The New Testament makes it clear that Jesus Christ is the messianic son of David whose coming was foretold in the Old Testament. Not only would he secure the salvation of his people through his death and resurrection, but he’d also establish “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” (Rev. 11:15). In so doing, he fulfills the promise the Lord made to David in 2 Samuel 7: the Lord will establish the dominion of his future son forever.

As important as it is to understand how the New Testament uses the Old, we also must examine how the Old Testament uses the Old. Christ’s coming doesn’t fulfill only 2 Samuel 7 but also a tradition of interpretation of the Davidic promise that can be traced throughout the Old Testament. The New Testament authors built on the Old Testament promises, revealing that Jesus is the promised one.

By studying how Old Testament writers developed in their understanding of the Davidic promises and then how the New Testament writers claimed their fulfillment in Jesus, we can better appreciate Jesus as the ideal King and the God-man.

Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7

Second Samuel 7:1–16 begins with David sharing his desire to build a temple for the Lord. He acknowledges how improper it is that he lives in a grand palace while the Lord remains in a tent (vv. 1–3). The Lord replies that he has always dwelled in a tent since the exodus and never requested more. In fact, he’s the One who revealed the tabernacle’s design; thus, he’s content to be in a tent (vv. 4–7). The Lord continues by describing the redemptive accomplishments he’s done for David so that he can be a king over Israel (vv. 7–11).

Then, in a surprising turn of events, the Lord informs David that, instead of David building a “house” for the Lord, the Lord will build a “house” for him.

Whereas David uses “house” literally, referring to an actual house (i.e., temple), the Lord uses it figuratively, referring to a household (i.e., a household of kings)—a perpetual line of kings (vv. 11–13). One son specifically is isolated who will eventually build the temple for the Lord’s habitation. Though that son may commit iniquity, the Lord will remain steadfast to his promise and will establish David’s throne forever (vv. 14–16).

1 Chronicles Interpretation of 2 Samuel 7

There’s little doubt that the preexilic and exilic readers of 2 Samuel 7 would have identified this future son of David as Solomon. The covenant promise is then repeated and reinterpreted by the postexilic community in 1 Chronicles 17. Though several differences exist, we’ll point out three for our purposes. The first is that the son of David “commits iniquity” in 2 Samuel 7:14. In 1 Chronicles 17, however, that description is removed.

This suggests that, by the postexilic era, the expected son would be without sin. We see the same interpretative tradition when we compare Psalms 89 and 132. Both psalms are poetic commentaries on the Davidic covenant. However, where the Davidic sons in Psalm 89:30–32 will violate God’s laws, the sons in Psalm 132:12 will “keep [God’s] covenant and . . . testimonies that [God] shall teach them.” An ideal king.

The growing expectation, therefore, is that a faithful Davidic son would come who fulfills the covenant stipulations perfectly (Deut. 17:17–20), unlike the historical kings of Israel. Solomon, therefore, was only a shadowy copy of the true son of David yet to come.

Solomon, therefore, was only a shadowy copy of the true son of David yet to come.

The second difference is to whom the kingdom belongs. In 2 Samuel 7:16, God says about David’s son, “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me,” where “your” refers to David (author’s translation). But in 1 Chronicles 17:14, God says, “I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom forever,” where “my” refers to God himself. Still, earlier in 1 Chronicles, God also says the house and kingdom belong to David’s son (1 Chr. 17:11–12). Therefore, by the postexilic era, the expectation is that the house/kingdom would belong both to God and to David’s messianic son.

We aren’t told how both are true, but we’re given the impression the two statements are bringing the Lord and the Davidic Messiah into a closer relationship. While the Old Testament presents these two parties as distinct, it hints at a growing connection between them, culminating in their unity in the New Testament. They’re even given identical descriptions in the Psalms, for example. The Lord God in Psalm 111 is described using similar images and vocabulary as the Davidic king in Psalm 112, displaying a proto-union of God and man.

The third difference is in 2 Samuel 7:1: “The LORD had given him rest from all his surrounding enemies.” In 1 Chronicles 17:1, David isn’t given any rest. The trauma of the exile reshaped messianic expectations. Not only did Israel break the covenant, but their kings were particularly egregious. This is one of many explanations for the exile.

However, the promise of a king is still a good thing. What they truly need is an ideal king. This messianic son would be more than a godly man—he’d be God himself. Finally, he’d bring more than mere “rest,” but rather the true “Sabbath” (Heb. 4:9) and the final defeat of all God’s enemies (Rev. 16:14–16). As Israel transitioned from the preexilic to the postexilic era, a subtle anticipation developed of the rise of a divine son of David who would definitively accomplish the works of God and establish the Lord’s kingdom forever.

Union of God and Man

The apostle Peter’s Pentecost sermon affirms Jesus as the eschatological messianic son in Acts 2:36: “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord [Yahweh] and Christ [Messiah], this Jesus whom you crucified.” The Lord’s Christ is Christ the Lord. The messianic son of David is the ontological Son of God. Jesus himself said as much when he quoted Psalm 110:1 in Mark 12:36.

The Lord’s Christ is Christ the Lord. The messianic son of David is the ontological Son of God.

It isn’t clear how much insight the Old Testament readers would have had regarding the precise identity of the Davidic son. What is clear, however, is that an interpretive trajectory existed in the Old Testament that laid down a messianic momentum, leading to the logical conclusion the New Testament writers made regarding Jesus as both Lord (God) and Christ (son of David).

We should rejoice in the witness of the Scriptures, that the New Testament claim of Jesus isn’t a forced interpretation of the Old Testament messianic tradition but rather a celebrative eschatological conclusion. There’s life for God’s people because many years ago was born “in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord [Messiah-Yahweh]” (Luke 2:11).