The Kingdom and the Davidic Covenant

The year is approximately 950 BC. The nation of Israel had gone from being a ragtag band of wondering escapees from Egyptian bondage to, being a powerful nation in the land of Canaan. Their first king, Saul, had committed suicide and his God-anointed successor, David, was on the throne. In 2 Samuel 7 we are told that God spoke to David through the prophet Nathan and made a promise to David that was to become a cause for great hope for first century Jews. This promise has become known as the Davidic Covenant.

Here are C. I. Scofield’s Notes[1] on the Davidic Covenant (2Sam. 7:8-17).

This covenant, upon which the glorious kingdom of Christ "of the seed of David according to the flesh" is to be founded, secures:

(1) A Davidic "house"; that is, Posterity, family

(2) A "throne"; that is, Royal authority

(3) A kingdom; that is, Sphere of rule

(4) In perpetuity; "for ever"

(5) And this fourfold covenant has but one condition: disobedience in the Davidic family is to be visited with chastisement; but not to the abrogation of the covenant (2Sam. 7:15); (Psa. 89:20-37); (Isa. 24:5); (Isa. 54:3).

The chastisement fell; first in the division of the kingdom under Rehoboam, and, finally, in the captivities. (2Kings 25:1-7). Since that time but one King of the Davidic family has been crowned at Jerusalem and He was crowned with thorns. But the Davidic Covenant confirmed to David by the oath of Jehovah, and renewed to Mary by the angel Gabriel, is immutable (Psa. 89:30-37) and the Lord God will yet give to that thorn-crowned One "the throne of his father David."; (Luke 1:31-33); (Acts 2:29-32); (Acts 15:14-17).

The angel Gabriel announced to Mary that God would give "the throne of his father David" to the Child she carried (Luke 1:31-33); (Acts 2:29-32); (Acts 15:14-17).

As Matthew opens his Gospel he pointedly declares that Jesus Christ is, “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mat 1:1). During his three year ministry on earth, wherever He went, His fellow Jews declared Him to be the “son of David” (Matt. 9:27, 12:23, 20:30-31, 21:9, 21:15, 22:42; Mark 10:47-48, Luke 18:38-39) and Jesus never rebuked nor corrected them.

However, when “a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil…he answered her not a word,” and the apostles demanded that he should, “Send her away”  (Matt. 15:22-23) . Why did this needy woman receive such a cold response to her pleas for help?

The Gospel of Mark tells us that this woman was, “a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation” (Mark 7:26). In other words she was not a Jew. The title “Son of David” is a technical term referring to a very particular descendant of Israel’s greatest king – David. This Descendant was understood to be the Messiah.[2] He is to be the King of Israel’s millennial kingdom. The citizens of this kingdom were to be Israelis. As king, the Messiah would have a responsibility to His subjects and they, in turn, would have a responsibility to Him. In a human kingdom, the king is responsible to provide military protection, economic opportunity, a legal system, etc. In return, his subjects give him honor, pay taxes, and serve in his military and so on. The king is obligated to the citizens of his kingdom and likewise, the citizens are obligated to the king.

This is the dynamic of the situation recorded in Matt. 15. Jesus was the “Son of David;” the King of Israel. He had an obligation to Israel and not this non-Israelite, Greek. For this reason, He explained to her, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). She then realizes her error and, instead of appealing to the “Son of David” she calls Him “Lord” (kyrios). This Greek term acknowledged His lordship over the world in general.[3]  The Aramaic equivalent is “Mari” which was a very respectful form of polite address, well above "Teacher" and similar to Rabbi. Jesus was impressed with her expression of respect and responded by answering her request. But He made it clear that she had no claim to Israel’s exalted position.