The New Testament (NT) writers constantly employed the Old Testament (OT) in their preaching about Christ. And there is good reason, of course, for they believed that all of the OT spoke to the coming of Christ, either directly or indirectly, by type, example, etc. Jesus said in Luke 24:44 that everything that was spoken about him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms had to be fulfilled. This means that in some way there is reference to him as the messiah/savior/priest/king throughout the whole OT, including the Pentateuch (for this made up the “law” as Luke referred to it here). It is to the Pentateuch, and to Genesis 49:8-12 in particular, that we now turn our attention in this short paper. (This paper is one of several to follow which will attempt to show Davidic regal conceptions in the Old Testament as backdrop for the NT presentation of the Messiah.)1
Perhaps one of the most intriguing traditions found in the “Testament of Jacob,” as Genesis 49:3-27 is often referred to,2 concerns the blessing on Judah in vv. 8-12. According to Wenham this passage alone “has provoked more discussion than the whole of the rest of the chapter.”3 Questions about the precise significance of the various images (e.g., “lion’s cub,” “between his feet,” etc.), the original wording of v. 8 (cf. 1QM 12:10),4 the use (i.e., Sitz im Leben) of the tradition before its incorporation into the text, and the essential unity of the poem as a whole, are legion and it appears that no consensus is in sight on most of the issues; the passage has had, especially since the 19th century and the rise of critical scholarship, a diverse history of interpretation.5 It is not our purpose here to attempt systematic answers to all the queries arising out of this text, but instead to surface certain elements important for understanding regal hope in the Old Testament and the kinds of ideas NT writers were free to draw on and utilize in their preaching about Christ. It is the images concerning Judah which will become important for subsequent Jewish thinking about the Messiah and his kingdom for they outline in incipient form a portrait of a coming king. The focus of this study is not on the NT’s use of Gen 49:8-12, but on the text of Genesis 49 itself and the kinds of regal ideas it advances.
The prevailing view among critical scholars today regarding the date of the traditions reflected in the poem partly depends on one’s view of the literary integrity of the unit. For those who see the poem as essentially a collection of disparate traditions the dates range accordingly, from pre-monarchic for certain traditions to post-exilic for others. For those, on the other hand, who maintain the essential literary integrity of the unit, the date of composition ranges, based on internal considerations such as the places where the tribes are said to live (cf. Zebulon in v. 13) and the exalted emphasis on Judah vv. 8-12 and the tribe of Joseph, from some time in the period of the Judges with still later modifications in the monarchic period.6 There is, however, good evidence for an even earlier date (e.g., the lack of reference to Mosaic legislation of any kind), but on any reasonable reckoning it may be considered one of the oldest parts of the Bible.7
There are several features of the coming ruler and his rule that Genesis 49:8-12 introduces and upon which, either verbally or conceptually, later writers appear to make use. The beginning of verse 8 ühT*a hd*Why+ (“You are Judah”) with the use of the second person pronoun serves to underscore the fact that the predication to follow uniquely and singularly concerns Judah,8 that is, ultimately the tribe as a whole, and though some commentators disagree, the verses as a whole are extremely lauditory in nature.9 It is said that Judah will be praised by his brothers (v. 8a) and that they will bow down to him (v. 8c) probably because he has earned it in that he has conquered his enemies (i.e., put his hand on their necks10) and undoubtedly because, as his brothers, they will certainly benefit in Judah’s victories.11 As the tribe goes so goes the nation. This will be developed quite extensively in the covenant made with David some years later (2 Sam 7:6-16).
The idea of Judah’s strength is evidenced in the reference to him as “a lion’s cub going up (tyl!u* yn]b= [rF#m!) from the prey.” Though some have understood tyl!u* as a reference to “being reared” on prey (cf. Ezek. 19:3), “it is better to understand it of the lion’s ascent, after a raid, to his mountain fastness, where he rests in unassailable security.”12 Thus the image speaks of Judah’s power and supremacy among the tribes and over her enemies. His sovereignty is expressed in that no one dare challenge him, i.e., “rouse him.” This brings to mind the comments of the psalmist who, when speaking of God’s Davidic king, said, “Therefore you kings be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment” (Psalm 2:10-12a NIV; see also Ps 110).
Though some have found the transition to the metaphor of a scepter (fb#v@) and ruler’s staff (qq@{jm=13 [v. 10]) a difficult one, it need not be if the general underlying principal of leadership and dominance be seen to be carried through in this second image. There are many difficult phrases to translate and deal with here, but the overall thrust is clear enough. The point of the image is that Judah will continue to rule14 until hylv (Shiloh) comes and the obedience of the nations is his [i.e., hlyv]. Thus the rule of Judah as crystallized in hlyv is here envisioned by Jacob as extending beyond the borders of Israel to include the entire world, though perhaps not in a completely absolute sense. The fact that the nations of the earth shall benefit (i.e., on the idea of a beneficial rule see comments on v. 11, 12) is in keeping with the author’s view of God’s covenant promises to Abraham in Genesis 12:3: “in you all the nations of the earth will be blessed.” But we must return now to take a closer look at the enigmatic hylv.
There are four prominent interpretations of Genesis 49:10b which will be briefly cited here.15 First, the text may be translated as “until he comes to Shiloh.”16 The point, then, would be that a Judean ruler will come to control Shiloh which is understood to refer to a sacred sanctuary in Ephraim. A significant problem with this view is that here the writing of hlyv is plene, but the place name is written defectively, hlv. Second, the LXX (and other versions) read “until he comes whose it is.” The point of the statement, then, is that rulership (i.e., the scepter and the rod) will not depart from Judah until one comes to whom the right to rule belongs. Third, Westermann17 and von Rad18 suggest that hlyv was originally hlvm and, therefore, referred to a Davidic ruler or messianic figure. Fourth, several commentators suggest that the Hebrew need only be repointed as h{l yv^ ab*y| “until tribute is brought to him” to make good sense. As Wenham argues, this “solution has the advantage of requiring no consonantal changes and makes a nice parallel with the following clause.”19 The most important point for our consideration, however, is not the precise referent for the term alyv but the fact that on any reasonable reading of the passage, a future ruler is envisaged and that he may well go beyond just a political figure, but indeed may be characterized as an escahtological20 regal triumphant figure.21 As Gunkel points out, the mention of olw+ clearly indicates that a person is in view here.22
The images in verse 11 have undergone no little discussion, but while there are differences of opinion on specific points the overall meaning is fairly straightforward. Here the promised ruler of the preceding verse is seen to tether his donkey to a vine, wash his clothes in wine, and his appearance speaks of beauty and health.23 The lavish language describes a time when there will be extravagent blessing symbolized by the abundance of wine and milk. The image “is a common biblical figure of divine favor and prosperity.”24 The connection of an ideal earth with a coming ruler was made at several points in later writers (cf. e.g. Isa 11:1-9; Ezek 34:23-31; Amos 9:11-15; Ps 72:16). There may also be another inference to be drawn from the grape imagery which could have implications for later writers. Hamilton explains:
It is clear that wine is not exactly the same as grape’s blood. The first refers to the finished product. The second refers to the crushing of the grapes. May we have here a pastoral image, but within which there is the intimation of violence? May there be both a laundering of wine and a laundering of blood? To his own this one will bring joy and fullness; to those who reject him he brings terror.25
In summary, then, Genesis 49:8-12, while containing many exegetical difficulties, nonetheless provides a well of very early regal conceptions which later writers were free to draw from, use (cf. Pss 45, 72, 89, 110, 132; Hos 3:5; Amos 9:11-15; Is 9:6-7; 11:1ff, etc.), and adapt according to the profile of the regal/eschatological figure they wished to sketch.26 The passage, then, is a prophecy of David and the Davidic kingdom. It envisions a regal figure who will come from the tribe of Judah. Both Judah’s brothers and many others will benefit as a result of his rule. He will exhibit strength and defeat his foes with none to overthrow him. The scope of his rule includes not only the tribes of Israel, but also the nations. In connection with his coming there will be tremendous blessing and divine favor. In light of vv. 11-12 it is highly likely that later writers would not have viewed the prophecy as in any real final sense fulfilled at the time of David, but that more could be anticipated at a future time. This, of course, is ultimately fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who as a descendant of David and the line of Judah is the only One who exhausts the regal language employed in the text. The Lord will ultimately defeat all his enemies (Rev 19) and there will be a time of great worldwide blessing to Israel and the nations through him (Rom 11:25-32; Rev 20:4-6). Certain aspects of the kingdom have been inaugurated at the king’s first coming and the consummation awaits his return. For example, we have the Spirit now, but we will be completely glorified when he returns (cf. e.g., Acts 3:19-22 and 13:16-41) and Israel will be restored to the kingdom at that time (Rom 11:25-32). The next paper in this series will focus on the “star” imagery of Numbers 24:17-19 where these regal hopes are further elaborated upon.
1 There is an ongoing discussion among scholars as to the precise date for the development of the “messianic” idea in Israel. The present author is not arguing that this text as originally given has all the messianic intent of later texts, but only that with its exalted regal language it is ripe fodder for later writers to nourish their messianic hopes on. After we have looked at several texts throughout the OT and the intertestamental period, we will then examine the NT to see where and how these ideas are utilized.
2 See E. A. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1964), 370.
3 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16-50, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 2, ed. John D. W. Watts (Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1994), 2: 475. See also Andr Caquot, “La parole sur Juda dans le testament lyrique de Jacob,” Semitica 26 (1976): 5, who says, “Sans tre la plus obscure des onze paroles que Gense 49 prte Jacob, la sentence du patriarche concernant son fils Juda est l’une des plus discutes.”
4 For the argument, on the basis of parallels with 1QM 12:10, that this line was originally a couplet, see S. Gevirtz, “Adumbrations of Dan in Jacob’s Blessing on Judah,” ZAW 93 (1981): 23-24.
5 For a history of the interpretation of Genesis 49:10 and its relation to Deuteronomy 33 see J. D. Heck, “A History of Interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33,” BSac 147 (1990): 16-31. He says that “there continue to be two major streams of interpretation, the traditional and the critical, with the latter predominating and with each position largely rejecting the other. Among critical scholars, those who follow the Albright-Bright-Wright reconstruction of Israelite history are in the minority. Those who follow the Noth-Alt-von Rad reconstruction of Israelite history with its amphictyonic hypothesis reflect the dominant interpretation of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33.”
6 See for example, Hermann Gunkel, Genesis, Mercer Library of Biblical Studies, trans., Mark E. Biddle (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997), 452, who says, “The sayings of Gen 49 belong to various eras. The saying concerning Judah clearly presupposes that Judah rules the other tribes. The context of the song shows how Judah acquired the birthright. This points to the time of David or Solomon.” Gunkel’s statement rests on the premise that the poem was not a unified composition, but instead a collection of divergent traditions, and a vaticinium ex eventu approach to prophetic material. The latter premise remains to be argued by those in theology and philosophy (and one which the present author strongly rejects as necessary), but the former has been critiqued by several scholars. See e.g. Von Horst Seebass, “Die Stmmesprüche Gen 49 3-27,” ZAW 96 (1984): 333-50; Franz Delitzsch, A New Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols., trans., Sophia Taylor (n.p.: T & T Clark, 1888; reprint Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978), 2:366, reacts to the idea that the poem as a whole belongs in the period of the Davidic monarchy, or in the period of the Judges, but insists that it goes back to Jacob himself and that “testamentary words of a prophetic character might be expected from the departing ancestor of the chosen people.”
7 See Gleason Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 155, 56 for arguments against dating that rests on the so-called J editor at the time of the united monarchy and later.
8 The contrast between Judah and the other tribes, including Joseph (though he is accorded much in the blessing as well; vv. 22-26) is apparent from even a cursory glance at the poem as a whole (cf. Reuben, vv. 3-4, who will no longer excel; Simeon and Levi, vv. 5-6 whose unrighteous and uncontrollable anger is cursed; Issachar, vv. 14-15 will submit to forced labor, etc.).
9 The expression “your brothers will praise you” (;yj#a^ ;Wdoy) invovles assonance and a word-play (i.e., pun) between ;Wdoy and hd*Why+. The fact that Judah is praised is important for indicating the positive nature of the blessing, for on only three other ocassions are people said to be praised in the OT: Job 40:14; Pss 45:18[17], 49:19[18]. But cf. Edwin M. Good, “The Blessing on Judah in Genesis 49: 8-12,” JBL (1963):427-32, who argues that the blessing only appears to be laudatory and messianic, but is underneath built on irony and results in a scathing indictment on the tribe for Judah’s dealings with Tamar in chapter 38. At certain points Calum M. Carmichael, “Some Sayings in Genesis 49,” JBL (1969): 435-444, follows Good, but disagrees with inferring from the “staff” something about the conception of the twins; he does not see the same connections to chapter 38 on the basis of fbv since in 38:18 the term is hfm. According to Carmichael, the connection, if it exists at all, is only by a “loose association of ideas.” He also disagrees with Good’s interpretation of the ass and vine imagery. But we must reject this approach outrightly because it 1) is extremely subtle [Carmichael admits as much, p. 438] and at certain points quite strained; and 2) rests on the dubious reading of verse 8 as judgmental. See Wenham, Genesis, 475; Hamilton, Genesis, 2:657.
10 Usually it is the foot that the victor puts on the neck of the downed foe, but here it is the hand—a fact which has led to attempts at emendation. See e.g., Anderson, “Orthography in Repetitive Parallelism,” JBL 89 (1970): 344. The occurrence of the phrase, however, at Qumran, i.e., 1QM 12:11, should quell the need for such hypothetical reconstructions: 1QM 12:11 says: “…Set Thy hand upon the neck of Thine enemies and Thy foot upon the heap of the slain” (italics mine)! See A. Dupont-Sommer, The Essene Writings from Qumran, ed. Geza Vermes (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1973), 187.
11 That there is indeed a causal relationship between the praising and the fact that Judah has subdued his enemies is evidenced by the causative hiphil form of W;doy in the first line of the blessing.
12 John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, The International Critical Commentary, ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1930), 519.
13 The two terms fb#v@ and qq@{jm= are interchangeable in that they both represent political authority and leadership. So Claus Westermann, Genesis 37-50, trans. John J. Scullion (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1982), 230. See also B. Margulis, “Gen. XLIX/DEUT.XXXIII 2-3: A New Look at Old Problems,” VT 19 (1969):203.
14 The phrase “between his feet” is not a euphemism for the male sexual organ, but shows the mace or ruler’s staff placed in a position of authority; it is from this position of authority and leadership that the staff will not depart. See ANEP no. 463; Hamilton, Genesis, 2:658, n. 26.
15 Other solutions involve emendations to the consonantal text or unlikely etymologies. See Margulis, “Gen. XLIX/DEUT.XXXIII 2-3,” 203, who proposes yv^ <a!B> a{by` for the MT. See also L. Sabotka, “Noch Einmal Gen 49:10 Bib 51 (1970): 225-29, who understands the Hebrew preposition du to refer to a “throne.” Westermann, Genesis 37-50, 3:231, suggests (along with several other commentators) alyv be explained on the basis of an Akkadian loanword @l% “ruler.” These solutions are precocious and tenuous at best.
16 In this reading the h in hlyv is directive.
17 Westermann, Genesis 37-50, 3:231.
18 G. von Rad, Genesis, 425, 26. He says that the one to come, in light of verses 11 and 12 “is almost a Dionysiac figure” which is probably saying too much about this person.
20 By the term eschatological here we refer to the time envisioned in vv. 11-12 wherein there is an abundance of divine blessing concomitant with the arrival of the regal figure.
24 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis ty?arb, The JPS Torah Commentary, gen. ed. Nahum M. Sarna (Philadelphia/New York/Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 337.
26 We will deal with those passages as we move through the survey.
This brief study is the second in a series dealing with regal/messianic hopes in the Old Testament. The first study dealt with Genesis 49:8-12 and the regal images that are raised there. The same will be done here with Numbers 24:15-19. We said that this background study is important to an understanding of the New Testament portrait of the Messiah since the New Testament (NT) writers constantly employed the Old Testament (OT) in their preaching and writing about Christ. And they did so for good reason, for they believed that all of the OT spoke about Christ, either directly or indirectly, by type, example, etc. Undoubtedly, much of this approach has its background in the ministry of Christ himself, for he had taught his disciples that everything that was spoken about him in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms had to be fulfilled (cf. Luke 24:44). This means that in some way there is reference to him as the messiah/savior/priest/king throughout the whole OT, including the Pentateuch (for this made up the “law” as Luke referred to it here). It is to the Pentateuch, and to Numbers 24:15-19 in particular, that we now turn our attention in this short paper. (This paper is one of several to follow which will attempt to show Davidic regal conceptions in the Old Testament as backdrop for the NT presentation of the Messiah.)1
Israel had destroyed the Canaanites (Num 21:1-3) and when denied right of passage they defeated the Amorites, captured their king, Sihon, and occupied his land (Num 21:21-32). Next, they struck down the entire army of Og, king of Bashan, leaving no survivors and taking possession of his land (Num 21:34-35). With Israel’s victories fresh in his ears, Balak, king of Moab, and the Moabites were greatly unsettled. Balak, therefore, promised Balaam, the sorcerer (cf. <yv!j*n+ tar^q=l! [24:1]), a handsome fee, if he would only curse the Israelites. Balaam’s first three oracles include the fact that God had not cursed the Israelites (23:8), but indeed, as their one and only king, had delivered them from Egypt and blessed them (23:21-22). Israel is said to be like a lioness (ayb!l*K=) and a lion (yr!a&k^) bent on devouring its prey ([r#f# [23:24] ) and her king (oKl=m^) will be greater than Agag and her kingdom will be exalted (otk%l=m^ ac@N~t!w+ 24:7). Here again we also find the imagery of physical blessing as “water will flow from their buckets” and “their seed will have abundant water” (24:7) and all this is in connection with Israel’s king.
With these three oracles in place Balaam then announces the coming of a great king in Israel (Num 24:15-19), after which he predicts the demise of the Amalekites, the Kenites, and Asshur and Eber (24:20-25).2 Balaam says that “he sees him, but not now,” and “he beholds him, but not near” (24:17). The same verb (ha*r* “see”) is here used as in 23:9, 21a.3 But here Balaam speaks not of the present, but of the future. As Milgrom comments:
These two verbs occur in the first two oracles . . . Their scope is graduated, indicating a heightening of Balaam’s visionary powers. In the first oracle, he is endowed with normal physical sight. In the second, he attains the spiritual power to see Israel’s invulnerable state in the present. Now his vision soars from the plane of the present to behold the distant future. The verb ra’ah also means “to divine” (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19).4
The content of what Balaam sees concerns a “star (bk*oK Ir^D*) coming out of Jacob,” a “scepter arising out of Israel” (fb#V@ <q*w+). The nearest antecedent to the “star” is the “him” (i.e. cf. the 3 m.s. suffix on har and rWv) of the immediately preceding lines which indicates that a person is in view.5 While the term bk*oK is not often used in the OT to refer to a king (but cf. Isa 14:12), when used in parallel with fb#V# this is certainly the meaning. This is further confirmed by connecting the escalating greatness of Israel’s king in the immediate context (24:7) with what the star is said to do in vv. 17-19. Additionally, it may be noted that the verb ir^d* is often used in the OT to refer to “marching,” which itself may imply a king as the leader of an army (see Deut 33:29; Isa 63:3 for its military connotation).6
Balaam’s prediction concerns the rise of David and the Davidic kingdom.7 The “star” refers to David who struck down the Moabites8 (Num 24:17; 2 Sam 8:2) and the Edomites (Num 24:18; 2 Sam 8:13, 14; 1 Kings 11:15, 16; 1 Chron 18:12, 13). Thus under David Israel prospered and the nations roundabout were subjugated and often had to bring tribute (e.g., 2 Sam 8:2, 6). But, the prophecy cannot be exhausted at this point, for David did not completely destroy Moab and Edom, with the result that later writers would be free to use this imagery to speak of the one who would come and deal ultimately with the enemies of God.9 The use of the term “star” does more than point to a ruler, it also connects that ruler with the realm of the god(s) in the ancient Near East. This is true from the Isaiah 14:12 text (albeit in a negative fashion) and is true much later in statements made about Jesus Christ. His birth was connected with astral events (Matt 2:2) and he received the name of “the bright Morning Star” (Luke 1:78-79; Rev 22:16) in connection with his descent from the line of David.
In summary, then, Balaam’s oracle is a prophecy of David and his kingdom, though such a fulfillment does not exhaust the oracle. The ultimate ruler to come will destroy the enemies of Israel for what they have done to God’s people, but under his leadership the nation will grow strong. The reference to him as a “star” is a way of connecting this ruler to the deities and speaking of his coming in connection with the will of the gods. In Israel’s theology this would ultimately mean his close connection to YHWH which may be reflected in the “sonship” language of the Davidic covenant developed at a later date (2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7). With the reference throughout the oracles, and indeed in this one, to the defeat of those who curse Israel on the one hand, and the ascendancy of God’s nation on the other, we may legitimately connect the Balaam incident in general and the reference to a coming ruler in particular, to the promise God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3.10 This scene is yet another frame forward in the outworking of YHWH’s dealings with Israel. We see again, as we did in Genesis 49:8-12 that the recipient of the promise is specifically an individual, though the nation as whole will benefit.
Pomykala11 (p. 22-24) sees these as not explicitly Davidic royal traditions. They do not in themselves “bear any specifically Davidic characteristics.” But the centrality of “Judah,” “a lion,” and “conquest” in Gen 49:8-12 make the connection to David most likely and their use for non-Davidide most unlikely. These prophecies set the foundation for there is no other legitimate hope in the OT for Judah and the people of Israel, except in the promise of a Davidic ruler. The promises envisioned in Genesis 49:8-12 and Numbers 24:15-19 were concretized in 2 Samuel 7:12-16. They speak to the Davidic covenant and the promises that underlie that hope.
1 There is an ongoing discussion among scholars as to the precise date for the development of the “messianic” idea in Israel. The present author is not arguing that this text as originally given has all the messianic intent of later texts, but only that with its exalted regal language it is ripe fodder for later writers to nourish their messianic hopes on. After we have looked at several texts throughout the OT and the intertestamental period, we will then examine the NT to see where and how these ideas are utilized.
2 So the oracles as a whole speak of the increasing strength and supremacy of Israel and the subjugation and demise of her foes.
3 See Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 105, who refers to the verb har as the main Leitwort that holds chs. 22-24 together and is complemented by the reiterated “phrase-motifs” about blessing and cursing in this section.
4 Jacob Milgrom, Numbers rbdmb, The JPS Torah Commentary, gen. ed. Nahum M. Sarna (Philadelphia/New York: 1990), 207.
5 But cf. George B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Numbers, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1903), 369. He argues that since Israel is the subject in verse 14, and the other poems as well (23:9 in particular), she is also the subject here. This is highly unlikely as the text says that the star will come out of Israel, with the clear inference that the star cannot be at the same moment both Israel and one who comes out of Israel.
6 BDB, p. 202 (1). But see also Gray, Numbers, 369.
7 This does not mean a prophecy ex eventu as many commentators understand it. See e.g., Martin Noth, Numbers (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968), 192-93.
8 The reference to the “sons of Seth” is difficult, but should probably be understood in parallel with Moab, and therefore referring to Moab, and not to the Shutu people of Canaanite origin referred to in certain 19th century B.C.E. Egyptian Execration Texts. See R. K. Harrison, Numbers, The Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary, ed. Kenneth L. Barker (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 322.
9 It is clear that David did not completely subjugate the Edomites for at many points in Israel’s history they rose up against her (cf. 1 Kings 11:14ff.; 2 Kings 8:20, 14:7; 2 Chron 28:17). They were, however, completely conquered in 129 B. C. E. and incorporated into the Jewish state by John Hyrcanus. See Josephus, Antiquities 13:257, who says, “Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews.” See also 15, 254, which says, “but after Hyrcanus had made a change in their [Idumeans] political government, and made them receive the Jewish customs and law….”
10 Cf. Philip J. Budd, Numbers, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 5 (Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), 271.
11 Kenneth E. Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism, SBL: Early Judaism and Its Literature 7 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995), 22-24.
This paper is a continuation of two previous papers given to the study of regal (i.e., kingly) and messianic hope in the Old Testament. The reason we are studying Old Testament messianic expectations is because Jesus linked so much of his identity and ministry to messianic and regal hopes (e.g., Matt 22:44-45; cf. Luke 24:44-45). Therefore, a study of these ideas in the Old Testament is sure to give us a better understanding of Jesus’ teaching in this area. The reader is encouraged to read the previous two papers first. Both are on this website: 1) “A Star Will Come out of Jacob”: Early Regal Images in Numbers 24:15-19; 2) An Early Text for Later Messianic Conceptions: A Look at Genesis 49:8-12. The papers from this point forward will focus on Davidic messianic conceptions in the Old Testament.
This passage reveals several important ideas surrounding kingship in ancient Israel1: 1) it is connected to the blessing of dwelling in the land, which links it to the Abrahamic covenant (17:14; cf. Gen 12:1, 7)2; 2) the king must be the one whom God chooses (rj^b=y] 17:15a). Thus it will not be based on popularity or military prowess, but on the Lord’s decision3; 3) he must be an Israelite (;yj#a^ br#Q#m! 17:15b); 4) he must not acquire many horses4 or ever take Israel back to Egypt for whatever reason, e.g., for horses, etc. (17:16). The command not to return to Egypt is somewhat difficult to understand. It could be that the Lord does not want Israel to open up trade relations with Egypt, because of negative spiritual ramifications, or something more specific may be in mind. It may be, as Craigie suggests, that “what is in mind is trading men, i.e., mercenary Isrealite soldiers, in return for horses. The net result of such action, for the men involved, would be separation from the freedom of the Israelite community and a return to the old bondage in Egypt.”5; 5) he must not take many wives or acquire large amounts of wealth for that would result in his eventual apostacy (17:17)6; 6) he must be faithful to the Law which would undoubtedly be for him his source of wisdom and strength (hr*wT)h^; 17:18-20).7 There is also the idea of legitimate succession in the king being presented with his own copy of the Law. As Merrill states:
Part of the protocol of royal succession in the anicent Near Eastern world was the transfer of documents that legitimized the succession and provided standards by which the new king was to administer the affairs of his regime.This was the practice in Israel and Judah as well, a practice inaugurated by the Deuteronomic law (v. 18; cf. 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kgs 11:12; 23:3).8
We may infer from this that he will be expected to be righteous; 7) he and his descendants will reign for many days (<ym!y` Eyr!a&y~) over his kingdom if they hold to the Torah, its commandments (hw`x=M!h^) and statutes (hL#a@h* <yQ!j%h^; 17:20). This anticipates the Davidic covenant and the pattern of royal succession through each kings’ sons.9
Thus we have in this brief passage, images of the king’s rule connected to the promise for the land. Further, the king must be an Israelite of God’s choosing. He shall not depend on his military for success, and he must not gain great wealth or numerous wives; he must trust wholly in God. His trust in YHWH is to be expressed in obedience to God’s Law and as one under the authority of YHWH he is to regard himself as equal to his fellow Israelites. There may also be the notion that he is to pursue his brothers’ well being in that he prohibits them from ever being sold as slaves again and that there is a recommitment to the Law at his succession to the throne.
Abigail states that David will have an “enduring house” because he was fighting the battles of the Lord (v. 28). Evil would not be found in him all his days (v. 28) and he would be appointed by the Lord as ruler over Israel (v. 30). David demonstrates his wisdom in his treatment of Abigail and Nabal. The Nathan oracle in Samuel 7 develops at length Abigail’s comments about David having an enduring house.
In 1 Samuel 2:35 God says that he will raise up a faithful priest (/man /hk) who will do what he desires. The fact that God will make his house firm and secure (/man tyb wl ytynbW) reminds the reader of what was spoken about David in 2 Samuel 7:11 (;l hvuy tyb) and in 7:16 (;tyb /man).10 This faithful priest will serve YHWH’s anointed (yjyvm) which shows the close relation of priest and king (in particular, king David and the priest), in Israel’s theocracy (cf. also Ps 110:4 where the functions of king and priest appear to coalesce in one person).11
The promise to David outlined in 2 Samuel 7:8-16 can hardly be overstated in terms of its importance for shaping later conceptions of messianic hope in Israel.12 Brueggemann notes that it “occupies the dramatic and theological center of the entire Samuel corpus. Indeed, this is one of the most crucial texts in the Old Testament for evangelical faith.”13 Gordon says that “we shall not be exaggerating the importance of the Nathan oracle, therefore, if we see it as the matrix of biblical messianism.”14 We turn now to an examination of some of its important features
It is quite likely that the period of rest referred to in 7:1ff and the events of this section occurred some time after chapter 8:1-14 and 10:1-19 (cf. 1 Chron 17:1).15 It has been suggested that the promise pericope is placed here so as to give it greater importance than the wars of David16 and to show that David’s desire to build a “house” for YHWH and the resultant promise is a conclusion and crown of the whole.17 This is certainly true, but we must also note the theme of David’s worship which runs through chapters 6 and 7 and which must be touched on as the backdrop for the promise about to be inaugurated in chapter 7. The picture that we have here of David is one of complete submission to and love for YHWH. The juxta-position of David’s bringing of the ark to Jerusalem and his desire to build a “house” for YHWH18 indicates that wrapped up in kingship is the idea of the special access to Israel’s God enjoyed by the king (cf. Ps 2:7-8; 110:1; Jer 30:21). This is brought out in the “sonship” language of the promise. Further, we note that the position of the promise in the Samuel corpus may remind us “that David’s darker moments, yet to come, and known to the writer, will not obscure nor cancel the promises made to him and his house.”19 The reference to the chastening of David’s son in 7:12-14 and especially v. 15 contribute to that fact. In short, the promise is of the nature of royal grant20 and is thus, unconditional, though any one particular individual (and thus the nation) may suffer loss through disobedience (vv. 14-16). The nation is closely linked to the king in 2 Sam 7 and is assured by YHWH that they will ultimately possess their land with none to harm them (vv. 10-11).
There is no little discussion on the precise significance of the use of the Davidic traditions in 1 & 2 Kings.21 It is not our purpose here to evaluate whether the final author/redactor viewed the Davidic covenant as grounds for a future hope or not, but simply to cite a few ideas that are associated with the covenant as it is invoked.22 Von Rad summarizes well the overall tension in the books of 1 & 2 Kings between the view of Deuteronomy with its legal formula of blessings and curses (cf. Deut 28-30) and the enduring hope held out in the Davidic promise:
In the last analysis, what the deuteronomist has done in this respect arises simply from his faithfulness to the tradition which had been handed down to him. A part of this tradition was that principle of historical causality expressed in the Book of Deuteronomy as Yahweh’s curse on those who transgress his commandments. The deuteronomistic historian also found there the prophetic declaration of Yahweh’s promise under the Davidic covenant. He could not leave these two great principles out of account, and indeed he believes the shape and the course of the whole history of the kingdom of Judah to be determined by the mutual interplay of these forces.
We are thus led to the important conclusion that in the deuteronomic presentation of the matter Yahweh’s word determines the history of Judah, and that it does so under two particular forms: first, it is a law which controls and destroys; secondly it is as “gospel”, a continually self-fulfilling promise to David, which brings salvation and forgiveness. The promise made to David is a kind of katevcwn, the restraining force which runs through the history of Judah, warding off the long-deserved judgment from the kingdom “for David's sake.”23
Thus it is difficult to be certain about whether 1 and 2 Kings regard the Davidic promise as something to base one’s hopes on for the future. But, this is of no real consequence to someone at a later date who might choose to view it otherwise. What is important for our study is the kind of images and concepts associated with the covenant. To this we now turn.
Obedience on the part of the king and nation was central to the covenant. Solomon and the nation must remain faithful to the Law of God, and if so, they would not fail to have a man on the throne (1 Kings 2:1-4; 9:4-6; 11:11-13).24 The fact that God was pleased to give Solomon wisdom in order that he might reign well, is evidence that wisdom is integral to the continued fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, lest the king walk in foolish and sinful ways, jeopardizing his reign in the eyes of the Lord (1 Kings 3:1-28; cf. 2 Sam 7:14-15).25 Assuming the throne involves dealing with threats and enemies to the throne. Thus Solomon, when he was established on the throne, put to death Adonijah (1 Kings 2:24-25) and several others including Joab (2:34) and Shimei (2:46).26 Further, his reign will be a time centered on the worship of YHWH, as the building of the temple highlights (1 Kings 5:1-9:1), and his superb ability to rule will become well known in foreign countries among the Gentiles (cf. e.g., 10:1-13, 24).27
The evil of certain kings could not render the covenant immediately void. Thus, implicit in the covenant is God’s willingness to humble kings and either forgive sins or overlook them for a time. The Lord was not willing to destroy Judah despite the evil of king Jehoram in Judah [848-841 B.C.E.]. He did this for the sake of his servant David since he had promised to give him a lamp for his descendants always (cf. 2 Kings 8:19; cf. 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4).28 Further, God said he would put his name, as he told David and Solomon, in the Temple in Jerusalem even though Manasseh had placed Asherah poles there (2 Kings 21:5-7).
1 Regarding the debate about the Siz im Leben of the tradition, and whether it fits better with a setting in the north versus one in the south, see, A. D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy, The New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Ronald E Clements (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 270-71. W. E. Nicholson, Deuteronomy and Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 80-81, regards the passage as written in the period of the monarchy, but Eugene H. Merrill, Deuteronomy, The New American Commentary, ed. Kenneth Mathews, vol. 4 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1994) 263-65 argues quite strongly against such a reconstruction, holding to Mosaic authorship of the passage. For further literature on the passage see Andre Caquot, “Remarques sur la ‘loi royale’ du Deutronome (17:14-20),” Semitica 9 (1959): 21-33.
2 Cf. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, trans. James Martin (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1866; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 384.
3 See Peter C. Craigie, Deuteronomy, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. R. K. Harrison (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 254.
4 Horses represent wealth in the ancient Near East, and also military might. Thus the king was not to acquire horses so that he would cease trusting in the Lord for victory, but in his military might (cf. Judges 4-5). See Merrill, Deuteronomy, 265.
5 Craigie, Deuteronomy, 255-56. Craigie follows Gerhard Von Rad, Deuteronomy, The Old Testament Library, ed. G. Ernest Wright, John Bright, James Barr, and Peter Ackroyd (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), 119, who says, “the prohibition in v. 16 against procuring horses for a corps of military chariots seems to have something to do with an exchange transaction, namely, the supply of Hebrew soldiers in return for Egyptian horses, of which the king had been guilty (cf. 1 Kings 10:28).”
7 The hr*wT)h^ probably refers to the rules given the king in the immediate passage (17:14-20), as well as the Mosaic covenant, of which the former was part and parcel.
9 Anthony Phillips, Deuteronomy, The Cambridge Bible Commentary, ed. P.R. Ackroyd, A. R. Cleaney, and J. I. Packer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 122.
10 See P. Kyle McCarter, 1 Samuel, The Anchor Bible, ed. W. F. Albright and D. N. Freedman, vol. 8 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 91.
11 See Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 10 (Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1983), 28, who refers to the Israelites’ government as a “dyarchy” between priest and king.
12 See Robert D. Bergen, 1,2 Samuel, The New American Commentary, vol. 7, ed. Kenneth A. Mathews (Atlanta: Broadman & Holdman, 1996), 337, who says that “the covenant the Lord established with the house of David became the nucleus around which the messages of hope proclaimed by Hebrew prophets of later generations were built (Isa 9:1-7; 11:1-16; 16:5; 55:3; Jer 23:5-6; 30:8; 33:15-26; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25; Hos 3:5; Amos 9:11; Zech 12:7-8).” See also Jon D. Levenson, “The Davidic Covenant and Its Modern Interpreters,” CBQ 42 (1979), 205, 206.
13 Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Preaching and Teaching, ed. Patrick D. Miller, Jr. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990), 253.
14 Robert P. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel, Library of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 236.
15 See Bergen, 1,2 Samuel, 335; Anderson, A. A. 2 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 11 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1989), 112; see also C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, II Samuel, trans. J. A. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 341, who refers the rest of 7:1 to a later date. He says, “It is true that the giving of rest from all his enemies round about does not definitely presuppose the termination of all the greater wars of David, since it is not affirmed that this rest was a definitive one; but the words cannot possibly be restricted to the two victories over the Philistines.”
16 Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1988), 213.
17 See Hanz Wilhelm Hertzberg, 1 & II Samuel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964), 284.
18 David’s desire to build a “house” for his God was typical of kings in the ancient Near East, and was at once both an act of homage to YHWH as well as an attempt to prevent Israel’s God from being exposed to charges of cultic inferiority. So Gordon, 1 & II Samuel, 1986. The fact that it appears here in 2 Samuel may also reflect an attempt to legitimate the Davidic house in Israel against any usurpers. See Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 253- 54.
19 See Bruce K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality Within Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel's Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. Avraham Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 131, who says “The irrevocable and conditional aspects of YHWH’s grant to David are brought together under the evocative imagery of sonship…The phrase ‘I will be his father, and he shall be my son’ forms an adoption formula that provides the judicial basis for the gift of the eternal dynasty (compare Pss 2:7-8; 89) and the qualification that disloyal sons will lose YHWH’s protection (compare 1 Kgs 6:12-13; 9:4, 6-7). YHWH granted both Abraham and David an eternal fief. Loyal sons would fully enjoy the fief; disloyal sons would lose YHWH’s protection and, if they persisted in their wrongdoing, the possession of the fief itself. The fief, however, would never be confiscated—a promise that opens up the hope that YHWH would raise up a faithful son.”
20 So M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” JAOS 90 (1970): 185.
21 For discussions of the date and historical situation in which the books of 1 and 2 Kings were written see Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings, The New American Commentary, ed. Kenneth A. Mathews, vol. 8 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holdman, 1994), 29-39; and Simon J. DeVries, I Kings, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 12 (Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1985), 19-29. The date for the book is probably ca. 550 B.C.E. So R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 731. So also Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 204.
22 For a discussion of the enduring value of the Davidic covenant in 1 & 2 Kings, see, Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History, trans. D. Orton, JSOTSS 15 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 98, who argues that the relevant texts suggest no future expectation with regard to the Davidic covenant; Gerhard von Rad, “The Deuteronomistic Theology of History in 1 and II Kings,” in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (London: Oliver & Boyd, 1966), 219-21, who argues that the Davidic promise was ground for a future hope, and the release of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 25:27-30) indicates that despite the sin of the nation, “the line of David has not come to an end” (p. 220). So much of the discussion of this issue is plagued by complicated and difficult to substantiate arguments about the literary nature of the work of Chronicles and the number of editions of the work before its final form.
23 Von Rad, “Deuteronomistic Theology of History,” 219.
24 John Gray, 1 & II Kings, The Old Testament Library, ed. Peter Ackroyd, James Barr, John Bright, and G. Ernest Wright, 2d rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970), 100, 237-38.
25 Cf. House, 1, 2 Kings, 110-11.
26 Adonijah represented, as the elder brother of the king, a threat to the throne. It appears that Solomon viewed Adonijah’s request for Abishag as such (2:22). Solomon also felt that Joab was a pro Adonijah supporter, as well as the priest Abiathar. He had Adonijah killed by Benaiah (2:25) and Abiathar removed from the priesthood (2:27). Shimei too was regarded as a threat, so after his disobedience, Solomon had him put to death as well (2:36-46). See Richard D. Patterson and Herman J. Austel, “1, 2 Kings,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 37-40; G. H. Jones, 1 & 2 Kings, The New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Ronald E. Clements (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 110-19.
27 Patterson and Herman, “1 & 2 Kings,” 100, state: “the visit of the queen of Sheba is a graphic illustration of the fame of Solomon and of the awe that the reports of his wisdom and splendor inspired. The many legends and highly embellished accounts that have grown around this visit among Arabs, Jews, and Abyssinians attest to the widespread knowledge of the event and to the interest it created.” The question of the authenticity of the account is of no importance to us here. See Jones, 1 & 2 Kings, 220-21, who regards its canonical form as exaggerated and legendary. It is enough, however, that such a “legend” was connected with a Davidic king and seen as fulfillment of the promise of having a great name (2 Sam 7:9).
28 See House, 1, 2 Kings, 171. See also comments on 1 Kings 11:34 by DeVries, I Kings, 151. On 2 Kings 8:19 see, T. R. Hobbs, 2 Kings, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 13 (Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1985), 103.
Israel’s desire for a glorious Davidic king who would deliver her from all her enemies and usher in a lasting period of victory and universal dominion was inculcated in the community through its worship songs. There is much in the way of regal material throughout the psalter, but we have chosen six psalms which have been traditionally understood as encapsulating hope for a Davidic dynasty, three of which we will discuss briefly now and three in the next paper. We will surface elements of Davidic hope in Psalm 2, 45, 72, 89, 110, and 132, but much of the discussion of critical issues will be kept to a minimum since most of these questions remain unrelated to the purpose at hand. This is now the fourth paper in a series concerning Davidic hope in the Old Testament and intertestamental period. The others on this web site are entitled: 1) An Early Text for Later Messianic Conceptions: A Look at Genesis 49:8-12 Sept. 10, 1998; 2) A Star Will Come Out of Jacob”: Early Regal Images in Numbers 24:15-19 on Sept. 28, 1998; 3) Regal/Messianic Hope in Deuteronomy, 1, 2 Samuel and 1, 2 Kings on Oct. 5, 1998.
There is widespread agreement among twentieth century exegetes as to the form and structure of Psalm 2. The mention of the king in vv. 2 and 6 and his declarations to be the son of YHWH by decree (qh)) indicate that this is a royal psalm.1 The precise setting and date for the psalm is, however, not as well agreed upon and is inextricably linked to one’s preconceptions about royal ideology in ancient Israel and Judah.2 Certain scholars argue, on the basis of comparative religious conceptions from Egypt and elsewhere, that the point being made about the “son” is metaphysical and mythical. They argue that the writer explicates the idea of the divine nature of the king in Israel (hT*a^ yn]B=) and that the psalm is to be dated in the United or Judean monarchy period and to be associated with the New Year’s festival.3 Though the dating is perhaps correct, this interpretation of “sonship” is highly unlikely for at least three reasons stated by Watts: (1) divine kingship in the ancient Near East was restricted to Egypt; (2) Israel’s early period as a tribal confederacy reveals no attachment to kingship, but such remained only a future hope (e.g., Gen 49:10; Num 24:17-19); (3) when the prophets opposed kings, as they did on occasion, there is no evidence that it was for any claims to divinity.4 These facts coupled with Israel’s strict monotheism, makes it highly unlikely that the psalm is arguing for the king’s ontological divine sonship.5
On the other hand, Gunkel, Mowinckel, and von Rad argue that the Psalm is a coronation psalm (i.e., used in the coronation ceremony of a new Davidic king) to be dated in the Judean monarchy period but that the expression hT*a^ yn]B is a legal metaphor and does not carry with it ideas of ontological divine kingship, but of adoption.6 Thus they too see the antecedents of this terminology in Egyptian and Canaanite thinking, but that it has been adapted by Israel with some significant differences. This better fits the theology of the psalm and Israel’s monotheism. Further, the fact that it is a coronation psalm is evidenced by the language of “his [God’s] anointed” (ojyv!m in v. 2; cf. 2 Kings 11:12); “I have installed my king on Zion, my holy hill” (yv!d+q*-rh^ /oYx!-lu^ yK!l=m^ yT!k=s^n` yn]a&w~ in v. 6) and “today”7 (<oYh^ in v. 7). Whether or not this is the case, and the liklihood seems good,8 the psalm was nonetheless regarded messianically in later Judaism and was so used in the New Testament (cf. m. Ps 2; Heb 1:5; 5:5; Rev 19:15).
This regal coronation psalm acknowledges the fact that the Lord has a jyvm (“messiah” or “anointed one”) who will establish His rule on earth—a rule that while it is already a foregone conclusion in heaven,9 is nonetheless opposed by foreign nations who resist the installation of YHWH’s vice-regent in Jerusalem (v. 1-2). They desire to throw off his rule (v. 3) but it will be to no avail (vv. 4-5) because the Lord God (ynda) will laugh at them all the way to installing his king to rule over Israel and indeed the nations (8-9). In effect they are attempting to thwart YHWH’s universal rule over the world (v. 8 LXX reads kai; dwvsw soi e[qnh th;n klhronomivan sou). The king will enjoy a special filial relationship with YHWH according to the Lord’s own decree (v. 7)—a relationship, as evidenced in the sonship language of v. 7, goes back to God’s covenant with Davidic as developed in 2 Samuel 7:8-16.10 Further, this Davidic king will punish all who disobey (v. 9, 12a, b).11 Those who, on the other hand, come under his rule, will find him a blessing and refuge. The installation of the king is connected to the worship of YHWH in a reverent and honorable way (v. 11) and will bring in a time of peace as indicated by the overthrow of plots to resist his will. We also note here the idea of ironic reversal; what the world thinks should happen, doesn’t, and what they think ought not to happen, does (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18ff). Thus this psalm provides a great deal of royal conceptions available for later writers to draw on,12 including righteousness, themes of Yahweh’s kingdom and the universal political/spiritual reign involving the nations13 and all who take refuge in him, ironic reversal, forgiveness, and judgment. The important thing to note here for our purposes is that there is no democratizing of the covenant given to the king. While it is true that the nations will benefit in his victorious rule, there is no indication that individuals who comprise the nation of Israel directly receive the covenant. And further, there is certainly no hint that the nations of the world, either corporately or the individuals within, will receive the covenant directly.
Psalm 45 extols the king on his wedding day and is thus to be regarded as a royal psalm.14 The king is said to be the most excellent of men (v. 2), blessed forever (v.2) and clothed with splendor and majesty (v. 3). He will ride forth victoriously in the name of truth, humility, and righteousness (v. 4). The scepter (fb#v#) of his kingdom—a thought which reminds us of regal images in Genesis 49:10, Numbers 24:17, and Psalm 2:9—will be the scepter of justice characterizing his reign as equitable, fair and honoring to God (v. 7 MT). Indeed, he loves righteousness and hates wickedness with the result that he has been anointed by God to a place of special privilege (as we noted in Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7:8-16) above his companions (v. 7). In fact he is actually referred to as God (<yh!Oa$)—hyperbolically speaking—whose throne will last forever and ever (v. 6).15 He is also well known among the nations as the reference to the “daughters of kings” (v. 9) and “men of wealth,” (v. 12) indicate. The result is that his name will be perpetuated throughout all generations as his sons take up political offices throughout the land (v. 16-17). Thus the Israelite Davidic king is pictured here as exalted above men, possessing an eternal throne like God himself, righteous and humble in character, and who possesses a rule which is international (cf. v. 5). Indeed, the universalism of v.18 (MT), du#w` <l*u)l= ;d%wh)y+ <yM!u^ /K@-lu^, indicates that all nations will praise the Davidic king. Further, like God, he too blesses righteousness and punishes wickedness.
This regal psalm contributes much to the OT portrait of the Davidic king with idealic notions of his reign—notions which later writers were free to pick up and utilize.16 The writer declares that the king’s reign will be characterized by righteousness and just judgments for the afflicted (fP*v=m!b= ;yY ]u&w~ qd#x#b= ;M=u^ /yd!y`; v. 2; see also 4 qv@wu) aK@d^yw] /wy{b=a# yn}b=l! u^yv!wy{). During his rule the land will have abundance and there will be a time of general prosperity (j^r@y` yl!B=-du^ <wl)v* br)w+ qyD!x^ wym*y`B=-jr^p=y], v.7; see also v. 3, 6-7, 16). This recalls images of prosperity expressed in Genesis 49:11. He will stoop to save the afflicted ones and those in need of great help. He will crush their oppressor (v. 4, 12-14). His rule will be universal (Jr#a*-ys@p=a^-du^ rh*N`m!W <y`-du^ <Y`m! D=r=y}w+, v. 8)17 and distant nations will bring tribute to him (v. 10). Indeed, all nations will serve (WhWdb=u^y~~) him and all kings will bow down to him (v.11). All nations will be blessed by him (v. 17b). The whole earth will be filled with the glory of the Lord because of the ideal Davidic king (v. 19). It is through the king that YHWH’s blessings are mediated to the people. Again, like Psalm 2 and 45 previously, we have this focus on the universal rule of the king and the concomitant blessing on those who submit to his rule.
1 What is not extremely clear in the psalm is the particular person or persons doing the speaking. Herman Gunkel, Die Psalmen (Gottingen:Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1968), 5, argues that the king is the one speaking throughout the psalm in its entirety. So also J. H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms, SBT 32 (London: S C M Press, 1976), 111, who says: “There seems to cause to assume, with Schmidt and Johnson, any change of speaker in the psalm. With Gunkel and Mowinckel, therefore, we should consider the Davidic king as the speaker throughout, referring to himself in the third as well as the first person.” See also A. A. Anderson, Psalms 1-72, The New Century Bible Commentary, ed. Ronald E. Clements (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 64 and Artur Weiser, The Psalms, The Old Testament Library, ed. G. Ernst. Wright, John Bright, James Barr, and Peter Ackroyd (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), 109. Others read the psalm with alternating speakers. See e.g., Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen, Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament, ed. Siegfried Herrmann and Hans Walter Wolff, vol. XV/1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchen Verlag, 1978), 1:145-46 and Peter C. Craigie, Psalms 1-50, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 19 (Waco, TX: Word books, Publisher, 1983), 65. While the reading of the psalm with multiple speakers may be more dramatic, the net result is that there is no appreciable change in meaning either way one understands it.
2 James W. Watts, “Psalm 2 in the Context of Biblical Theology,” Horizons in Biblical Theology 12 (1990): 74. For a brief discussion of actual historical events that might form the setting of the psalm, as well as the problems inherent in such a study, see John T. Willis, “A Cry of Defiance—Psalm 2,” JSOT 47 (1990):37-38.
3 See e.g., Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Israel, 2d ed. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967), 128-30. Martin Noth, Gott, Knig, Volk im Alten Testament, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1957), 192-200.
4 See also Dahood, Psalms 1-50, 12, and Gerald Cooke, “The Israelite King as Son of God,” ZAW 73 (1961): 202-25.
6 Gunkel, Die Psalmen, 5-7; Sigmund Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien II. Das Thronbesteigungsfest Yahws und der Ursprung der Eschatologie (Kristiana: J. Dybwad, 1922), 302-3; Gerhard von Rad, “The Royal Ritual in Judah,” The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1966), 228. So also Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms, trans. Keith Crim (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1989), 113-14, who argues that the “meaning of the text is falsified by interpreting it in terms of foreign mythologies.” See also Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality,” 131-32. But Martin Hengel, The Son of God: The Origins of Christology and the History of Jewish-Hellenistic Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 23, who sees more in the concept of sonship than simple adoption: “The juridical concepts of adoption and legitimation are hardly adequate to describe this happening appropriately. It is certainly no coincidence that Psalms 2 and 110 become the most important pillars of the early church’s christological argument from scripture.”
7 See Craigie, Psalms, 67, who says, “The Davidic covenant was eternal, but all covenants were renewed from time to time; the principal form of renewal in the royal covenant took place in the coronation, when a new descendent of the Davidic dynasty ascended to the throne. Thus the words ‘you are my son’ mark a renewal of the relationship between God and David’s house in the person of the newly crowned king. ‘Today’ points to the fact that the words were announced on the coronation day, the day on which the divine decree became effective.”
8 But see Willis, “Defiance,” 33-50 who argues that the psalm is not an enthronement psalm, though verses 6-7 refer directly to the enthronement of the Davidic king, but is instead a psalm of defiance. Willis’ exegesis has some merit in its desire for a concrete historical situation for the psalm, but it downplays too much the idealism in the psalm which itself indicates a more generalized setting such as that of a coronation ceremony where tremendous hopes for Israel’s glorious future through her new king are expressed.
9 The reference to a decree in v. 7 and the nations as an “inheritance” suggests that this is certainly going to come to pass and regarded by YHWH as being accomplished in history through his anointed one.
10 See Craigie, Psalms, 64, who says, “The identification of the psalm with the coronation of a Davidic king is clarified by the parallels between this psalm and the promises given to David in the oracle of Nathan (2 Samuel 7:8-16).
11 The fact that he may ask YHWH for the rule of the entire world demonstrates his special relationship with the Lord. See Weiser, Psalms, 113.
12 The idealistic reign of messiah envisioned in the psalm had no counterpart in the history of Israel which may account in part for its messianic use in the New Testament and in the midrash on Psalm 2. The m. Ps. 2:3 says, “should it be reported to Lord Messiah in time-to-come,” and R. Huna commenting on verse nine refers to the creation of the messiah as a future event associated with the redemption of Israel. These facts as well as several other references throughout the midrash on Psalm 2 indicate that it was viewed as having an ultimate eschatological fulfillment centered in the coming of the messiah.
13 In the OT the hl*j&n^ refers to the land of Canaan given to the Israelites by God, the tribes’ share in the land, the priestly share in the land, and the inheritance of a son from his father, but the universalism in the psalm is striking for there it is said that the nations will be the inheritance of the messiah (v. 8. See James Luther Mays, “’In A Vision’: The Portrayal of the Messiah in the Psalms,” ExAud 7 (1991): 3; BDB, 635 (a), s.v. hl*j&n. The mention of the inheritance of the nations presupposes a promise already in existence in Israelite thinking. This, of course, is the Abrahamic promise where blessing is promised to the entire world (Gen 12:1-3). In the Davidic covenant and here in this psalm (both of which are connected organically to the Abrahamic covenant as logical developments of the seed aspect of the covenant) the means by which this blessing is to be actualized is through an ideal ruler to come.
14 Kraus, Psalmen, 1: 488. For the particular problems with the text and metrical analysis of the psalm see J. A. Emerton, “The Syntactical Problem of Ps 45:7,” JSS 13 (1968): 58-63; T. H. Gaster, “Psalm 45,” JBL 74 (1955): 239-51; J. S. M. Mulder, Studies on Psalm 45 (Oss [The Netherlands]: Offsetdrukkerij Witsiers, 1972. J. R. Porter, “Psalm XLV.7,” JTS 12 (1961):51-53.
15 The interpretation of the Hebrew <l*wu) <yh!l)a$ ;a&s=K! is problematic and has been referred to as the crux interrpetum of the verse. The major problem involves the sense of the passage, if the pointing of ;a&s=K! is correct and <yh!l)a$ is taken as a vocative (which is in agreement with all the versions except the Targum on Psalm 45). In this case the king is said to be “God”—a thought, which taken at face value, is foreign to Old Testament monotheistic thinking. Cf. Porter, “Psalm XLV.7,” 51-53, and B. Couroyer, “Dieu ou roi? Le vocatif dans le Psaume XLV (vv 1-9),” RB 78 (1971): 233-41, who argue that the vocative is to be maintained and that the phrase should be translated as “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” The problem of the idea of divine kingship has, however, led to a variety of proposed emendations to the text, the most likely suggestion involving the repointing of ask as a piel denominative verb meaning “enthrone” (so Craigie, Psalms, 336-7, n. 7.a. following Dahood, Psalms 1-50, 273, who translates it as “The eternal and everlasting God has enthroned you.”). But even this suffers from the fact that the verb is not attested in the OT. The most likely solution seems to be to leave the MT as is, since the versions are in agreement with it, and to take the passage as a reference to the king employing hyperbolic language. This fits well with the overall heightened description of the king in the psalm. So Weiser, Psalms, 363. But Anderson, Psalms, 1:349, disagrees saying that such an interpretation lends itself to the possibility of misinterpretation. With Israel’s strong monotheism in the background, Anderson is probably not correct. See Craigie, Psalms, 336-37 and Anderson, Psalms, 349-50 for a discussion of the problem and criticisms of several proposed solutions. In the final analysis, whether the passage is emended as Dahood and Craigie suggest or whether it ought to remain as is—in neither case is the text espousing a theology of divine kingship. Rather, the king has a very exalted role in establishing the Davidic kingdom. In addition, the kingdom of YHWH moves beyond Israel to include all the nations.
16 For a discussion of the structure of the psalm including the possible chiasms and its strophic structure see, J. S. Ksleman, “Psalm 72: Some Observations on Structure,” BASOR 220 (1975): 77-81, and P. W. Skehan, “Strophic Structure in Psalm 72 (71),”Bib 40 (1959): 302-08. The particular placement of this psalm as a “seam” psalm is important as well for it lays great stress on the Davidic covenant. It has been recognized by some that the Psalms can be broken down into 5 general groupings or books on the basis of “seam” psalms: 1) 3-41; 2) 42-72; 3) 73-89; 4) 90-106; 5) 107-150. For this breakdown, see Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 274-285. It is possible that the “seam” psalms (i.e., 41, 72, 89, 106) suggest that the purpose for the organization of the material (at least Pss 1-89) centers on David and the Davidic covenant, as well as how people respond to Israel’s national disasters in light of the covenant God made with David. See also Gerald H. Wilson, “The Use of the Royal Psalms at the ‘Seams’ of the Hebrew Psalter,” JSOT 35 (1986): 85-94, who argues for the positive development of Davidic theology in the first three books (i.e., Pss 1-89), but says that the last two books (i.e., Pss 90-150), based on different organizational techniques, the restricted use of hllwyh and hwdw psalms to the last two books, the relative lack of author designations and genre categories as markers, focus attention on the dismay expressed in Psalm 89 and direct the reader to hopes for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty after the exile. There is a shift away from hope in a human Davidic king to the pre-monarchic period and the direct access to God afforded in the Law (e.g., Ps 90 and 119). See also D. M. Howard, Jr., “Editorial Activity in the Psalter: A State-of-the-Field Survey,” Word and World 9 (1989): 279, 281; Leopold Sabourin, The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning, rev. ed. (New York: Alba House, 1970), 8-11; J . H. Walton, “The Psalms: A Cantata about the Davidic Covenant,” JETS 34 (1991): 21-31.
17 The use of the Hebrew expression Jr#a*-ys@p=a^-du^ recalls the language of universal rule attested in Psalm 2:8. See also Isa 45:22; Jer 16:19; Zech 9:10 (which is virtually identical to Psalm 72:8 except that the former uses the verb lvm and the latter hdr for the verb “to rule”; Pss 22:28; 67:8 (MT) and 98:3 (Wnyh@l)a$ tu^Wvy+ ta@ Jr#a*-ys@p=a^-lk* War*). Further, the use of rh*n* in verse 8 may not necessarily indicate the Euphrates as it does quite often (cf. Gen 15:18; 31:21; 2 Sam 10:16), but may refer, given the exalted language and vision of the rule of the Davidic king in this psalm, to the “great stream that issues from the temple in Israel’s visions of Zion (cf. Ps 46:5; Ezek 47). In this case the poet would be seeing the power of the king extending from Jerusalem over the world.” So Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 51-100, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 20 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1990), 221, n. 8a. There may also be a polemic here against the Canaanite deity El who is also said to reign “at the well-head of the two streams, In the midst of the two deeps.” See John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan: The Ras Shamra Texts and their Relevance to the Old Testament, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 2d ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 158. It is clear, nonetheless, in various portions of the rest of the psalm, that the psalmist is envisioning YHWH’s world-rule through his Davidic king.
The present article is the fifth in a series concerning Davidic hope in the Old Testament and intertestamental period. The previous four articles can be found on this web site and are titled: (1) An Early Text for Later Messianic Conceptions: A Look at Genesis 49:8-12/Sept. 10, 1998; (2) “A Star Will Come Out of Jacob”: Early Regal Images in Numbers 24:15-19/Sept. 28, 1998; (3) Regal/Messianic Hope in Deuteronomy, 1, 2 Samuel and 1, 2 Kings/Oct. 5, 1998; (4) Conceptions of Davidic Hope in Psalm 2, 45, and 72/Oct. 19, 1998. This material can be cross-referenced when one wishes to examine Davidic traditions in the New Testament in order to see connections and concepts operating in the first century. In this paper we will briefly study Psalms 89, 110, and 132. Eventually we will discuss how Davidic promise gets handled in certain texts in the New Testament and how it formed the theological substructure of much of the early church’s christological reflection.
This is an important psalm as regards the Davidic covenant and is closely related to the Nathan oracle of 2 Samuel 7:8-16. The Babylonian exile or perhaps various military defeats form the background to the psalm.1 It is important to note here that during a period of national distress (cf. vv. 38-51), either real or enacted in a ceremony, the Davidic covenant was not forgotten nor annulled. The psalm strongly affirms the faithfulness (ds#j# <l*wu) and <h#b* ;t=n`Wma$ /k!T* <y]m^v*) of God to keep his covenant with David (vv. 1-5 MT) and ensures that the Davidic kings will rule forever (wl) tnm#a$n yt!yr!b=W yD!s=j^ wl)-rm*v=a# <l*wu)l=, vv. 29-30 MT).2 The language employed here is similar to the expression in Isa 55:3 where the prophet says that <yn]m*a$Nh^ dw]d* yd@s=j^ <l*wu) tyr!B= <k#l* ht*r=k=a#w+. Further, the Davidic king is pictured as possessing the appointment to an extremely exalted role in the earth as he exercises the prerogatives of God.3 We note also that it is God’s holiness that underlies the surety of the covenant since he has sworn to carry out certain promises and cannot therefore renege or lie (vv. 35-38 MT). In this connection the perplexed situation of the psalmist is obvious as he cannot fathom how a faithful God, whom he has just extolled in the first section of the psalm (vv. 1-38 MT), can apparently be so unconcerned about the promises he has made (cf. vv. 39-52 MT). This enters into the traditions about the fulfillment of Davidic promise a note of ambiguity and uncertainty as to exactly how and when God might fulfill his oath. This inevitably involves the element of surprise.
The psalm, then, affords us with images of the permanency of the Davidic covenant and dynasty. Justice will be its foundation and holiness underlies the covenant God made with David. All of this is quite similar to 2 Samuel 7 and Ps 2 as noted above. The fulfillment of the promise, though, may not be exactly as was expected, in terms of the “how” and “when.” This theme of uncertainty in the psalm—a psalm which contributes greatly to conceptions of Davidic messianic hope—creates a certain openendedness to the specifics of fulfillment.
Psalm 110, it is agreed by virtually all scholars, is a royal psalm, having to do with the Davidic king and his right to rule. While the psalm has been subjected to intense study and criticism, there nonetheless remains many problems in its interpretation including textual,4 historical, exegetical, and theological problems. In any case, it is generally agreed that this psalm is one of the most ancient in Scripture5 and many argue that its Sitz im Leben is the enthronement and coronation of Israel’s king.6 The most important point for our consideration is that the psalm has much to offer in terms of regal hopes and was indeed understood as messianic in first century Judaism though to what particular extent is unclear.7
The psalm asserts that the new Davidic king will rule from God’s right hand and is assured of God’s help in achieving victories over his enemies, the rulers of other nations (vv. 2b, 5-6). The new king’s rule, symbolized with the use of the “scepter” (fb#v#)8 language, will extend from Zion to the nations round about and he will have a willing and able army (vv. 1-3). His rule is associated with the day of Adonai’s (yn`d)a&) wrath (wP)a^ -<wy{B= [v. 5]). There is also the sworn testimony of the Lord (<j@N`y] al)w+ hw`hy+ uB^v=n]) that the new Davidic king will be a priest forever (<l*wu)l= /h@k)-hT*a^) according to the order (yt!r*b=D!-lu^) of Melchizedek (v. 4).9 As a chief representative of the rule of God it is not out of line that the king should function in certain ways as a priest. Indeed, there is strong evidence that the Hasmoneans later on used the psalm in this way (cf. 1 Macc 14:41; TMos 6:1; TLevi 8:3).10 This, coupled with the fact that there was no bifurcation between the sacred and the secular makes it quite natural that the king being so close to God should function in both capacities. But, he is not a priest according to the line of Aaron, but according to the line of Melchizedek.
David took the initiative to bring the ark to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6) and performed the sacrifices while en route (6:13). He also wore the garb of a priest (6:14). As Merrill says:
The strongest suggestion of Davidic royal priesthood occurs in 2 Samuel 6 (cf. 1 Chron 15), which recounts the procession of the ark into Jerusalem from Kiriath-jearim, where it had been housed for a century or more. The entire enterprise was at the initiative of David and though the regular Aaronic order of priests and Levites was involved, David himself was in charge, leading the entourage and, clothed in priestly attire, offering sacrifices and issuing priestly benedictions.11
The priestly functions of Solomon appear in texts like 1 Kings 3:1-9 (i.e., offering sacrifices), and 1 Kings 8:5 which narrates the dedication of the temple and the blessing of the people (v. 55, 56-61).12 Thus in Psalm 110 we have the picture of the Davidic king sitting at God’s right hand, extremely close to God, operating on his behalf, victorious in battle, and functioning as a priest as well, though the specifics of his priesthood are not spelled out in much detail.
Though there are many problems in the exegesis of this psalm,13 it is nonetheless important for Davidic traditions for it affirms the eternal nature and thus the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic covenant (cf. v. 11, hN`M#m! bWvy`-al) tm#a$ dw]d*l= hw`hy+-uB^v=n]). It also discusses, regarding the obedience of the Davidic king in question, conditional aspects of the covenant (vv. 11-12).14 There is also an elaboration of the nature of the period of time of Messiah’s rule: it will be a time of abundant provisions (v. 15a), the satisfaction of the poor (v. 15b), the salvation and holiness of the priests (v. 16a), continuous singing for joy among the saints (16b), and defeat of Israel's enemies (see esp. vv. 15-18). The messiah is referred to as jyv!m in v.10 and v. 17b and in v. 17a as dw]d*l= /r#q# j^ym!x=a^ (“I will cause to spring up a horn for David”) and a rn} (“lamp”). The idea of the “horn” seems to symbolize strength, power, and dignity15 while the lamp connotes ideas of the perpetuity of the Davidic dynasty and its function in the world.16 The language of “springing up” is similar to Isa 4:2 and Jer 33:15.
1 For a discussion of the literary integrity and tradition history of the psalm as it relates to 2 Samuel 7, as well as its date and possible Sitz im Leben, see Tate, Psalms, 413-16; R. J. Clifford, “Psalm 89: A Lament over the Davidic Ruler’s Continued Failure,” HTR 73 (1980): 35-47 and E. Lipinski, Le Pome Royal du Psaume LXXXIX 1-5, 20-38 (Paris: Bagalla, 1967); Otto Eissfeldt, “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1-5,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, ed. B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson (London: S C M Press, 1962), 197-98; Kraus, Psalmen, 2: 612; Anderson, Psalms, 2: 630-31; J. M. Ward, “The Literary Form and Liturgical Background of Psalm LXXXIX,” VT 11 (1961): 321-39.
2 Even though any particular Davidic king’s success is based on his obedience (cf. vv. 30-32) this in no way jeopardizes the realization of the covenant God made with David (vv. 33-37). See Craig C. Broyles, The Conflict of Faith and Experience in the Psalms: A Form-Critical and Theological Study, JSOTSS 52, ed. David J. Clines and Philip R. Davies (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 169.
3 The text refers to him as /wy{l=u# in terms of his relationship to the kings of the earth (v. 28 MT). While I agree with Anderson, Psalms, 643, that the title does not mean he is divine, it surely implies that he acts on earth as God acts in heaven.
4 See Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 21 (Waco, TX: Word Books, Publishers, 1983), 79-82 for a detailed analysis of the various textual problems in Psalm 110. See also C. Schedl, “‘Aus dem Bache am Wege’: Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Ps 110 (109): 7,” ZAW 73 (1961): 290-97. For a discussion of the enigmatic verse 3 see R. Tournay, “Le Psaume 110,” RB 67 (1960): 11 as well as critical commentaries cited.
5 Dates for the psalm have ranged from the Davidic period right on down to the Maccabean period. M. Treves, “Two Acrostic Psalms,” VT 15 (1965): 86 argues that the psalm is related to Simon Maccabeus on the basis of the acrostic <ya /umv have been severely criticized by Hermann Gunkel, Die Psalmen, übers. und erklrt von Hermann Gunkel, Handkommentar zum Alten Testament (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 485, and Bower, “Psalm 110,” 31-34. See Allen, Psalms, 83-85 who discusses the problems with the date and setting but concludes that most scholars date the poem in the early period of the monarchy. See, e.g., R. H. DeVaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions, trans. John McHugh (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1961), 402, and E. R. Hardy, “The Date of Psalm 110,” JBL 64 (1945):385-90.
6 See, e.g., Anderson, Psalms 73-150, 767; Weiser, Psalms, 693, who argues strongly for an enthronement setting; Willem A. Vangemeren, “Psalms,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 696, who is more tentative about the setting, and Carroll Stuhlmueller, Psalms 2, Old Testament Message, vol. 22 (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1983), 129.
7 See David M. Hay, Glory at Thy Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Earliest Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973), 30, who after evaluating the use of the psalm in the Old Greek version and in Jewish materials says, “on balance, then, it seems fair to suppose that in the NT era a messianic interpretation of Ps 110 was current in Judaism, although we cannot know how widely it was accepted.”
8 In Eaton’s view the mention of the “sceptre” (fb#v#) connotes world dominion. See Kingship and the Psalms, 124.
9 See Dahood, Psalms 101-150, 117.
10 See Hay, Glory at Thy Right Hand, 24-25.
11 Eugene H. Merrill, “Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif,” BibSac 150 (1993): 60. See also Kraus, Theology, 111, who says, “Following the ancient Jebusite order, the Davidic kings were priest kings, ‘after the order of Melchizedek.’ They were responsible for performing mediatorial functions, such as offering prayer for all cultic institutions in the royal sanctuary in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8:22-26), blessing the assembled people of the nation (1 Kings 8:14), and, on special occasions, offering sacrifices (1 Kings 8:62-63). In Jer 30:21 the technical term that describes the access of the king into the Holy of Holies is brq, ‘draw near.’ Thus, it is to be taken as established that the king exercised cultic functions of the type described.” See also Carl E. Armerding, “Were David’s Sons Really Priests?” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 75-86. J. W. Bowker, “Psalm 110,” VT 17 (1967): 35-36, also concludes that the Davidic kings served as priests though in a different sort of way than did the Levites.
12 Merrill, “Royal Priesthood,” 60-61.
13 Though most regard the composition as pre-exilic (see Anderson, Psalms 73-150, 880, there are difficulties with the text and structure of the psalm, its setting and its relation to 2 Samuel 7. On the text of the psalm see Allen, Psalms 101-150, 201-04. Regarding its structure, one should consult H. Gese, “Der Davidsbund und die Zionserwhlung,” ZTK 61 (1964): 10-26, who argues that the psalm breaks down into 2 parts marked out by the inclusive references to David in vv. 1 and 10 (so also Allen, Psalms 101-150, 204; Anderson, Psalms 73-150, 880, 883). T. E. Fretheim, “Psalm 132: A Form-critical Study,” JBL 86 (1967): 289-300, who breaks it down into vv. 1-9, 10-16, 17-18. W. H. Schmidt, “/K*v=m! als Ausdruck Jerusalmer Kultsprache,” ZAW 75 (1963): 91-92 argues for the division 1-7 and 8-18. Both of these, because of the marker dw]d* in verses 1 and 10 and the obvious shift from plea of remembrance to a petition are highly unlikely. See also Johnson, Sacral Kingship, 19, who says that the psalm “clearly falls into two parts.”
There have been many suggestions as to the setting and use of the psalm, including—(1) a ceremony re-enacting David’s bringing of the ark into Zion and the establishment of YHWH’s sanctuary there; (2) because vv. 8-9 and 10b appear in 2 Chron 6:41-42, the psalm as a whole was used in the dedication of the Temple; (3) at a royal Zion festival on the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles. Allen, Psalms 101-150, 207, is probably closer the mark when he argues that the psalm does not demand any particular date in Israel’s cultic calendar nor any particular threat to the monarchy, but does require a temple setting.
14 See Bruce K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality Within Unconditional Covenants,” in Israel’s Apostacy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. Avraham Gileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988), 131-32. Whether t!yr!B= in verse 12 refers to the Mosaic covenant (and since the king was part of the covenant community such an interpretation is possible) or whether it refers to the stipulations of the Davidic covenant given the king (e.g., in 2 Samuel 7), the point is similar: the king must be faithful to YHWH.
15 See BDB 901d and 902a s.v. /r#q#. Cf. Deut 33:17; 1 Sam 2:1, 10; 2 Sam 22:3.
16 Cf. 2 Sam 21:17; 1 Kings 11:36; 15:4; 2 Kings 8:19; Prov 13:9. See Dahood, Psalms 101-150, 248, who states: “The burning lamp is a natural metaphor for the preservation of the dynasty.
The following paper will concern itself with an investigation of certain texts from Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Haggai. Davidic hope in the Chronicles will also be examined. Most of the concepts developed in these books emerged during times of national distress for Israel and reflect much of the hope previously developed in the Old Testament. There are five previous articles in this series that may be consulted on this website. They are: (1) An Early Text for Later Messianic Conceptions: A Look at Genesis 49:8-12/Sept. 10, 1998; (2) “A Star Will Come Out of Jacob”: Early Regal Images in Numbers 24:15-19/Sept. 28, 1998; (3) Regal/Messianic Hope in Deuteronomy, 1, 2 Samuel and 1, 2 Kings/Oct. 5, 1998; (4) Conceptions of Davidic Hope in Psalm 2, 45, and 72/Oct. 19, 1998; (5) Conceptions of Davidic Hope in Psalms 89, 110, and 132/Oct. 27/98.
The promise to which Ezekiel refers in 17:22 is the promise to revive the fallen Davidic empire back on Israelite soil after the exile carried out by Nebuchadnezzar.1 The messianic imagery of a “tender shoot” (Er^)2 in Ezekiel 17:22 is similar to Isaiah’s messianic designations of a young shoot (11:1, rf#j) and rx#n}) and Jeremiah’s and Zechariah’s “branch” (jm^x#, Jer 23:5; 33:15; Zech 3:8; 6:12).3 It is more likely that En^ connotes humble origin rather than some aspect of moral weakness which does not fit the context. The scope of the rule of this figure will be universal. Bloch argues that the reference to [n`K*-lK* rwP)x! lK) (“every bird, every winged thing”) in v. 23 is not symbolic of the nations, but “as in 31:6-7 their presence in such vast numbers merely illustrates the tree’s expansiveness.”4 Alexander, on the other hand, suggests on the basis of passages like Dan 4:17, 32; 34-37 and Matt 13:31-32 that they are symbolic of the nations. Against Bloch is the specific mention of the nations in 31:6 (<yB!r^ <y]wG{ lK)) and if the kingdom is as “expansive” as Bloch suggests then Gentiles will logically form a part. As Cooke says, “‘all the trees of the field’… they stand for the heathen in contrast to Israel. The kingdom of the future will tower over other kingdoms, as the cedar over other trees. The heathen shall be convinced of Jahveh’s divinity and power by the change in Israel’s fortunes.”5 Thus we have in these verses a universalism wherein the “tender shoot” from the revived house of David will rule over the nations. Even if the universalism is not explicit, as some would argue, it is nonetheless an easy development out of the language employed here.
Ezek 34:23-31 and 37:15-28 speak to similar issues. The prophet envisions an age when instead of the faithless and greedy shepherds over Israel (cf. 34:2-5), there will be a day when God will place over his people one shepherd—an ideal David as it were—who will exhibit David’s characteristic of faithfulness. The reference to dj*a# hu#r) <h#yl@u& yt!m)q!h&w~ in 34:23 and 37:24 (<L*k%l= hyh=y] dj*a# hu#wr)w+) recalls the promise language of 2 Sam 7:12 (;u&r=z^-ta# yt!m)yq!h&w~) and Amos 9:11 (tl#p#N{h^ dyw]D* tK^s%-ta# <yq!a*).6 The reference to a single shepherd implies a single flock and thus the unification of the two kingdoms of the north and south under the one ruler. This is made explicit in the symbolism of the two sticks in 37:15-22. The period of messiah’s rule will be a time of security and peace for Israel (Ezek 34:25, 28), bountiful harvest (34:26-27, 29; 36:34; 47:1-12) and freedom from oppressors (37:27-28). Israel will experience cleansing from sin and idolatry, and live in relationship with YHWH as his people and he their God (37:23). He will put his sanctuary among them as evidence to the world (<y]wG{h^) of the holy relationship he will have with them (37:26-28).
Thus in these passages in Ezekiel we have notions of an idealic Davidic ruler to come who will unite all Israel and Judah as one nation under their sovereign YHWH in the land he had promised them. He will cleanse them and be their God—the same kind of covenant language we have associated with Israel’s separation unto YHWH at Mt. Sinai (Ex 19:6; 6:7; cf. also Deut 7:6; Ezek 11:20). There is, therefore, a close relationship between the Abrahamic and Davidic promises in Ezekiel’s conception of the future. Thus Ezekiel envisions the national restoration of Israel to her land and God, but this is not simply with Israel in mind for YHWH has stated that Israel will be restored so that the nations of the earth may know of his holiness. Indeed, the positive imagery of the various kinds of birds enjoying the shade of the tree in Ezek 17:23-24 is not the language of subjugation, but instead suggests that while arrogant kingdoms will be made low, blessing will come to the Gentile nations under the Davidic king—without Israelite hegemony over them.
The prophet Zechariah has much to say in terms of the restoration of Israel and messianic hopes intimately connected with that. He refers to the coming messiah as the “branch” (jm^x# in 3:8 and 6:12), the same language used in Isa 4:2 (hw`hy+ jm^x#), 11:1 (rx#n}), and Jeremiah 33:15 (hq*d*x= jm^x# dw]d*l= j^ym!x=a^ ayh!h^ tu@b*W <h@h* <ym!Y`B^ Jr#a*B* hq*d*x=W fP*v=m! hc*u*w+). Thus Zechariah rests his hopes largely on earlier traditions arising out of Davidic promise. The men who are with Joshua the high priest (lwd)G`h^ /h@K)h^) in 3:8 are a symbol of the coming messianic ruler in that their very presence among an unholy people signifies that God has not forgotten his promise of a messiah and that that messiah/king will be humble and just (Zech 9:9). Indeed, the time of his coming is inextricably linked to YHWH’s forgiveness and cleansing the nation of her wickedness (3:9). It will be a time of great security, realized dreams, prosperity, and universal peace (3:10; 9:10). In 6:13 the offices of priest and king, held by Joshua and Zerubbabel respectively (chs. 3 and 4), will be combined into one and officiated by the messiah king-priest (cf. Ps 110:1, 4). The mention of the throne in 6:13 recalls the covenant YHWH made with David, but the reference to “the shoot will shoot up from beneath” (jm*x=y] wyT*j=T^m!W) in v. 12 seems to indicate that where there appears no hope of the restoration of the Davidic kingdom, there will indeed be a restoration. Thus there is the notion that the kingdom will have apparently humble and doubtful beginnings—“a shoot out of dry ground,” as it were.
The Gentiles, as well Jews of the dispersion, will play a role in the future building of the temple which will be a clear indication to the people that Zechariah has been sent by the Lord (6:15).7 There is a clear connection between the fulfillment of Davidic promise and the restoration of the Jewish nation, as well as the blessing of the nations in 2:11-12. Thus the rule of the Davidic king will be from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth (9:10).
Haggai 2:20-23 is eschatological and theocratic in focus and looks forward to a day (twa)b*x= hw`hy+-<a%n+ aWhh^ <wY{B^) when YHWH will break the power of foreign nations (2:21-22). At that time (aWhh^ <wY{B^) he will take Zerubbabel, his servant, and set him as a signet ring. In this portrait of the future Davidic king, he is seen to be passive and not active in the battles against the nations.8 The reference to him as a yD!b=u^ (“my servant”; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8; 1 Kings 11:32, 34; Ezek 34:23; 37:24; Ps 78:70; 89:3; 132:10) and <t*wj)K^ (“like a signet ring”) implies the role of vice-regent which he will assume, according to YHWH’s choice, after the demolishing of foreign powers.9 The image of a signet ring (or “seal”) also conveys the certainty of God’s promise for the completion of the temple and fulfillment of promises.10
Haggai 2:20-23 is to be taken together with 2:6-9 (where it refers to the shaking of the heavens and the building of the temple). Thus we have a picture here of the nations bringing their wealth to the temple and the glory of the latter house eclipsing that of the former.11 Thus in Israel, the reign of the Davidic king is closely connected to the cultus/Temple and the worship of YHWH.
Many, if not most, of the Davidic covenantal ideas in 1-2 Chronicles12 clearly have their ultimate antecedents in the Nathan oracle in 2 Sam 7:8-16 (though they have been interpreted in the light of certain historical realities including the fact that no Davidide is on the throne in Jerusalem). In fact, the oracle is repeated, almost verbatim in 1 Chron 17:1-17. An important difference between the two occurs in 2 Sam 7:16 and 1 Chron 17:14. The former reads “your throne and your kingdom” (;T=k=l^m=m^W ;t=yB) whereas the latter has “my throne and my kingdom” (yt!Wkl=m^b=W yt!yb@B=). We see here, then, the idea that the Davidic kingdom is really YHWH’s kingdom and he is the one who will establish a Davidide on the throne forever (cf. 1 Chron 17:27, 28:5; 2 Chron 13:8).13 Thus we have here the idea that kingship in Israel is ultimately a theocracy and that it extends over the whole earth (1 Chron 16:31).14
Though the Chronicler connects Israel’s liturgical life and cultus with Moses (2 Chron 8:13; 23:18; 24:6, 9; 30:16; 35:6, 12), David is given a leading role at times in the founding, designing and implementing of the cult (1 Chron 28:19; cf. also 1 Chron 15:2-24; 16:4-7, 37-42; 23:2-26:32; 28:13; 2 Chron 5:11-14; 8:14-15; 13:9-12; 17:7-9; 19:8-11; 29:15, 21-30; 30:15-17; 31:2-19).15 Thus the Chronicler connects Davidic kingship with the worship of YHWH, clearly indicating that it was a Davidic king, Solomon, who built the temple for YHWH at David’s command (1 Chron 22). Placing the emphasis in Chronicles on the role of the king in the cultus against the background of the ideology of the ancient Near East, Riley states:
Once placed against that ideological background , a new possibility emerges for interpreting the role of the Chronistic kings in the cultus: although the Chronistic kings exercise many functions, the cultus may have been portrayed by the Chronicler as the royal task par excellence…thus, for example, Freedman observes that the historical and political achievements of the Davidic dynasty have been subordinated to its cultic accomplishments; Poulssen describes the Chronicler’s ideal king as exercising his office primarily in the ambit of the Temple; [and] Braun notes that the Chronicler speaks of the dynastic promise in direct relationship to the construction of the Temple so that temple-building becomes the sole task laid upon Solomon….16
In 1 & 2 Chronicles, then, we have much discussion about David and the Davidic covenant, most of which is familiar from earlier texts (e.g., 2 Sam 7:6-16; Ps 89), but it is directed particularly at David’s part in Israel’s worship in which he is given an integral role of orchestrating the cultus.17 Discussion about his military abilities and successes are, in comparison, downplayed at times and perhaps even slightly criticized (cf. 1 Chron 22:8).18
Davidic hope in the exilic and post-exilic period grows out of earlier promise tradition in 2 Sam 7:12 and Amos 9:11 (cf. Ezek 34:23 and 37:24; Zech 3:8; 6:12). The future Davidic king is referred to as the “branch “ (Zech 3:8; 6:12; cf. Jer 23:5; 33:15) and will come from humble origins (Ezek 17:22). He will be exalted to a universal rule (Ezek 17:24) and in contrast to Israel’s wicked leaders, he will be faithful to God and the people (Ezek 34:23-31). Israel will be unified under his rule (37:15-22), and there will be security and peace for her (34:25, 28). The nations will enjoy peace and security under his rule as well (Zech 3:10; 9:10). Israel will experience untold blessing from YHWH including agricultural blessing (34:26-27, 29; 36:34; 47:1-12) and spiritual blessing—cleansing from sin and a right relationship with YHWH (Ezek 37:23; Zech 3:9). The “branch” figure appears to carry out both the office of priest and king as they come together in him (Zech 6:13; cf. Ps 110:1, 4, as well as the example of David himself in 2 Sam 6). His reign will usher in a time for all nations including Israel to worship and serve the Lord together (Haggai 2:6-9 and 2:20-23; cf. 1 Chron 16:31).
1 Ralph H. Alexander, “Ezekiel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 6 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), 822.
3 The term that Ezekiel uses more typically to refer to the future king is xycn. It occurs in the book of Ezekiel 34x.
4 Daniel E. Bloch, Ezekiel 1-24, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. Robert L. Hubbard, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 551.
5 G. A. Cooke, The Book of Ezekiel, The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, ed. S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, and C. A. Briggs (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936), 192. Cf. also C. F. Keil, Ezekiel and Daniel, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, trans. James Martin, vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 245-46.
6 Also, the description of David as yD!b=u^ recalls passages like 2 Samuel 7:5 and Ps 89:4, 21, 40 (MT).
7 See Eugene H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 200, who suggests that the <yq!wj)r=W in v. 15 refer only to the “far- flung exiles.” This is undoubtedly too narrow a referent for the “Book of Visions” (1:7-6:15) has a universalism in it connected to the Davidic rule (2:11; 8:22; cf . also Isa 2:2-4; 56:6-7; 60:1-7). See Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, ed. D. J. Wiseman, vol. 24 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), 137, and Kenneth L. Barker, “Zechariah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 641.
8 Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8, The Anchor Bible, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman, vol. 25B (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987), 83. On the use of a specific name, i.e., Zerubbabel, and its apparent weakening of the eschatological tone of the passage, Meyers and Meyers comment: “It links the present moment, concretized by Zerubbabel’s name, with the future. It inserts a contemporary figure into the age when God’s benign and universal rule will prevail.”
9 There may also be the notion of YHWH’s most treasured and precious jewel. Thus the image reflects relational closeness to YHWH. See Hans Walter Wolff, Haggai, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1988), 105.
11 Ralph Smith, Micah-Malachi, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. John D. W. Watts, vol. 32 (Waco, TX: Word Books, Publisher, 1984), 162.
12 Dates for the composition of 1, 2 Chronicles range from 550 B. C. E. to 250 B. C.E. with the most probable being sometime between 450 and 350 B.C.E. See Harrison, Introduction, 1153-57; see also James King West, Introduction to the Old Testament, 2d ed. (New York: MacMillan, 1981), 485 who suggests a date in the first half of the fourth century. Jacob M. Myers, 1 Chronicles, The Anchor Bible. Edited by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1965), IXXXVI-IXXIX, suggests 400 B.C.E.
13 J. A. Thompson, 1, 2 Chronicles, The New American Commentary, ed. Kenneth A. Mathews, vol. 9 (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holdman, 1994), 147.
14 See William Riley, King and Cultus in Chronicles: Worship and the Reinterpretation of History. JSOTSS 160 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), 177, who says, “However, an even closer association between the Chronicler and the Psalms on this point is incorporated into the Chronicler’s work through the quotation of Ps. 96:10 at 1 Chron 16:31; there the pronouncement to be made among the nations is ilm hwhy, the message of Yahweh’s universal kingship.”
15 1 Chron 28:19 reads tyn]b=T^h^ twk)a&l=m^ lK) lyK!c=h! yl^u* hw`hy+ dY~m! bt*k=B! lK)h^. Thus David had received the plan (tyn]b=T^) for the Temple from the Lord.
16 Riley, King and Cultus, 167. Even if one argues that the Chronicler did view the Davidic dynasty as grounds for a future hope (so e.g., Thompson, 1, 2 Chronicles, 40-41), and that the function of the king was not collapsed totally in the cult and temple (i.e., so that the establishment of the temple and cult does not constitute the complete fulfillment of the Davidic covenant), the emphasis on David and the building of Temple/cultus in Chronicles cannot be played down.
17 See also J. Barton Payne, “1 Chronicles,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 318-19.