Jews of the New Testament: Expectations & Confirmations

To continue our exploration of Jewish expectations of the Kingdom, we turn our attention to other figures in the New Testament—individuals like John the Baptist, Simeon, Nathaniel, and Joseph of Arimathea. These men, along with countless others, held onto the promises given in the Old Testament and expected a literal fulfillment of those promises. As George Peters asserts:

Take now for granted the supposition of the multitude...for many centuries the Jews miserably misunderstood the prophecies, that they had no correct ideas of the Messiah or of His Kingdom, etc., and what becomes of the instruction of prophecy to the generations of men who held to the grammatical sense? (Prop. 21, Obs. 6)

The Jews of the New Testament, particularly those filled with the Holy Spirit, held steadfastly to a literal interpretation of the Davidic Covenant, expecting a tangible, physical Kingdom with the Messiah reigning on David’s throne. This post delves into how these deeply rooted expectations were not only upheld by Jesus but affirmed throughout His ministry, without ever being corrected or redefined.

The Expectations of John the Baptist, Simeon, and Nathaniel

John the Baptist: John’s role as the forerunner of the Messiah gives us insight into the Kingdom expectations of the time. His message, Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand (Matt. 3:2), was understood by Jews to be literal. John himself looked forward to the Kingdom as promised in the prophets—he would not have preached repentance for an abstract, spiritual Kingdom. His understanding, like others in his time, was rooted in the literal promises to Israel. See this post for more discussion on John and his preaching of the kingdom.

Simeon and Anna: In Luke 2, Simeon is described as righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel (Luke 2:25). His encounter with the baby Jesus confirmed his hope. Simeon’s declaration in the temple reflected an expectation of salvation not only for Israel but also for the Gentiles, as foretold in Isaiah. Anna, too, spoke of the redemption of Jerusalem (Luke 2:38), further indicating that these righteous Jews expected a physical restoration tied to their understanding of Messianic prophecy.

Nathaniel: When Nathaniel meets Jesus, he exclaims, Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel! (John 1:49). Nathaniel clearly understood Jesus in terms of the Davidic Covenant, expecting Him to reign as a literal King of Israel. Significantly, Jesus does not correct this expectation but instead affirms it with His reply that Nathaniel would see greater things than these (John 1:50), hinting at a future fulfillment of those very expectations.

Joseph of Arimathea and His Hope for the Kingdom

Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin, was waiting for the Kingdom of God (Mark 15:43). His position in the Sanhedrin implies he was knowledgeable of Jewish Scripture, and his expectation of the Kingdom was grounded in a literal interpretation of prophecy. Joseph, like many others, would not have aligned himself with Jesus had he believed in a merely spiritual Kingdom—especially given his status among the Jewish elite.

Jesus Confirmed Literal Expectations of the Kingdom

George Peters further underscores that, despite modern theological reinterpretations, the Jews—including the disciples—held steadfast to a literal expectation of the Kingdom. He notes:

It is universally admitted by writers of prominence...that the Jews, including the pious, held to a personal coming of the Messiah, the literal restoration of the Davidic throne and kingdom, the personal reign of Messiah on David’s throne, the resultant exaltation of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, and the fulfillment of the Millennial descriptions in that reign. (Prop. 20, Obs. 1)

Furthermore, Peters points out that the rebukes given by Jesus to the Jews never addressed their literal expectations of the Kingdom, but instead focused on issues like hypocrisy and pride:

It is noticeable, that in all the rebukes given to the Jews by John the Baptist, by Jesus and the apostles, not one refers to their belief and expectations concerning the Kingdom. (Prop. 20, Obs. 2)

In Parables

To further emphasize these facts—that there was a lack of correction or attempts to show that the Jews were mistaken in their idea of the Kingdom, a hint at a postponement, and a change in how the kingdom was being presented—we can look to chapter 19 of Luke with Jesus’s parable of the Ten Minas. There was the assumption that the kingdom of God was going to appear immediately (Luke 19:11), which prompted Jesus to give the subsequent parable. In this parable, Jesus corrects only one simple thing regarding the Kingdom: the assumption that the Kingdom was to be set up immediately—a timing issue.

George Peters points out that if modern notions are correct and the Kingdom had already come, either in a spiritualized way through Christ’s ministry or at His ascension, then Jesus’ answer to the Jews’ question, by way of this parable in Luke 19, “would be cruelly irrelevant.” This parable instead reveals a “mystery” age before the kingdom would come, where we are to occupy and be about His business while the nobleman (Jesus) is away in a far country (heaven). Only after this period does Christ return to judge and reign in His Kingdom. If we interpret the parable any other way, it undermines its meaning and contradicts the idea of the Kingdom as a future, tangible reality. Peters elaborates:

For there is (as there could not be) no declaration that they were wrong in believing that the Kingdom which they expected, the Messianic, was still in the future. They were only mistaken in the opinion, carefully announced, “that the Kingdom of God should immediately appear.” Now the parable is given to correct this belief in the immediate setting up of the Kingdom, to indicate that it would not soon appear, but only after an undefined period of time had elapsed. For He represents Himself as a nobleman, who, having a right to the Kingdom, goes “into a far country to receive” (to have His title confirmed) “for Himself a Kingdom, and to return.” During His absence His servants “occupy till I come.” Then after an interval of time, not definitely stated, the period having come to enter upon His reign, having received the Kingdom, He returns, judgment follows, and those who rejected Him (saying, “we will not have this man to reign over us”) are destroyed. 

Here we have: 
(1) the Jews thought that the Kingdom would now appear; 
(2) but it was no longer nigh, for 
    (a) He would leave, 
    (b) they had refused His proffered reign, 
    (c) those, however, who were devoted to Him should “occupy” until He returned, 
    (d) during His absence there was no Kingdom, being gone to receive the power to reign; 
(3) He would return and then manifest His acquired power (Prop. 83) in the establishment of His Kingdom. Thus we have the absence, and then “the appearing and Kingdom” of Christ.
(Prop. 58, Obs. 4)

This parable, along with Jesus’ consistent teachings about His future reign, makes it clear that the misunderstanding among the Jews was the timing of the Kingdom’s establishment, not its nature. Jesus never corrected their expectation of a literal, earthly Kingdom; instead, He confirmed it, revealing only that it would come after a period of delay. Thus, the promises of the Davidic Covenant remain intact, awaiting their fulfillment when Christ returns to sit on His rightful throne.

In The Lord’s Prayer

Even in the Lord’s Prayer, Jesus teaches, Your Kingdom come, Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven (Matt. 6:10). As George Peters writes:

'Thy Kingdom come' cannot be prayed for by those who already possess it. The disciples, who prayed it, had no idea of the modern notion engrafted on the prayer. They prayed it, looking for a Kingdom to come visibly in the future under David’s Son. We may well ask, How could the Divine Master give them such a prayer, with such a clause in it, which, as the facts evidence, was eminently calculated to confirm them in expecting the covenant to be realized in its plain grammatical sense? Would Jesus give them that in prayer which He foreknew would be (if the modern notion is correct) grossly misunderstood and perverted? No! consistency, the covenants and prophecy, require us to understand the Kingdom prayed for as not then in existence, but as future and certain to come. The prayer is given, without explanation, in view of a well-known covenanted Kingdom, generally anticipated. The clause 'Thy will be done on earth,' etc., is not now verified even in the Church (e.g. Props. 96 and 97), and, so long as it remains in its present mixed character, cannot be. The 'will' of God respecting the earth is easily seen if the eye of faith is directed either to the past or to the future; in the past, it is reflected before the fall, and in the future it shines forth in the renewed earth. (Prop. 98, Obs. 5)

The plea for God’s Kingdom to manifest on earth is a clear reflection of a future, tangible Kingdom. Peters, in a later proposition (Prop. 93, Obs. 10) also draws upon Tertullian’s teachings to support this perspective. Tertullian, in his Treatise on Prayer (ch. 5)¹, stated that the Kingdom referred to in the Lord’s Prayer is not the current age but a future Kingdom at the end of the age. He rebuked those who prayed for the continuation of the present age, stating that such a prayer was contrary to the spirit of the Lord’s Prayer. Tertullian insisted, “Our wish is that our reign be hastened, not our servitude protracted.” This highlights the anticipation of the future Kingdom and the desire for its swift arrival, aligning with the disciples’ understanding that the Kingdom was not yet realized but was something to come.

Further confirmations from Jesus can be found In Mark 14:25; Jesus speaks explicitly of the Kingdom in future terms, saying, Truly, I tell you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the Kingdom of God. This statement, made during the Last Supper, is significant because it points to a future, physical fulfillment of the Kingdom. Jesus’ use of the phrase “until that day” implies that the Kingdom is not yet established but is something to be realized in the future. His reference to partaking in the “fruit of the vine” again further suggests that this future Kingdom is not a spiritualized, ethereal state but rather a tangible, earthly reality where normal, physical experiences—like eating and drinking—will occur.

Whether in parables such as this, or with debates among pharisees, or intimate dialogue with his disciples, Jesus continues throughout the Gospels to confirm rather than challenge the literal expectations of the Kingdom. For instance, when the disciples asked about sitting on thrones in the Kingdom, Jesus did not rebuke them for a “carnal” expectation. Instead, He told them they would indeed sit on twelve thrones judging the tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). George Ladd even admits the fact that even though the disciples exhibited expectations of literal fulfillment—asking for positions of primary authority in the restored Israelitic order²—Jesus did not correct them here nor before His departure in Acts 1:6 when they exhibited the same expectations! Far from spiritualizing the Kingdom, Jesus affirms the disciples’ hopes.

Far from correcting or spiritualizing the disciples’ understanding of a physical Kingdom, Jesus affirms it here, aligning with their expectations of a coming reign where He, the Messiah, will sit on a literal throne. This reinforces the notion that their anticipation of the Davidic Covenant’s fulfillment was accurate and grounded in Scripture. By pointing to a future time when He would once again share a meal with them, Jesus leaves no doubt that the Kingdom is a real, awaited event. This statement follows the consistent theme of Jesus affirming the disciples’ literal expectations throughout His ministry, never once diminishing the hope of an actual, physical reign on earth.

The Davidic Covenant & The Title “Son of David”

Throughout His ministry, Jesus was addressed as the “Son of David” on many occasions (Matt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 22:42; Mark 10:47, 52; 12:35–37; Luke 18:38.) This title signified His messianic role as the rightful heir to David’s throne. Peters also highlights the importance of Jesus’ genealogy in affirming His right to the Davidic throne. He states:

The genealogies of our Lord form an important link in the comprehension of this Kingdom. A throne and a kingdom is to be given to a promised son of David, a regular descendant of Abraham’s. It is his by right of inheritance. He is the royal Theocratic heir. Hence without such a genealogy something essential would be lacking in the chain of evidence. (Prop. 53, Intro)

This direct link to David is emphasized in the Gospels, particularly in Matthew, which opens by asserting Jesus as the Son of David, the Son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1). Peters notes:

"This link is purposely supplied, and with special reference to these covenants. This is observable in Matthew commencing his table by asserting that Jesus was 'the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,' i.e. both covenants, the Abrahamic and Davidic, were thus realized in the person of Jesus Christ." (Prop. 53, Obs. 1)

The expectation of a literal Davidic king ruling a real kingdom is deeply rooted in OT prophecies (2 Sam. 7:12-16; Isa. 9:6-7; Jer. 23:5-6), which clearly speak of a physical, political reign. The genealogy served as proof that Jesus had the rightful claim to David’s throne—a throne that was not merely symbolic but real and intended for a literal fulfillment. The title “Son of David” was a direct reference to the Davidic Covenant and the expectation of a ruler from David’s lineage sitting on a literal throne. The Jews who called Jesus “Son of David” were not speaking in metaphorical terms.

Passages like Matt. 9:27, Matt. 15:22, and Mark 10:47 show people addressing Jesus with this title, acknowledging Him as the promised heir to David’s throne. As George Peters argues, “The genealogies truthfully and actually show how by course of descent He is the rightful Heir,” providing both the natural and legal descent necessary for Jesus to fulfill the promises of the Davidic Covenant. (Prop. 53, Obs. 2)

For example, in Matthew 12:23, after Jesus heals a demon-possessed man, the crowd asks, Could this be the Son of David? This question points to their Messianic expectation, rooted in a literal reading of the Davidic Covenant. If the Jews understood this promise spiritually, they would not have associated the miracles of healing with the Messiah’s role as a physical King. Jesus never corrected this understanding; rather, His actions and words only solidified their expectations.

In addition, when Jesus teaches about the scribes and Pharisees, He notes that they sit in Moses’ seat and tells His listeners to observe what they teach, but not to follow their actions (Matt. 23:2-3). The rebuke Jesus gives here has nothing to do with their so-called “carnal” expectations of the Kingdom, but rather with their hypocrisy. Jesus’ correction is aimed at their behavior, not their interpretation of the Kingdom promises.

The Davidic Covenant: A Literal Throne for a Literal Kingdom

George Peters provides compelling reasons for why the Davidic throne and Kingdom must be understood literally. He writes argues in Prop. 49, Obs. 5 that the Jews were justified in expecting a literal restoration of the Davidic throne and Kingdom because the covenant language itself plainly conveys this meaning. He writes:

Before censuring the Jews, as many do, for believing that Jesus would literally restore the Davidic throne and Kingdom, we must consider, in fairness, that they were justified in so doing by the very language of the covenant. It is incredible that God should in the most important matters, affecting the interests and the happiness of man and nearly touching His own veracity, clothe them in words, which, if not true in their obvious and common sense, would deceive the pious and God-fearing of many ages. We cannot, dare not (however upheld by many eminent names) entertain an opinion so dishonoring both to God and His ancient believing children. The Jews are abundantly defended in their faith by the covenant itself; the correctness and justness of their fondly entertained hopes appear from the particulars incorporated with it. 
(Prop. 49, Obs. 5)

Peters outlines five key reasons why the Jews were justified in their literal belief:

1. Plain Grammatical Sense: The words and sentences in their plain grammatical acceptation expressly teach their belief. This is not denied, even by those who later proceed to spiritualize the language. Therefore, the Jews are already excusable in believing what God so clearly declares.
2. Distinctive Association with Israel: The covenant is distinctively associated with the Jewish nation and none other. David understood this relationship as applying specifically to Israel, the nation brought out of Egypt, which was established in God’s land as His chosen people.
3. Perpetual Covenant: The covenant is described as everlasting, one that endures forever. It may take time before fulfillment, but it will ultimately be realized. David himself emphasized this in his last words, affirming the certainty of the covenant.
4. Confirmed by Oath: The covenant was confirmed by God’s oath (Psalm 132:11, Psalm 89:3-4, 33), providing the strongest possible assurance of its fulfillment. The Jews had every reason to trust in language so confirmed.
5. God’s Determination: God made it abundantly clear that His covenant would not be broken nor altered: My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips (Psalm 89:34). Any attempt to alter or spiritualize the covenant would be an act of presumption, ignoring the explicit promise made by God.

Peters continues by listing 21 reasons why the Davidic throne and Kingdom are to be understood literally:

1. Covenantal Guarantee: The promise is solemnly covenanted and confirmed by oath, hence unbreakable.
2. Literal Language: The covenant should be understood in its grammatical (literal) sense.
3. David’s Understanding: Any incorrect impression on David undermines his prophetical authority.
   • Take a minute to read Prop. 59, III. The Davidic Covenant, Obs. 3
4. Solomon’s Conviction: Solomon believed the covenant referred to the literal throne and Kingdom (2 Chronicles 6:14–16).
5. Solomon’s Partial Fulfillment: Solomon’s claim to fulfillment was only partial, as the throne is destined for a distinguished Seed (see Psalm 89:30–34).
6. Literal Terminology: The language used throughout is the typical terminology for a literal throne and Kingdom, as in Jeremiah 17:25 and 22:4.
7. Prophetic Consistency: The prophets consistently use the same literal language, showing that it’s intended in the grammatical sense.
8. Historical Belief: Centuries of national belief, inspired by this language, indicate it should be understood literally.
9. Promised Inheritance: The throne and Kingdom are of promise and inheritance, emphasizing Jesus’ Humanity (Props. 82–85).
10. Fleshly Lineage: The promise was given to David’s Son according to the flesh, meaning He must be a literal Theocratic King.
11. No Figurative Hint: There is no indication that this promise is to be understood figuratively—such an interpretation is purely inferred.
12. Avoiding Contradiction: Non-literal interpretations lead to major contradictions.
13. Loss of Inheritance: Denying a literal interpretation deprives the heir of His promised inheritance.
14. Grammar Misfit: No grammatical rule equates David’s throne with the Father’s throne in heaven.
15. Symbolism Issue: If symbolic, David would become a “type” of God, which is an inappropriate comparison.
16. Eternal Throne: If David’s throne were the Father’s throne, it would imply it existed eternally.
17. Figurative Ambiguity: If the promises were figurative, there should have been a direct statement clarifying this, especially to avoid misleading generations from David to Christ.
18. God’s Faithfulness: God doesn’t deceive—His covenant language is straightforward and reliable.
19. No Figurative Necessity: There’s no need for such a direct promise if it were not meant literally.
20. Restoration of Same Throne: The very throne and Kingdom that were overthrown are the ones that will be restored.
21. Additional Reasons: Further detailed reasons for a literal interpretation are given in other propositions (Props. 81, 122, etc.), emphasizing the need for a literal throne for the restoration and exaltation of the Jewish nation, and to maintain the Theocratic order for a renewed world.

These arguments serve to reinforce the view that the throne and Kingdom of David are literal, and that the promises made to David will indeed be fulfilled by Christ in a physical, real manner. This interpretation aligns seamlessly with the Jews’ understanding of a coming, tangible Kingdom and further supports the claims of Jesus as the rightful heir to David’s throne. The Davidic Covenant promised that a descendant of David would sit on the throne and reign over Israel forever (2 Samuel 7:12-16). Throughout the Old Testament, there are over 1,800 references to the throne, all of which point to a real, physical kingship. The Jews, like Simeon, Nathaniel, and the disciples, understood this in a literal sense.

The Davidic Covenant is not just a relic of Jewish hope; it is the backbone of God’s promise that Jesus will rule as a literal King over a restored Israel. As the New Testament confirms, this is a hope that extends beyond mere spiritual symbolism. Jesus Himself affirmed this when He told His disciples that they would reign alongside Him, sitting on thrones (Matt. 19:28).

Peters emphasizes this point brilliantly, arguing that the precision of Jesus’ descent from David has profound implications beyond simple identification. He writes:

If the Saviour was merely to descend from David, to take human nature in that line for the purpose of redemptive work at the First Advent, and then that was to be the finale of the matter, why lay so much stress on descent from the royal line? Does the mere notion of identification meet the point why one table should be exclusively given to designate His legal right to the throne? This certainly must have some very significant meaning, for God does not put His descent in such a form without some weighty reason underlying it. If we accept of the covenant just as it reads, without alteration or substitution of sense, then a forcible reason appears for being so minute. On the other hand, if David’s throne is God’s throne in heaven, no satisfactory reason can be assigned for so strange a peculiarity. What difference, on the latter supposition, was it then, whether Jesus was, or was not, the legitimate Heir to David’s throne, if He was never to occupy it? Why should special stress be laid on that which, if we are to credit the multitude, God never intended to fulfill? We, therefore, hold that there is a solid, sublime reason why those tables, so uninteresting to many, are given, viz.: not merely to identify Jesus as the Saviour, but to identify Him as the One, the Messiah, who has the lawful right to David’s Theocratic throne. The throne is not typical, not representative, not symbolical, but actually and really covenanted to this Heir, and hence the tables truthfully and actually show how by course of descent He is the rightful Heir. (Prop. 53, Obs. 2)

This literal view holds that the Davidic throne and Kingdom have not been replaced by a purely spiritual fulfillment; rather, they are to be realized in their intended form, with Jesus reigning over a renewed Israel in a very real and enduring way. Therefore, instead of dismissing the Jewish expectation of a restored Davidic Kingdom, we recognize it as rooted in the language and promises of Scripture—promises that God, in His faithfulness, will honor through Christ.

Conclusion: The Jews Were Right to Expect a Literal Kingdom

The testimony of scripture and the unwavering faith of those closest to Jesus affirm the validity of expecting a literal Kingdom. Figures such as John the Baptist, Simeon, Nathaniel, Joseph of Arimathea, and the disciples all held fast to the promise of a restored Davidic throne—a promise never contradicted by Jesus. Their faith was based on the plain language of the Davidic Covenant, reinforced by the prophecies, oaths, and direct affirmations that came from God Himself.

Jesus never dismissed the idea of a physical Kingdom. Instead, He supported it with His actions, teachings, and even His promises about the future. Whether in His instruction to the disciples about sitting on thrones or in His declaration in the Lord’s Prayer, “Your Kingdom come,” Jesus made it clear that the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant is not an abstract, distant hope but an anticipated, tangible reality. The throne promised to David will indeed be established—not as a symbol but as an enduring, literal reign over a restored Israel, where Jesus will sit as King.

The unwavering belief of the pious Jews in a literal Kingdom should not be seen as a misunderstanding but rather as a faithful response to the covenants of God. The promises were clear, and the expectation of a real, physical Kingdom is consistent with the unchanging faithfulness of God. As George Peters so aptly stated, “The prophecies of the Kingdom, interpreted literally, sustain the expectations and hopes of the pious Jews.” These promises of the Kingdom are central to God’s redemptive plan, and their literal fulfillment is essential to upholding the integrity and unity of God’s purpose.

The anticipation of a literal Davidic throne is not just a historical hope—it remains the backbone of Christian expectation. As believers today, we share in that hope, looking forward to the day when Jesus will fulfill the promises made to David. This hope, rooted in the surety of God’s covenant and the words of Christ, is a steadfast reminder that God’s plans are as real and tangible as the Kingdom He has promised to establish.

---

---

Key Concepts

---

Recommended Sources

The Davidic Covenant

• Book: Things to Come by J.D. Pentecost
  • Chapter VII on the section on the Davidic Covenant
• Book: The Theocratic Kingdom (Prop. 93)
• Video: Andy Woods Ministries: The Coming Kingdom 03. Davidic Covenant. 2 Samuel 7:12-26

---

1. Tertullian (Roberts-Donaldson) ↩︎
2. Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974, p. 332 ↩︎