Newsflash: The Tomb of Jesus Christ is Still Empty

At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. (Matthew 24:23 NIV)

[Update 3/2/07: Now that I've had the chance to see the book The Jesus FamilyTomb- previously I was working from quotes in newspapers by James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici- I've re-formatted the information below and edited some phrases, hopefully making this article easier to follow, more specifically focused on the presentation in the book, and therefore more useful.]

I detest any shoddy historical research. One reason that my reaction is so strong in this area is because I graduated Georgia State University with a history degree. So when I read a book or see information presented on television that I know would have earned me a reprimand if I'd presented it in class, I'm usually motivated to yell at the book or the TV screen in outrage. This general response I have toward bad attempts to report on history is- of course- compounded when the research being presented concerns a facet of history that is personally important to me. So, understandably, my blood pressure is pretty high right now in light of the
recent news concerning what some are claiming to be the physical remains of Jesus Christ.

Of course, if someone did actually find the deceased body or the bones of Jesus, then Christianity would be done for. As the Apostle Paul wrote:

if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith… if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins… If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. (I Corinthians 15:14,17,19 NIV)

Personally, then, if the statements being made concerning "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" were credible, I'd have to leave the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary- where I'm currently a student- and I'd probably become a Buddhist.

But I don't anticipate that happening any time soon, and certainly not due to the recent claims being promoted by James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici.

Here's a few reasons why, from a historian's perspective, the information being presented concerning "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" is entirely unpersuasive:

1. The archaeological evidence is not persuasive. If the engravings in the tomb are authentic, then they prove nothing except that a certain group of people with names like those found in the gospels were buried near one another. But the fact that people named Jesus son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus, Maria, Mariamne, Joseph and Matthew were buried close together tells us nothing of who these people were historically. These were all extremely common names in first century Judea. At a time in Judea when Messianic hopes were high due to Roman oppression, Jesus (meaning "God saves") and forms of the name Mary or Miriam (as the name of the sister of Moses- Moses being the deliverer of Israel from the Egyptians) were some of the most popular names. Other people named Jesus mentioned in the New Testament include Jesus Barabbas, Jesus the father of Elymas and Jesus surnamed Justus. There are at least four Marys mentioned: Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary the sister of Martha, Mary the mother of James, and Mary Magdalene. Looking at the historical evidence regarding the names found in the tomb, Bar-Ilan University Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the “Jesus” tomb in 1980 has said that the names found on the ossuaries were common, and the fact that such apparently resonant names had been found together was of no significance. He added that “Jesus son of Joseph” inscriptions have been found on several other ossuaries over the years.

2. The DNA evidence is not persuasive. The DNA evidence offered by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino concerning the bone fragments that were found has only proven that "Jesus son of Joseph" and "Mariamne" did not have the same mother– nothing more. Jacobovici and Pellegrino assert that this proves Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and fathered a son named Judah. But even if "Jesus son of Joseph" and "Mariamne" can be proved to have been married and that Judah was their offspring, there is absolutely nothing either within the tomb or in the historical record that would connect this Judean family unit to any historical figure presented in the pages of the New Testament. No writing or Christian tradition dating from anywhere near the time of the first century gives any indication whatsoever that Jesus Christ married and had a family- in fact, this idea is directly contradicted by all the evidence. The leap in logic made concerning “The Tomb of Jesus” is indicative of nothing other than reading back Dan Brown style fiction upon what scientists have uncovered.

3. The statistical evidence is not persuasive. The argument being made in chapter 4 of The Jesus Family Tomb is that statistics have proven that the chance of these names found in the tomb– Jesus son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus, Maria, Mariamne, Joseph and Matthew– occurring together in a sequence is so very small that they must be identified with the historical figures indicated in the only other place these names have been found to occur– that is, the Christian historical tradition. But however small the chance is that these names would be found in a sequence in a tomb from first century Judea, this chance is infinitely greater than the chance that Simcha Jacobovici, Charles Pellegrino or anyone else will find these names in a sequence within either the New Testament or any other document of the Christian historical tradition. In other words, though Jacobovici and Pellegrino are making the claim that they have found the family tomb of Jesus Christ, the list of names being presented does not correspond with any records of Christ's family. We know the names of Christ's earthly family (at least his brothers) from the New Testament. They are recorded in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 as James, Joseph (or Joses), Judas and Simon. You will notice that none of His brothers were named Matthew. Though Matthew was the name of one of Christ's 12 apostles, there is never any assertion within the New Testament that he and the Lord Jesus were family members. So there is no reason to think that a family tomb of Christ would contain a Matthew. Though Judas was the name of one of Christ's brothers, nowhere in Christian history has the assertion ever been made that Jesus Christ had a son named Judah. The name "Mariamne" is not in the New Testament at all, and problems with the Latin form of the name "Maria" as found in the tomb will be addressed in point 4 below. If there was a list of names within the Christian historical tradition that was identical to or nearly identical to the names found in the tomb, then statistics could perhaps demonstrate the probability of one set of names being linked to the other. As it is, similarities between the names in "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" and names actually associated with the historical family of Jesus Christ are merely superficial at best and therefore the statistical analysis is a farce.

4. The linguistic evidence is not persuasive. An important link that those promoting “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” try to establish in order to assert that the tomb they've explored has anything to do with Jesus Christ is the claim that the ossuary with the name "Maria" is that of Mary the mother of our Lord. At James Cameron's press conference concerning “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” it was asserted that, "Maria is the Latin form of Mary, and is how Jesus's mother was known after his death as more Romans became followers." While this assertion is certainly true, the problem is that it was long after Jesus' death that His mother became known by the Latin name Maria- probably long after her death as well. The greatest spread of Christianity in New Testament times was in the Hellenistic Jewish community in Palestine and in Jewish and Gentile communities of Asia Minor (as seen in Paul's letters and the book of Revelation), where the principle language spoken was Greek. That Jesus Christ's mother, living during a time of political strife involving the Romans in Jerusalem, whose Son was crucified by the Romans, would suddenly be called by a Latin form of her name when the language of Christianity was Greek (as seen in the New Testament) is historically unimaginable without a great deal more evidence.

5. The textual evidence is not persuasive. As mentioned above, "Marianme" is not a name-form found in the New Testament. So how do Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino come up with the identification of Mariamne with Mary Magdalene? By their own admission, Jacobovici and Pellegrino base this connection upon the Acts of Philip. But what the authors of The Jesus Family Tomb fail to mention is that the earliest manuscript for this account is from the 14th century, the earliest possible date for the origin of this account being the 4th century. One problem with using the Acts of Philip to prove that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene (besides the dating of the text) is that while there is a Mariamne discussed in the Acts of Philip (she is referred to as Philip's sister), Mariamne is never identified with Mary Magdalene in this text in any way whatsoever, nor is there Mariamne any indication that this Mariamne is married or otherwise intimately involved with Jesus. In the book Jacobovici and Pellegrino claim they come to the conclusion that they reach through a connection between the Acts of Philip and the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas, however, only mentions the name “Mary” twice in passing (in verses 21 and 114) and never mentions the names Magdalene or Mariamne at all. In reality, the only way that Jacobovici and Pellegrino can come to the conclusion they reach is to confuse the Acts of Philip with the Gospel of Philip (a text mentioned on the official website for “The Jesus Tomb”). The Gospel of Philip is an entirely different work, a Gnostic gospel written around the 3rd century, containing arcane theories concerning aeons and etymologies. The Gospel of Philip also refers to Mary Magdalene as the "companion" of Jesus Christ and claims that He "used to kiss her often on her mouth." These statements concerning Mary Magdalene have led to some modern speculation (notably in Dan Brown's DaVinci Code) that Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene were married– a claim also at the heart of the promotion of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." Notice, however that the Acts of Philip never identifies the character Mariamne with Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Philip never mentions the name Mariamne at all. Again, the similaries between these works are only of the most superficial nature. Actually, they are only similar in that they both use the name "Philip" and feature a female character whose name begins with the same three letters, "M-A-R..."

6. The methodology is not persuasive. Since when does scientific data that can be interpreted in several ways immediately lead to the conclusion that eyewitness testimony is false? We do indeed have eyewitness testimony to the resurrected Christ. As the Apostle Paul recorded:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (I Corinthians 15:3-9 NIV)

Among other things, the passage above indicates that Christianity has always been open to honest and accurate historical inquiry. Paul wrote that most of the five hundred brothers who saw the resurrected Jesus were still alive, implying that his readers could easily find additional witnesses to give the same testimony he gave that Jesus was raised from the dead. And when Paul gave his testimony of Christ's resurrection before King Agrippa, as recorded in Acts 26, he said that "this thing was not done in secret"- Agrippa could find plenty of witnesses concerning the things Paul was saying. Likewise Luke, in writing his gospel account, testified that he received his information from eyewitnesses and that he researched everything carefully (see Luke 1:1-4).

In order to reach the conclusions they offer concerning the scientific data they are presenting, Cameron, Jacobovici, and Pellegrino must reject all the testimony of the New Testament concerning the risen Lord Jesus Christ. What has led them to reject this testimony? Jesus answered this question saying, "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3:19 NIV).

If you are reading this post and you are not a Christian, I challenge you to look more carefully into these matters. Receive the eye-witness accounts of the sinless life of Jesus and of His death on the Cross as an atonement for sin, then look to the risen Lord Jesus in faith to receive forgiveness and eternal life.

If you are reading this post and you are a Christian, I challenge you to look more carefully into these matters as well, preparing yourself to answer the questions that you are sure to hear in coming days about your faith in Christ's resurrection.

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. (I Peter 3:15-16 NIV)

For more research on this issue, I recommend the blogs of Michael Spencer and James White.

Update: Some Christian leaders have done an excellent job addressing the claims concerning "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." Notably, SBTS president Albert Mohler has engaged this issue on both Larry King Live and his own radio program; also, Christian apologist and theologian James White has spoken about this on his webcast and on the Way of the Master radio program.

-I plan to update on this issue one more time after "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" airs on the Discovery Channel this Lord's Day.

Live-blogging "The Lost Tomb of Jesus"

Introduction: The following is, as the title indicates, "live-blogging," so I am simply typing out a few thoughts as I watch the Discovery Channel special, The Lost Tomb of Jesus. Due to the highly informal nature of this type of blog-post, I won't have any "bells and whistles" I usually try to put in my articles (pictures, video, hyperlinks, etc.); I may even have a few typos.

Live-blogging: Near the beginning of the show the gospel account from Matthew is referenced in which the quote is given, 'His disciples came during the night and stole [the body of Jesus Christ] away while we were asleep' (cf. Matt. 28:13b, NIV). The narrator admits that this claim is portrayed by Matthew as a cover-up for Jesus Christ's physical resurrection, but the show fails to mention that Matthew and the other Apostles were killed as a witness to the resurrected Christ. In other words, they either saw Jesus Christ arisen from the grave, or they knowingly died for a lie.

The show claims that the corpse of Jesus Christ would have certainly been placed in an ossuary, such as the one archaeologists have found, “Following Jewish burial practices of the time.” But again, these burial practices would have only been followed assuming that He was not risen from the dead, something that this film must prove (contrary to eyewitness testimony) rather than take for granted.

Trying to down-play the extent to which this show is an attack on the Christian faith, the film-makers constantly make assertions such as, "In theory, this ascension [of Jesus Christ] could have been spiritual." [Thus, they wish to say, we could find the body of Jesus Christ and not undermine the Christian belief in the resurrection and assention.] But though they say, "In theory," they need to answer the question, "In theory of whom?" Certainly the New Testament presents Jesus Christ as physically resurrected and ascended to heaven and first century Jewish thought knew nothing of a merely spiritual resurrection.

Jacobovici, concerning the names found in the supposed "Jesus Tomb," exclaimed, "There isn’t a single name that does not fit!" But he ignores the fact that some of the names they found in the supposed family tomb of Jesus do not fit at all. There is no "Mariamne" in the New Testament, Matthew is not supposed to be a family member of Jesus Christ, and there is certainly no "Judah son of Jesus" ever before mentioned in relation to any Christian tradition. So when he exclaimed, "There isn’t a single name that does not fit!" he only meant, "There isn’t a single name that does not fit my baseless theories!"

Concerning how the creators of this show got their statistics to prove this must be the family tomb of Jesus Christ, they figured probabilities for, “Jesus with a father named Joseph, a mother named Mary, and a brother named Jose…” But this is simply begging the question! They have not proven these family relations for the actual physical remnants they found!

They did have Dr. Tabor say: "Those who take a strictly historical approach to the gospels would expect to find the body in his family’s tomb." "If you’re going to be historical about it, realistic about it..." Well, that is exactly what serious Christians are trying to be. Faithful, yes- but not blindly so. We want realistic, historical grounding for our beliefs, so that when theories that are based on little more than idle speculation are set forth as an attack on our faith- especially when these theories are packaged in a slick, pseudo-scientific fashion, which is liable to influence many people to be prejudiced against belief in the risen Lord Jesus Christ- it is indeed very frustrating.

The film (again) speculates that if in the early Christian tradition, Mary Magdalene was an apostle, then the inscription Mara found on the ossuary could point to something extraordinary. But the makers of this film are not even hinting that there's any speculative nature to identifying Mariamne as Mary Magdalene. They just keep saying that the Acts of Phillip talk about Mary Magdalene and her brother Phillip, or saying that Mariamne and Mary Magdalene are the same person. But this connection is never made in the Acts of Philip (which is a highly questionable document anyway) itself!

The creators of this special clearly assert that the DNA testing proves that there were “No familial ties…” between "Jesus son of Joseph" and "Mariamne." But this is, in fact, false, as the test only proves that they are not related through the mother. They could very well have been related on the father's side of the family exclusively, as half brother and sister, cousins, uncle and niece, aunt and son, or "Jesus son of Joseph" may have even been Mariamne's father. We simple do not know. To this end, the actual biotechnical researcher in charge of the DNA evidence merely said, 'If they are not related, they are most likely husband and wife,' but Simcha Jacobovici and his crew strengthen this, saying. DNA results of Talpiot suggest that they were married.

What this show leaves us with is a chain of improbable IFs that all must be answered in a certain way to reach the conclusion Simcha Jacobovici is promoting: IF James and Jesus Christ were the only two James and Jesus' with a father named Joseph buried in Jerusalem, IF Jesus Christ had ever been said to have a child named Judah, IF any document ever made a connection between Mariamne and Mary Magdalene, IF Mary had been referred to by a Latin form of her name in biblical times, IF Jose is also the son of Joseph, IF there is any reason to find a Matthew in Jesus' family tomb, IF Mariamne is not paternally related to Jesus son of Joseph, etc.

But all of this can be answered by a series of very probable (certain, really) series of IFs, namely: IF the Bible is true, IF Jesus died on the Cross for sinners, was buried, and rose again on the third day according to Scriptures, IF the risen Lord Jesus appeared to the apostles and about 500 others at one time, IF Jesus bodily ascended into heaven, IF He remains at the right hand of God the Father offering eternal life through the Holy Spirit to all who repent and place their trust in Him, IF He has been radically changing lives for thousands of years,
-then believers in the Lord Jesus Christ have nothing to worry about.

Maranatha!

King David: Example, Type, and Covenant Head

Why Study the Life of King David (and Other Biblical Kings)?

IMAGINE you have a friend who, once every week, gathers with a small group of people to study ancient rulers. The group studies Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Amenhotep I, etc. You may think that such a meeting is somewhat interesting. But if it became apparent that such a meeting was-to some extent-becoming the focus of your friend's life, something that your friend is really passionate about (and especially if your friend is not employed as an historian, or planning on seeking such employment), then you may become concerned, and understandably so. Why would someone invest so much energy and gain such passion from studying long-dead monarchs? Aren't there better things to do with one's time?

Dear reader, if you are a Christian, and if one or more of the church services that you attend every week takes its text from the Samuel/Kings or Chronicles section of the Old Testament, then-in the eyes of the non-religious world-you are in much the same position as your hypothetical "friend" mentioned above. Why would you go week after week and hear sermons about Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, etc.?

We must be clear-in our own thinking first, but then in communicating to others-that when we study the historical narratives of the Bible, we are doing so based upon more than just mere intellectual curiosity. Rather, the history of Israel's kings teaches lessons that are crucial for understanding God's work in the world, which is ultimately centered on Jesus Christ.

Of  course, not all kings of Israel were the same. Soon after monarchy was established in Israel, the nation split into the northern and southern kingdoms. The northern kings were wicked, and to study them is to study rulers of a nation under God's judgment. God sent prophets-most notably Elijah and Elisha-to confront the wickedness headed by the northern rulers. The record of their ministries demonstrates that the word of the LORD-confirmed by signs and wonders-is active in the darkest of times.

The southern kings were mixed: some were characterized by wickedness and others were characterized by doing what was right in the LORD's sight. These kings of Judah were evaluated in comparison or contrast to King David. For example: 1 Kings 15:3 records of Abijam that "his heart was not wholly devoted to the LORD his God, like the heart of his father David." 1 Kings 15:11 records that "Asa did what was right in the sight of the LORD, like David his father." In order to understand what the LORD means us to learn from the other kings of Judah, we must first and foremost learn why the Spirit-inspired authors of the Old Testament so often focus our attention on King David.

King David is important, physically speaking, because he is an ancestor of the Man Christ Jesus. But there are many ancestors of Jesus, as recorded in the genealogies, about whom the Bible gives us little information. In the biblical literature, the Spirit-inspired authors focus upon David in particular as an example for us, a type of Christ, and a covenant head.

King David as an Example for Us

Despite his serious sins regarding Uriah and Bathsheba-sins that led to disunity and war within the kingdom of Israel, and thus (humanly speaking) threatened to undermine God's plan of redemption-God graciously evaluates King David as one who regularly did right in his sight (1 Kings 15:5), a man after His own heart (Acts 13:22). Judging from the way in which the kings of Judah were evaluated [mentioned above], the monarchs over God's people were meant to take David's devotion to God as an example. We, too, as Christians today, are meant to see David as an example. David's faith is commended in Hebrews 11:32 (though in passing). Some specific ways in which we should view David as an example include:

• David's heart of praise, as reflected in his psalms, provides the chief biblical example for how we should worship God in song.
• When Saul distrusted David's loyalty, was jealous of David, and tried to have him killed, David called out to God and received protection from Him, thereby becoming an example for how we should approach God in prayer.
• Even after he was anointed to replace Saul as king, David honored Saul, providing a clear biblical example for how we should exercise submission to those in authority over us.

As an example, David is true, yet far from perfect. This means that while we can follow his example, we can only follow it up to a point. We need a better, perfect example: an example that is found in Christ (1 Peter 2:21-22).

King David as a Type of Christ

Though not less than an example for us to follow, David is more than just an example. David is the chief personal type of Christ.

When used in evangelical biblical studies, "type" refers to a historical reality of salvific import, which is usually repeated and theologically explored in the biblical narrative, and which finds its fulfillment (or "antitype") in Christ: His perfect life, the new covenant realities brought about by the shedding of His blood, and the new creation of which His resurrection is the firstfruits.

In A History of the Work of Redemption, Jonathan Edwards-the preeminent theologian ever to live on American soil-notes three sorts of "types" found in Scripture:

• Institutions (like the priesthood and sacrificial system, as explored in Hebrews);
• Events (like the redemption of Israel from Egypt, see Matt 2:15; Hos 11:1);
• Persons (like Joseph or David).

Edwards notes that, as far as Old Testament historical persons are concerned, King David in particular is presented as a type of Christ. The Old Testament explicitly pictures David as a type of anointed king on whom God's favor rests: a type which finds its antitype in the coming Messiah. This is seen, for example, in Ezekiel 34:23-24:
²³ And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. ²⁴ And I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I am the Lord; I have spoken. (ESV)

This messianic prophecy was written long after David had died. Yet in speaking of the Messiah through the prophet Ezekiel, the LORD names Him "David." This is an example of calling the antitype by the name of the type in order that, by considering the type, we may learn something about the character of the antitype. Like David, the Messiah is a servant, shepherd, and sovereign.

The function of David as a type of Christ is more clearly seen as we consider the development of the monarchy in Old Testament history. When the good news was first proclaimed in Genesis 3:15, there was no king explicitly mentioned, but God did say that the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent, and so the people understood that the Promised One would be a victor in battle, which was one of the primary roles for a king in the Ancient Near East  (cf. 1 Sam 8:20b).

Though the promise of a victor was in place, humanity as a whole was not characterized by humble trust in this promise. Instead, they lived out the unfaithfulness of Adam, going from bad to worse, until the world was destroyed by the Flood. God re-established His favor with humanity through the Noahic Covenant. Then, in His covenant with Abraham, through the blessed line of Shem, God focused His gracious activity within one human family. But not all of Abraham's children were in line to receive God's covenant promises: think of Ishmael or Keturah's children. Isaac received God's covenant promises, and of his children only Jacob-not Esau-stood in the covenant line. Jacob's children-the children of Israel-all received God's covenant blessing, and their descendants eventually came under the Mosaic Covenant. But a special blessing had come upon Judah, a blessing that included the idea of a monarchy, as seen in Genesis 49:10,

The scepter shall not depart from Judah,
    nor the ruler's staff from between his feet,
until tribute comes to him;
    and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples. (ESV)

"Scepter," "ruler's staff," and one receiving "tribute" and "obedience," all present the picture of a king.

This idea of a king was picked up again in the Mosaic law. Long before national Israel had a human king, the LORD had already given instructions for how a king should act, as seen in Deuteronomy 17:14-20:

¹⁴ “When you come to the land that the Lord your God is giving you, and you possess it and dwell in it and then say, ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are around me,’¹⁵ you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother. ¹⁶ Only he must not acquire many horses for himself or cause the people to return to Egypt in order to acquire many horses, since the Lord has said to you,^(F)‘You shall never return that way again.’ ¹⁷ And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.

¹⁸ “And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. ¹⁹ And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statutes, and doing them, ²⁰ that his heart may not be lifted up above his brothers, and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, either to the right hand or to the left, so that he may continue long in his kingdom, he and his children, in Israel. (ESV)

Notice the reason Moses, inspired by the Holy Spirit, gave for why the Israelites would ask for a king: in order to be like the surrounding nations. In Samuel's day, the Israelites did ask for a king. They asked for a king for three reasons. The first two were: 1) Samuel had grown old; 2) Samuel's sons did not follow in his ways. It was understandable that the people would think to their future leadership and that they would not want Samuel's sons as leaders. Leading up to the people requesting a king-in the period recorded in the Book of Judges-there had been a continued cycle of people straying from the LORD, being oppressed, crying out to the LORD and being saved, then (despite His blessings) they strayed again. By the final section in the Book of Judges, starting in the chapter after Samson died, there was a sharper downward spiral. In this section the phrase, "There was no king in Israel," is repeated four times, and the book ends in Judges 21:25 with the statement, "In those days there was no king in Israel, everyone did what was right in his own eyes." This leads readers to see the need for a godly king. The dire historical situation recorded in the Book of Judges may have, in part, prompted the Israelites in Samuel's day to ask for a king. In itself, asking for a king did not necessarily have to be a bad thing, if the people had asked with the right heart, humbly asking God to establish a king over them for their good and His glory. Instead, the final reason that the Israelites asked Samuel for a king (the reason nearest to their hearts), was: 3) so that they could be like the surrounding nations (i.e., the Gentiles). This is the very motivation for choosing a king that Moses had predicted centuries before.

This wicked motivation for choosing a king led the people to make other mistakes. Wanting a king to be a conqueror, fighting their battles for them, the Israelites chose a man based on his outward appearance-on the fact that he was physically intimidating-rather than considering his heart. Failing to remember Jacob's inspired words concerning Judah's descendants, the Israelites chose a man from the tribe of Benjamin. King Saul was a false start to Israel's monarchy. He was a man who God providentially allowed to take the throne, primarily for the purpose of demonstrating the people's inadequacy at choosing a king for themselves (so that they might be like the Gentiles), apart from God's favorable counsel.

David, then, chosen by God, became the prototypical king. Once Samuel anointed David as king, Scripture records two early episodes in which God particularly manifested His anointing on David's life. First is the account in which Saul was persecuted by an evil spirit, and David was able to dispel it (the point of the account is not the harp music, but the harp player). Second is David's encounter with Goliath, the monstrous individual speaking blasphemies, who David defeats by crushing his head with a [sling-propelled] stone. In these episodes (and others) David acted as a type, finding his antitype in Jesus Christ, who cast out demons and will crush the head of Satan.

David as a Covenant Head

Before David's time, the relationship of Israel to God via the Mosaic Covenant was already in a highly doubtful state (at best). As mentioned above, the people had repeatedly fallen away from faithfulness to the LORD during the period recorded in the Book of Judges. (This is not to mention the fickleness of Israel even in Moses' day.) God would have been more than just to bring the full force of the Law's curses against Israel long before David was born. In order for God to relate to Israel through means of a covenant (as He intended to do), a new kind of covenant relationship would have to be established.

Without supplanting the Mosaic Covenant, which was still in effect, God established another covenant relationship, as recorded in 2 Samuel 7. This covenant was not made with the nation of Israel as a whole-as the Mosaic Covenant had been-but with Israel's anointed king (David and then his heirs), as a covenant representative of the nation.

As elucidated in later Old Testament passages, the Davidic Covenant contained both conditional and unconditional aspects. For example, we read in Psalm 132:11-12:

11 The LORD swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back: "One of the sons of your body I will set on your throne. 12 If your sons keep my covenant and my testimonies that I shall teach them, their sons also forever shall sit on your throne." (ESV, emphases added)

In verse 11, we see the unconditional features of the Davidic Covenant: the LORD "will not turn back" from His promises to David; God said "I will" establish one of David's physical descendants on his throne. In verse 12, which begins with an "if," we see the conditional features of the Davidic Covenant: in order for one of David's sons to be established on his throne, that son must keep God's covenant and testimonies (language associated with the Mosaic Covenant and Law); in other words, righteousness was required for one of David's sons to ascend to the throne.

God absolutely intended to keep His promise to David. The stipulation added to this promise was necessary due to God's holy character. Yet none of David's descendants was able to fulfill the condition that God had established. They, like everyone after Adam's transgressed God's command in the garden of Eden, were sinners, falling short of God's glory (Rom 3:23).

This seemingly impossible contradiction was finally resolved in Christ. Jesus was born in David's line. (His lineage from David can be traced in a couple of different ways, as demonstrated by the genealogies in Matthew and Luke.) Jesus fulfilled the Law [and the Prophets] (Matt 5:17). He always did what pleased His heavenly Father (John 8:29). "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in His mouth" (1 Peter 2:22; Isa 53:9). Jesus is the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, as Peter made clear in his Pentecost sermon:

²⁹ “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. ³⁰ Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that ^(F)God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, ³¹ he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. ³² This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. ³³ Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. ³⁴ For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at my right hand,
³⁵     until I make your enemies your footstool.”’

³⁶ Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:29-36 ESV)

Jesus met the qualifications of the Davidic Covenant, and He received the promises of the Davidic Covenant, as demonstrated in His resurrection, ascension, and exaltation. Jesus was installed as the ultimate Davidic king and seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Now He graciously shares His throne with all who are united to Him by faith, as we read in passages such as Ephesians 2:6, "God raised us up with Christ and seated us in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus," and Revelation 3:21, "To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with Me on My throne, just as I overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne."

Conclusion: More Than a History Lesson, More Than an Example

When thinking Christianly, we cannot view biblical accounts simply through the lens of historical curiosity. There are important spiritual lessons that we are meant to learn from the the biblical narratives. David and the other kings of Israel provide examples of faithfulness or unfaithfulness that we should either follow or knowledgeably avoid. Ultimately, however, when we study Scripture, we do so for the purpose of knowing Christ better. David is an historical figure, but we study him as more than just an artifact of ancient times. David is-in many different ways-an example for us to follow, but we study him as more than just an example. David is a type of Christ and a covenant head. Through studying King David in light of these spiritual realities, we look through the son of Jesse to see the true Son of David: the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, our Savior.