Cancelling The Covenant, The Censorship Of The Davidic Promise

Since the mid-nineteenth century, the British-Israel movement has professed that “the Royal House of Britain is sprung from David.” (The Royal House of Britain An Enduring Dynasty, p.6). This was first established through the Scriptural, genealogical and historical research of the late scholar, Rev. F.R.A. (Frederick Robert Augustus) Glover, who first published his research in 1860. This belief centers upon the biblical proclamation that King David’s throne and line of descent were an unconditional covenant:

“And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever…And let thy name be magnified for ever, saying, The LORD of hosts is the God over Israel: and let the house of thy servant David be established before thee.” (2 Sam. 7:16 26) 

This was repeated several more times in Scripture in unconditional language. We are told in 1 Kings 2:45, “And king Solomon shall be blessed, and the throne of David shall be established before the LORD for ever.”

In 1 Chronicles 17:14, 23, 24 we read, “But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore…Therefore now, LORD, let the thing that thou hast spoken concerning thy servant and concerning his house be established for ever, and do as thou hast said…Let it even be established, that thy name may be magnified for ever, saying, The LORD of hosts is the God of Israel, even a God to Israel: and let the house of David thy servant be established before thee.”

Three times in Psalm 89 the unconditional eternal covenant with David and his descendants is clearly stated: “Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. Selah…My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven…My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.” (Verses 4, 28, 29, 34-37) The word, “Selah,” in the texts appears to have the meaning, “So it shall be!”

This causes a problem for those who deny that King David’s enduring line of descent actually continued unbroken in another land after the conquest of the Jewish kingdom by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. A leading critic, Anton Darms stated, “British-Israelism fails to realize that the Davidic covenant had in it both a conditional and an unconditional element.” (“The Delusion of British-Israelism,” circa 1935, p. 112). Mr. Darms is essentially making an irrational claim that this important Divine covenant was both a tremendous success and a great failure! His specific argument was that the physical fulfillment failed, but the spiritual fulfillment in Christ succeeded. He stated, “The covenant with reference to its fulfilment in the coming Messiah, who is to inaugurate the Eternal, Mediatorial Kingdom which shall endure forever, is irrevocable, while the covenant with reference to the continuation of David’s posterity upon the royal throne was conditional, being dependent upon obedience.” (ibid. p. 113)

This argument ignores the fact that the proof of prophecy is that the spiritual fulfillment is based upon the physical fulfillment. In observing the successful physical fulfillment, we have confidence in the success of the parallel spiritual fulfillment. The spiritual and physical fulfillments cannot be contradictions! This is often expressed in the form of a “type-antitype” pattern. If the type fails, the antitype is derailed. Conversely, in showing that the physical fulfillment is sure, it demonstrates that the New Covenant spiritual fulfillment is sure also.

Yet the critics, in their seemingly favorite pastime of pitting Scripture against Scripture, point to a curious passage in Psalm 89, verse 39: “Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast profaned his crown by casting it to the ground.” (KJV) Other Bible translations have a variety of interpretations of this verse. The Easy-Read Version says, “You ended the agreement…” The Companion Bible interprets, “Thou hast disowned the covenant…” The Complete Jewish Bible: “You renounced the covenant…” The Bishops Bible of 1568: “Thou hast broken the couenaunt…”

In contrast, some other translations are more nuanced: The International Standard Version says, “You have dishonored the covenant…” The Pulpit Commentary indicates that either of two interpretations are possible: “Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant; or, “abhorred” (Cheyne, Revised Version). The verb is a very unusual one, occurring only here and in Lam. 2:7.” In the Lamentations verse, we read that “God…hath abhorred his sanctuary…” (KJV)

The Bridgeway Bible Commentary on Psalm 89 adds, “Above all, God made a covenant with David to establish his dynasty permanently (v. 28-29). Even if some kings proved unworthy, God promised that he would not alter his plans. He had chosen the dynasty of David as the means of bringing the Messiah (v. 30-37).” In 586 B.C. the rulership of David’s descendants in the land of Palestine came to a violent end, which was an abhorrence. Yet it would be entirely contradictory to say that the covenant was irretrievably broken or cancelled in the same passage that three times asserted that it was unconditional!

Despite this, the Preacher’s Commentary headlines this verse, “The Contradiction of the Vision,” and states, “History shows us that God has broken His unconditional covenant with David and his house. This is the anomaly that challenges the former paradigm that the kingdom would always stand. At the same time, it is God, not history, that has done this.” This commentary firmly believes that God does not keep His Word! If so, He is not to be trusted! This source also states, “The collapse of the crown is identified with the Babylonian exile.” Yes, but David continued to have physical descendants after 586 B.C. through both his Zarah and Perez lines displaced to other lands. Where did they go and did they rule over a portion of exiled Israel?

Historian W.H. Bennett, in his masterful treatise, “The Story of Celto-Saxon Israel,” (newly reprinted by CBIA) provides biblical and historical proofs that many Israelites migrated away both north and west from Palestine before the conquest of Jerusalem by Babylon. There is sufficient evidence that this included sea voyages as far as Western Europe, and Rev. Milner’s research provides a genealogical link between David’s descendants and the early kings of the British Isles.

Psalm 89 is titled a “Maschil of Ethan the Ezrahite.” The Believer’s Bible Commentary says, “To him it looked as if the covenant had been scrapped. Listen to him as he complains that God has cast off and rejected the royal line, that He has been furious against the king whom He had anointed. To Ethan there was no other explanation than that God had gone back on His promise to David, and dragged his crown in the dust. Ethan knew deep in his heart that God couldn’t renege on His promise, and yet from all appearances it had happened.” Yet appearances are not always the reality!

The same Commentary summarizes, “To outward appearances it may have seemed that God had forgotten the Davidic covenant. Judah was invaded by the Babylonians and carried off into exile. No one has sat on the throne of David from that day to this.” Or have they? The Bible clearly specifies multiple times that this covenant is perpetual, and that Christ will return and take the throne of David. Will He reign on a non-existent throne? We disagree! The historic evidence indicates that God will always keep His Word!