DAVID’S THE THRONE OF JEHOVAH’S TERRESTRIAL DOMINION.
“Much has been written on either side of the controversy in reference to Christ’s session on the throne of David. The vast majority hold that Christ’s sitting on that throne began when he sat down at the right hand of the Father. Premillenarians, on the contrary, hold that the session of Christ on the throne of David will not, in the true and correct sens of the prophecy, begin till “His appearing and his kingdom.” The majority (the spiritualisers who make the word mean what it does not say. —Ed. H.) identify the Father’s throne with that of David: the premillenarians discriminate the throne of David as a throne plainly different from the Father’s, and peculiarly belonging to the Messiah. What, then, is the testimony of the scripture on the subject? In the first book of Chronicles, it is written,
“Then Solomon sat on the throne of Jehovah, as king instead of David his father”—1 Chronicles 29: 23.
And to the like effect it is written elsewhere,
“Blessed be Jehovah thy God, who delighted in thee to set thee on HIS THRONE to be king for Jehovah, thy God”—2 Chronicles 9: 8.
These passages seem to remove all the difficulties of the question. David reigned under a theocracy, as the Viceroy or representative of Jehovah, the King of Israel; therefore the throne of David is, in these passages of scripture, called Jehovah’s throne. The words plainly import not the throne of underived sovereignty on which Jehovah was sitting in heaven, but the throne of representative or delegated sovereignty, which, in God’s stead, David occupied on earth. The throne of the Father, as contradistinguished from that of David, means simply the throne of Jehovah’s eternal, underived, and irresponsible sovereignty; and, on the other hand, the throne of David means simply the throne occupied by the representative of Jehovah upon earth, a throne of sovereignty, derived, dependent, and responsible. There being, then, such a difference between the throne of David, and the throne of God in heaven, is it not as sound in theology as in logic, to make a corresponding distinction? Yea more, is it not reasonable to expect that, in due time, when things are ripe for such a manifestation, the distinction as well as the difference will be made not less perceptible to the purged eye of sense, than it is now to the purged eye of the understanding? Such an expectation is irresistibly impressed on the mind by many intimations of prophetic scripture. Of these the two following are very explicit:
“When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory”—
Matthew 25: 31.
Do our opponents maintain that this is the throne of the Father let down from heaven to earth? —if not, they admit that at the time referred to, the session of Christ on another and distinct throne, will have its commencement: that other and distinct throne, we, following the example of the scripture, designate by various names, and especially, in order to mark its representative character, we designate it “the throne of David.” Some of our opponents hold, in common with us, that the renewed earth will be, after the final judgment, (after the thousand years, or millennial period is expired. —Ed. Her.) the abode of the redeemed, and consequently, the scene of Christ’s personal and everlasting reign. That, where they are, Christ will for ever manifest his presence as the Son of Man, is a truth identified with all their hopes of glory. No Christian would venture to deny it. We ask, then, such of the brethren on the other side, as have been just now specified, if they believe that Christ’s session “on the throne of his glory,” which commences, as they say, on the day of final judgment, is to terminate as soon as the solemnities of that day are past? If so, on what throne do they expect Christ to reign for ever amidst his people on the renovated earth? Immediately after the day of judgment, shall “the throne of Christ’s glory” vanish from the scene, and the throne of the Father being let down to earth, shall Christ’s session on it then be resumed? We conclude this interrogatory argument by maintaining, on the ground of the text before us, that anti-millenarians (who are unbelievers of the gospel of the kingdom. —Ed. Her.) must either believe the throne of glory on which Christ sits at the final judgment to be the Father’s throne let down from heaven, or they must believe, in common with us, whom they oppose on this very point, that there are, indeed, too distinct thrones—one, on which Christ now sits at the right hand of the Father; and another on which he will not sit until “He come in his glory.” If they hold by the former side of the alternative, they place themselves on ground which cannot abide a scriptural examination; if they hold by the latter, they ought to treat what they regard as the premillennial theory of two thrones with a considerably greater degree of forbearance.
“The other scriptural intimation referred to on the subject is as follows:
“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me on my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father on his throne”—Revelation 3: 22.
The distinction here made is no mere rhetorical flourish; no antithesis employed simply for the sake of euphony, or to arrest attention. It intimates plainly that there is a throne which belongs to Christ and is peculiarly his own—a throne distinct from his Father’s, and appropriated to the exercise of his delegated power. Were “his throne” identical with his Father’s, then, according to the promise of the text, his victorious followers must yet be exalted to a place on the supreme throne of Jehovah, and so be invested with the majesty of underived and irresponsible government—an exaltation, which is not only impossible, but the very thought of which is blasphemous. There, during the course of the great anti-christian rebellion, Christ can wield his meditorial power as well for the controlling of his enemies, as for the upbuilding of his elect. But the church, redeemed, as it is, from among mere creatures, dares not aspire after the divine honour of session on the eternal throne of God. Its destined privilege is to sit on the throne of Christ, with Christ its king, and to share with him in the exercise of his derived and representative sovereignty.”
The above is taken substantially, though with some omissions and emendations, from the Quarterly Journal of Prophesy, which contains much truth, forcibly put forth, but at the same time mixed up with sectarian philosophy which “we cannot but disapprove and discommend.”