterpreted in the light of the NT.[11]

(When Feinberg made this statement he did so with Ladd’s previous statement in mind.)

Dispensationalists have responded to Ladd’s claim that the NT overrides the meaning of the OT. John Feinberg claimed that:

No NT writer claims his new understanding of the OT passage cancels the meaning of the OT passage in its own context or that the new application is the only meaning of the OT passage. The NT writer merely offers a different application of an OT passage than the OT might have foreseen; he is not claiming the OT understanding is now irrelevant.[12]

In response to George Ladd’s declaration that the NT reinterprets the OT, Paul Feinberg asked some relevant questions: “If Ladd is correct that the NT reinterprets the OT, his hermeneutic does raise some serious questions. How can the integrity of the OT text be maintained? In what sense can the OT really be called a revelation in its original meaning?”[13]

Conclusion

My purpose here has been to focus specifically on the hermeneutics of George Ladd and his understanding of how the NT uses the OT. I am not saying all historic premillennialists agree with Ladd on every one of Ladd’s assertions. But since Ladd is often looked to as the leading proponent of HP, it is helpful to look at his beliefs in this area and understand that Dispensationalism has strong differences with Ladd on how the NT uses the OT.

---

[1] George Eldon Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (IVP, 1977),  20. Emphasis in original.

[2] Hoekema, “Amillennialism,” in  The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views 55. Emphasis is mine.

[3] Ladd, 23.

[4] George E. Ladd, “Revelation 20 and the Millennium,” Review and Expositor 57 (1960): 167.

[5] Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” 21.

[6] Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” 24.

[7] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Eerdmans, 1974, Revised edition, 1994, 372.

[8] George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament , 373. Emphasis mine.

[9] Ladd, The Last Things: An eschatology for Laymen, Eerdmans, 1978, 27. Emphasis mine.

[10] Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” 27.

[11] John Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. John S. Feinberg (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1988), 75.

[12] John Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity

[13] Paul Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 116. Emphasis in original.

Yes, George Ladd Believed that the Church is the "New Israel"

Recently a blogger called The Orange Mailman called me out for stating that George Ladd held that the church is the “new Israel.” Not only is he unhappy with my claim but he has rebuked me in a blog and has asked whether I will offer a retraction of my comments on this (as well as some other things). Below are two segments from his blog:

Vlach cites Ladd, but he does so in such a way that you think that Ladd believes that the church is the new Israel, which is not the case. Ladd never wrote that the church is the new Israel as he always used the term “the true Israel”. Notice how Vlach frames Ladd’s quote: Ladd asserted that the church is now the new “spiritual Israel.” You see how the word “new” is not in the quotes, only “spiritual Israel” is in the quotes.

So will there be a retraction of certain aspects of Vlach’s post? I doubt it. (http://theorangemailmanmyblog.wordpress.com/)

I thought it was common knowledge for those interested in eschatology that George Ladd believed that the church is the “new Israel.” If you scan the internet you’ll see that many others have rightly come to this conclusion as well (Mike Stallard says, “. . .  Ladd treats the Church as a kind of 'New Israel' in his commentary on Revelation.” http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/PDChallenge.pdf)

But since I have been challenged on this let me offer three quotes from Ladd that show that Ladd believed the church is the “new Israel”:

“James cites the prophecy of Amos 9:11-12 to prove that Peter’s experience with Cornelius was a fulfillment of God’s purpose to visit the Gentiles and take out of them a people for his name. It therefore follows that the ‘rebuilding of the dwelling of David’ which had resulted in the Gentile mission, must refer to the exaltation and enthronement of Christ upon the (heavenly) throne of David and the establishment of the church as the true people of God, the new Israel. Since God had brought Gentiles to faith without the Law, there was no need to insist that the Gentiles become Jews to be saved” (George Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, Eerdmans 1974, 355). (emphasis mine)

“Here, in two separate places, prophecies which in their Old Testament context refer to literal Israel are in the New Testament applied to the (Gentile) church. In other words, Paul sees the spiritual fulfillment of Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 in the church. It follows inescapably that the salvation of the Gentile church is the fulfillment of prophecies made to Israel. Such facts as this are what compel some Bible students, including the present writer, to speak of the church as the New Israel, the true Israel, the spiritual Israel.” (George Ladd, “What About Israel.” http://articles.ochristian.com/article14710.shtml (emphasis mine)

Here is an outstanding difference between participation in the old and new Israel. Membership in the old Israel required circumcision and acceptance of the Law; membership in the new Israel required individual personal faith and confession of Christ as Lord (Rom 10:9).  (Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 545.)

Make no mistake. George Ladd believed that the church is the “new Israel.”

I also recommend those interested to check out mac-eschatology.blogspot.com. Some good points are made here.

Dispensationalism, Historic Premillennialism, and the Restoration of Israel

As I continue with my thoughts on how Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) differs from Historic Premillennialism (HP) I want to make some additional comments regarding my earlier statement in another blog that DP differs from HP in that DP affirms a restoration of national Israel while HP does not affirm this. The Orange Mailman expressed strong rejection of my claim:

. . . Vlach states something that is just flat-out not true.  You can tell because he cites no source whatsoever to back up his claim.  He states that Historic Premillennialists do not believe in a future restoration of the nation of Israel.  I quoted in the comments section from Ladd himself where he states that there would be a future restoration of the nation of Israel.  Older premillennialists also held out this hope.  So will there be a retraction of certain aspects of Vlach’s post?  I doubt it. (http://theorangemailmanmyblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/historic-pre-millennialism-misrepresented-again/)TOM then offers a quote from Ladd where Ladd uses the term "restoration" in regard to Israel:

Consider this quote from The Gospel of the Kingdom which concerns Romans 11:26.  " It is quite impossible in light of the context and the course of Paul’s thought in this passage to understand "all Israel" to refer to the Church….  But secondly, there is to be a greater turning to the Lord on the part of Israel after the flesh, of such proportions that Paul can say that "all Israel," i.e., Israel as a whole, will be saved….  When God’s purpose for the Gentiles is fulfilled, so this verse implies, Jerusalem will no longer be trodden down.  There will be a restoration of Israel; "all Israel will be saved." "Since Ladd uses the term "restoration" for Israel, does this mean I was wrong in my affirmation that only DPs believe in a restoration of Israel? I don’t think so.

This is a case where we have different understandings of the term, "restoration." Ladd and DPs use the term in different ways. I and other dispensationalists use the term "restoration" more specifically to mean that Israel will not only be saved but restored as a nation in the sense of having a specific role to play to other nations in the millennium and perhaps beyond. While Israel and all believers are saved in the same way and have the same spiritual blessings in Christ, the nation Israel has a role to play in the millennium that is not shared with other groups.

I think Arnold Fruchtenbaum is right when he states that Dispensationalists believe in both the salvation and restoration of national Israel (see Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology) while non-dispensationalists do not affirm both. HPs usually affirm a salvation but not a restoration of Israel. Restoration goes beyond salvation and indicates that national Israel will lead the nations in service, worship, and example when Jesus returns to earth—just as the OT predicted (see Isa 2). It is this meaning of "restoration" that DPs affirm and HPs usually do not. In his book, The Millennial Maze, Stanley Grenz makes this point when explicitly comparing HP with DP:

According to historic premillennialists the object of the prophesies of a golden age is not a future regathered nation of Israel, as in dispensational thought, but "spiritual Israel"—the church. The group that will enjoy the millennial blessings, therefore, is not composed of an end-times restored nation of Israel, the natural offspring of Abraham, but the true Israel of God composed of Abraham’s spiritual children in all generations. (Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze, IVP, 1992, 136).Grenz also says:

Historic premillennialists continue likewise to reject the dispensationalist understanding of the tribulation and the millennium, which views them in terms of God’s program for his Old Testament people. These eras do not belong to some purported Israel phase of salvation history, historic premillennialists argue. (Grenz, 130).Grenz appeals to historic premillennialist, Clarence Bass, who says that historical premillennialists believe, "that the church is indeed spiritual Israel; that the covenantal relations of God to Israel have indeed passed over to the church." (Clarence C. Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, Baker, 1960, 152.)

Russell Moore, who appears to take a Ladd-like view of HP states his difference with DP on this issue: "Dispensationalists, even progressives, mistakenly speak of the millennial Israel as having a 'mediatorial' role in dispensing the blessings of God to the nations." For Moore, "Scripture presents this mediatorial role as belonging to Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). (The Kingdom of Christ, Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 118.)

When I read George Ladd and other HPs after Ladd (Grudem, Erickson, Moore, etc.), I sense that many HPs affirm a salvation of Israel and some even see Israel "restored" in the sense of being placed in their land. But I do not see them (at least Ladd and post-Ladd HPs) saying that the nation Israel will have a mediatorial role of leadership, service, and example to the other nations as prophesied in the OT. The closest thing I have seen to this is a chapter by Richard Hess, where he argues for a literal restoration of Ezekiel’s temple in the coming millennium (see "The Future Written in the Past: The Old Testament and the Millennium," in A Case for Historic Premillennialism, ed. Craig Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung, Baker, 2009, 23-36).

My purpose here has not been to argue which side is right although as a dispensationalist I believe DP is correct. But I think it fair to say that DP affirms a restoration of Israel as a national entity with a role to play to other nations in a way that HP does not.

NT Use of OT Part 2: Seven Approaches to How the NT Uses the OT

With this blog entry I want to survey what I believe are seven different approaches used by scholars to understand how the NT uses the OT. This is not a defense or refutation of any of these approaches, but an explanation of the main positions. Note that these are brief and broad descriptions and do not indicate nuances and subdivisions that could exist within each camp. But I do think the list below gives a basic understanding of the main camps or approaches that exist in regard to how the NT authors used the OT. I will comment on each of these camps at a later date:

1.      NT Adherence to OT Meaning Approach (or Single Meaning Approach). While applications of the OT passages may be varied, the NT always adheres to the human authorial intent (which is also God’s inspired intent) of the OT passages. The NT writers do not add new or different meanings to OT passages or alter/transcend the original OT meanings as determined by historical-grammatical hermeneutics. The NT authors may apply the OT passages in a variety of ways, and concepts such as corporate solidarity, typology, and antecedent theology must be taken into account, but the NT authors never quote the OT out of context or in ways inconsistent with the original meaning. This view also rejects the concept of sensus plenior in which there is added meaning beyond the meaning offered by the OT human author (key representative: Walter Kaiser)

2.      Sensus Plenior (Fuller/Deeper Meaning) Approach. There are additional fuller/deeper meanings in OT passages intended by God but not intended by the OT human authors. Thus, the human OT author did not always fully comprehend the meaning of what he wrote, although God did. God, at times, intended more meaning than what the human author knew. Further NT revelation reveals these added or deeper meanings that go beyond what the OT authors understood. This approach does not deny the importance of historical-grammatical interpretation of OT passages and actually acknowledges its importance, but argues that this alone does not uncover the full meaning of what God intended. (key representatives: S. Lewis Johnson; J. I. Packer)

J. I. Packer: “The point here is that the sensus plenior which texts acquire in their wider biblical context remains an extrapolation on the grammatico-historical plane, not a new projection on to the plane of allegory. And, though God may have more to say to us from each text than its human writer had in mind, God’s meaning is never less than his. What he means, God means.” (J. I. Packer, “Biblical Authority, Hermeneutics, and Inerrancy,” in Jerusalem and Athens: Critical Discussions on the Philosophy and Apologetics of Cornelius Van Til, ed. E. R. Geehan (Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977), 147–48.)

3.      The Contemporary Judaism/Second Temple Judaism Approach. The NT authors often relied upon interpretive principles of the period of Second Temple Judaism including midrash, pesher which often apply OT passages in ways not in accordance with the historical-grammatical contexts of the OT passages. The Bible student must keep in mind that the writers of the NT were not bound by modern conceptions of how the OT should be used. Instead they used the OT to support their understanding that Jesus was the Messiah and the fulfillment of the OT. Thus, the NT writers were not bound by historical-grammatical hermeneutics to show the connection between the OT and the NT. (key representative: Peter Enns; Richard Longenecker)

4.      NT Reinterpretation of OT Approach. The Christ-event now means that OT passages and themes about physical and national matters have been reinterpreted to refer to greater spiritual realities and truths now being revealed in the NT. Thus, the NT is viewed as the divine interpreter and reinterpreter of the OT and the lens through which the OT must be viewed. One should not start with the OT to understand the OT; one must start with the NT to understand the OT. (key representative: George Ladd). Although we are not saying that the authors below consciously adopt the title, “NT Reinterpretation of the OT,” below are statements in line with this idea that the NT “reinterprets” the OT:

George Ladd:   “The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm.”(George E. Ladd, “Revelation 20 and the Millennium,” Review and Expositor 57 (1960): 167. Emphasis mine.)

Kim Riddlebarger: “But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. (Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 37. Emphasis mine.)

Kim Riddlebarger: “This [literal interpretation of the Bible] leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age which dawned in Jesus Christ.”(Ibid., 38. Emphasis mine)

Stephen Sizer: “Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament.” (Stephen Sizer, Zion’s Christian Soldiers: The Bible, Israel and the Church (Nottingham, England: InterVarsity, 2008), 36. Emphasis mine.)

Gary Burge: “For as we shall see (and as commentators regularly show) while the land itself had a concrete application for most in Judaism, Jesus and his followers reinterpreted the promises that came to those in his kingdom.” (Gary M. Burge, Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010), 35. Emphasis mine.)

5.      Canonical Approach. The canonical approach asserts that the OT text’s intention became deeper and clearer as the parameters of the canon were expanded. Older texts in the Bible underwent a progressive perception of meaning as they became part of a growing canonical literature. Thus, the NT has priority in unpacking the meaning of the OT. (key representative: Bruce Waltke)

Bruce Waltke: “The Christian doctrine of the plenary inspiration of Scripture demands that we allow the Author to tell us at a later time more precisely what he meant in his earlier statements.” (Bruce K. Waltke, “Is it Right to Read the New Testament into the Old?” Christianity Today (September 2, 1983): 77.)

Bruce Waltke: “This approach is similar to sensus plenior in that both methods depend on further revelation to find the full meaning of an earlier text. But the distinction from it lies in this: whereas the supposed sensus plenior depends exclusively on further revelation and may allow a reinterpretation of the prophecy, the canonical process approach combines further revelation with the sharpening focus of history itself and disallows the possibility of reinterpretation.” (Bruce K. Waltke, “Kingdom Promises as Spiritual,” in Continuity and Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg (Crossway, 1988), 284.)

6.      Inspired Subjectivity Approach (or Inspired Sensus Plenior Application). This approach asserts that OT passages have only one meaning as discovered by historical-grammatical hermeneutics but the inspired NT authors sometimes applied OT passages to present events and circumstances in ways not consistent with original meaning of the OT passages. Thus, the NT writers subjectively applied OT passages in non-literal ways to convey new revelation that went beyond what the OT authors intended or knew. This inspired subjectivity method, however, was limited to the NT writers because they operated under inspiration and is not allowable for Christians since they are not operating under inspiration. (key representatives: Robert Thomas; John Walton)

Robert L. Thomas: “In such cases, New Testament writers applied Old Testament texts to situations entirely different from what was envisioned in the corresponding Old Testament contexts. The New Testament writers disregarded the main thrust of grammatical-historical meaning of the Old Testament passages and applied those passages in different ways to suit different points they were making. They usually maintained some connecting link in thought to the Old Testament passages, but the literal Old Testament meanings are absent from the quotation.” (Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: the New Versus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 247.

Robert L. Thomas: “Clearly the New Testament sometimes applies Old Testament passages in a way that gives an additional dimension beyond their grammatical-historical meaning. This does not cancel the grammatical-historical meaning of the Old Testament; it is simply an application of the Old Testament passages beyond its original meaning, the authority for which application is the New Testament passage.” (Ibid., 251).

7.      Eclectic Approach. This approach takes a some-of-the-above approach and believes that several methods are needed to address the complexity of the NT use of the OT issue. (key representatives: Darrell Bock; Douglas Moo)

“The author [Bock] also hopes that in being rather eclectic with the various approaches, the wheat has been successfully retained from each view while the chaff has been left behind.” (Darrell L. Bock, “Evangelicals and the Use of the Old Testament in the New, Part 2” Bibliotheca Sacra 142 (Oct. 1985): 302-19)

Yes, "Reinterpret" Is Sometimes Used By Non-dispensationalists

Sometimes I get complaints for claiming that non-dispensationalists believe that the NT “reinterprets” the OT. While I certainly acknowledge that some do not use that specific term, we must be honest and acknowledge that some have. Here is a sample of those who explicitly use “reinterpret” language (note that the emphases below are mine):

George Ladd:   “The Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament. In principle it is quite possible that the prophecies addressed originally to literal Israel describing physical blessings have their fulfillment exclusively in the spiritual blessings enjoyed by the church. It is also possible that the Old Testament expectation of a kingdom on earth could be reinterpreted by the New Testament altogether of blessings in the spiritual realm.”(George E. Ladd, “Revelation 20 and the Millennium,” Review and Expositor 57 (1960): 167. Emphasis mine.)

Kim Riddlebarger: “But eschatological themes are reinterpreted in the New Testament, where we are told these Old Testament images are types and shadows of the glorious realities that are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. (Kim Riddlebarger, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003, 37).

Kim Riddlebarger: “This [literal interpretation of the Bible] leaves dispensationalists frequently stuck in the awkward position of insisting on an Old Testament interpretation of a prophetic theme that has been reinterpreted in the New Testament in the light of the messianic age which dawned in Jesus Christ.”(Ibid., 38.).

Stephen Sizer: “Jesus and the apostles reinterpreted the Old Testament.” (Stephen Sizer, Zion’s Christian Soldiers: The Bible, Israel and the Church (Nottingham, England: InterVarsity, 2008, 36.)

Gary Burge: “For as we shall see (and as commentators regularly show) while the land itself had a concrete application for most in Judaism, Jesus and his followers reinterpreted the promises that came to those in his kingdom.” (Gary M. Burge, Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010, 35).

My purpose in offering these quotations is not to claim that all non-dispensationalists use this terminology, but many have and it is right to point this out. If others want to use “interpret,” “transcend,” “fulfill,” etc. that is okay. But let’s be clear that several key non-dispensationalists use “reinterpret” to explain their view. Thus, it is a legitimate term to bring up in the discussion.

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.