In our Wednesday evening adult class, we have been engaged in a brief study of “Premillennialism.” We have noted various aspects of the doctrine that are contrary to the Scripture. The excerpt below is from an article entitled “Examining Premillennialism” by Wayne Jackson, a preacher among institutional churches. Though I differ with much that Wayne Jackson preaches and practices regarding the mission, work and organization of the New Testament church, his material exposing the error of Premillennialism is very good. Please read and study the material below, searching the Scripture to see if it is so (Acts 17:11).

The premillennial doctrine virtually ignores the spiritual emphasis of Old Testament prophecy. It holds that Christ will return to this earth to be seated on the literal throne of David in Jerusalem. The underlying fallacy of this view is its materialistic approach to the reign of Christ.

The Lord’s kingdom is not a worldly, political economy, as was David’s, for Jesus plainly said: “My kingdom is not of this world” (Jn. 18:36). Remarkably, the premillennialists contend it will be.

Isaiah prophesied that Christ would be heir to the throne of David.

“Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever” (Isa. 9:7).

Additionally, the angel Gabriel informed Mary concerning her expected Son:

“He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” (Lk. 1:32-33).

The question is not whether Christ was to sit on the throne of David; the controversy is concerning the nature of that throne, that is, was it to be a material throne? Or was it to be the spiritual throne of David?

That Christ’s reign on the throne of David is of a heavenly, spiritual nature is manifestly evident from the following considerations.

The last king to reign on the Davidic throne of the Old Testament era was Jehoiachin (also known as Jeconiah, or in an abbreviated form, Coniah). In Jeremiah 22:24-30, it was prophesied that he and his seed (Judah) would be delivered into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar and cast into a foreign land (Babylon). Specifically, concerning Coniah it was said:

“Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days; for no more shall a man of his seed prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling in Judah” (v. 30).
The issue is clear—no descendant of Coniah would ever again prosper, ruling from the literal throne of David. Now, the fact is, Christ was of the “seed” of Jechoniah, both from a legal standpoint (through Joseph – Mt. 1:12,16), and from a physical vantage point (through Mary, via Shealtiel – Lk. 3:27). It thus follows that Christ could never reign on David’s earthly throne—and prosper!

The prophet Zechariah prophesied regarding the Christ thusly:

“Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: and he shall grow up out of his place; and he shall build the temple of Jehovah; even he shall build the temple of Jehovah; and he shall bear the glory, and he shall sit and rule upon his throne; and be shall be a priest upon his throne; and the counsel of peace shall be between them both” (Zech. 6:12-13).

This passage positively affirms that Christ would function as priest and reign as king on his throne—simultaneously. But, according to Hebrews 8:4, Christ could not act in the role of a priest while on the earth—for he was not descended from the priestly tribe (Heb. 7:14). Since the Lord could not be a priest on earth, and since he is priest and king jointly, it necessarily follows that his reign as king cannot be earthly in nature. Rather, it is heavenly.

The heavenly nature of the reign of Christ is readily apparent in that narrative known as the parable of the pounds recorded in Luke 19:11-27. The parable involves a certain nobleman (Christ) who went into a far country (heaven) to receive a kingdom, and to return. Some citizens, however, sent a message to him, saying, “We will not that this man reign over us.”

Finally, having received the kingdom, the nobleman returns to render judgment.
From this account it is perfectly clear that:

1. the kingdom was received in heaven (not on earth);
2. the reign was from heaven (not from Jerusalem); and
3. the return of the nobleman was after the reception of the kingdom (not prior to it).

All of these facts are strikingly at variance with the premillennial concept.

King David was informed by the prophet Nathan:

“When thy days are fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, that shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my time, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever” (2 Sam. 7:12-13).
That this is a prediction of the reign of Christ upon David’s throne is beyond question. In view of this promise, David was told: “your throne shall be established for ever” (2 Sam. 7:16). Note the application of this context to Christ by an inspired New Testament writer (Heb. 1:8).
It is extremely significant to note in this connection that Christ is to be seated on David’s throne, over his kingdom, while this illustrious Old Testament king is still asleep with the fathers, i.e., in the grave. In glaring contrast to this, the premillennial notion contends that Christ will sit upon David’s throne after the resurrection of all the righteous—including David.

In harmony with the foregoing is Peter’s declaration:

“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 upon his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ” (Acts 2:29-31, NASB).

Of special importance here is the infinitive “to seat,” suggesting the design of Christ’s resurrection. As N. B. Hardeman so wonderfully expressed it:

“Grammatically, ‘to sit’ is an infinitive with the construction of an adverb, carrying the idea of purpose equivalent to the following expanded form, viz.; He raised up Christ that He should sit, that He might sit, for the purpose of sitting upon David’s throne. If Christ is not on David’s throne, the resurrection might have been deferred until this good hour, or for ages yet to come” (Hardeman’s Tabernacle Sermons, Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1928, III, p. 37).

The reign of Christ on David’s throne is not an event awaiting future fulfillment. The Son of God has been reigning over his kingdom since the day of Pentecost. Hear his promise to early saints:

“He that overcometh, I will give to him to sit down with me in my throne, as I also overcame, and sat down with my Father in his throne” (Rev. 3:21).

Notice the past tense “sat down.” Clearly, Christ is now on the throne.

If it be contended that this passage speaks of Christ on the Father’s throne—and not David’s, it need only be replied that the Father’s throne and David’s are biblically the same. Solomon sat upon the throne of David (1 Kgs. 2:12), which was in reality Jehovah’s throne (1 Chron. 29:23). Hence, when Christ sat down on the Father’s throne, he was on the throne of David! He is presently reigning, and will continue such until all his enemies are destroyed, the last of which will be death (1 Cor. 15:25-26).

To speak of Christ on David’s throne is simply to affirm that our Lord has “all authority”; that to him has been given “all rule, and authority, and power, and dominion” (Eph. 1:21); indeed, that he exercises a regal reign characteristic of the great King that he is. Compare Matthew 23:2, where the authority of the scribes and Pharisees who taught the law is symbolically described as sitting on “Moses’ seat.

< Back to Article List