Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 7

Psalm 7

This composition in the Psalter is unique in the use of the word /oyG`v! (šigg¹yôn) in the heading to describe it, a musical (or poetic) term whose meaning is unknown to us. It may be related to a primitive root gv (ggv, hgv) which has the basic meaning “stray, go astray”; others would connect it with ugv (Akkad. šegû) which refers to a kind of howling like that of animals, and could possibly indicate some sort of lament. Also uncertain is the significance of the notice “upon the words of Kûš the ‘son of the right-hand’ [i.e. Benjaminite]”; possibly this refers to an accusation made against David (cf. on vv. 4-6 [3-5] below), relating to a tradition otherwise unknown to us.

This Psalm is the longest and most complex of those we have encountered thus far. Not surprisingly, it has a mixed meter with a number of apparent half-lines (cola) which make coordinating the meter and structure difficult; the closing section (vv. 14-18) is more consistent with a strict 3-beat (3+3) bicolon format. Most of the metrical difficulties are in the first half of the Psalm (vv. 2-9). Tentatively, I offer the following outline:

    • The Psalmist’s petition to YHWH—vv. 2-3 [1-2]
    • An oath concerning his innocence—vv. 4-6 [3-5]
    • Call for YHWH to make vindication and deliver justice—vv. 7-17 [6-16], in three strophes:
      • vv. 7-10—Call for YHWH to act as Judge
      • vv. 11-14—Precatory description of YHWH in His ancient role as victor/vindicator
      • vv. 15-17—Precatory description of the judgment that comes upon the wicked
    • Closing statement of thanks to YHWH (anticipating his justice)—v. 18 [17]

Verses 2-3 [1-2]

The Psalmist’s opening petition—the Psalm itself functioning largely as a prayer—is delivered with a pair of bicola (i.e. 4 lines) that generally utilizes the common 3+3 metrical format, though the first bicolon is actually 4+3 (ever so slightly), due perhaps to the inclusion of the divine name YHWH in the initial line. The presence of the divine name often creates metrical tension in ancient Hebrew poetry, and could, at times, be a sign of secondary adaptation. Here are the lines:

YHWH, my Mighty One, with you I have sought protection—
save me from all (the one)s pursuing me and rescue me,
lest he rip (at) my soul like a lion,
tearing (it) apart (with) no one (to) rescue!

Each bicolon ends with a form of the verb lx^n` (“take/snatch away”) in the Hiphil, emphasizing the need for deliverance, for YHWH to rescue the Psalmist in his time of trouble (a frequent motif in the Psalms, as we have seen). The second occurrence is verbal noun (participle) form which I have rendered like an infinitive in an attempt to preserve the rhythmic sense of the line. The shift from plural (“the ones pursuing”) to singular (“lest he rip…”) is not all that uncommon, especially when dealing with opponents of the protagonist in the Psalms; they can be described as many or as one, collectively or individually—the description can be quite fluid. In part, I think, this is meant to reflect the lack of firmness and integrity in the wicked, in contrast to the Psalmist, who remains firm (and unified) in his loyalty to YHWH.

Verses 4-6 [3-5]

The petition gives way to an oath in these lines, drawing upon the ancient Near Eastern covenant format. The force of such binding agreements was magical-religious, and involved an oath. First, the parties of the agreement would call upon God (or the gods) as witness; second, this meant that, by way of certain ritual formula, divine judgment would be brought down upon one who violated the agreement. The idea of the covenant between YHWH and the people Israel was unique in this regard, since God was not a witness, but a participant in the agreement—as the superior (suzerain) to whom Israel and its rulers were the subordinate (vassal). In agreeing to the terms of the covenant, Israel took an oath to uphold it, including the curse/punishment which would come upon them if/when it was ever violated. Here the oath is more generalized, in terms of common morality and the normal functioning of society, but it still reflects the righteousness and covenant loyalty of the Psalmist.

He approaches YHWH, his sovereign, confirming his innocence by way of an oath. It begins as a 4+3 bicolon precisely parallel to the opening of the petition (v. 2): “YHWH, my Mighty One…”. He has sought protection (vb hs^j*) with YHWH as his Lord and protector (under the covenant); the oath is taken in this very context. According to the text as we have it, the first line reads: “YHWH, my Mighty One, if I have done this [taz)]”. It is not clear what “this” is, which has led some commentators to emend the text. Dahood (p. 42) suggests that here taz) is a substantive meaning something like “insult”, but whose etymology “is not immediately evident”; he cites other such examples in Ps 44:18[17]; 74:18[17], and Job 2:11. While this is a convenient solution, the basis for it seems extremely slight. Some would relate “this” to the “words of Kuš” in the superscription, i.e. presumably as an accusation made against the Psalmist (David), of which we do not know the precise content, though it may be implied in the lines that follow. Indeed, more properly the pronoun (“this”) refers to the following two “if”-statements. This conditional statement (protasis, “if…”) of the oath, taken together, in vv. 4-5 is:

YHWH, my Mighty One, if I have done this,
if there really is guilt in my palm(s),
if I have dealt (in) evil (with) my sound (ally),
and pulled away (in) empty (word)s (to make him) my foe,

The last line is difficult to translate, but there is a clear contrast (and formal parallel) between ym!l=ov and yr!r=ox, as also between ur* and <q*yr@. The words in the first pair are themselves difficult to translate, though the sense is clear enough. Both are verbal noun (participle) forms with a first person singular suffix (“my…”). The first verb is <l^v* from the root <lv and denominative of the noun <olv* in the sense of a (covenant) agreement that establishes peace, security, and friendship between two parties. The second verb, rr^x* indicates just the opposite—hostility, rivalry, opposition. By acting with evil (ur*) toward one who was supposed to be a firm ally, it would render their bond as merely “empty [words]” (<q*yr@), creating hostility when there should have been peace. This would seem to be the substance of the accusation against the Psalmist—an act of treachery and disloyalty. Verse 6 provides the result for the condition (apodosis, “…then”) of the oath—it is a three-fold declaration, comprised of three lines (tricolon):

(then) let (the) enemy pursue and reach my soul,
and let him trample my life to (the) earth,
and make my (very) weight dwell in (the) dust!

Three comprehensive terms are used to represent the (whole) person of the Psalmist in its deepest sense:

    • vp#n#—refers to the life-breath or essence of the person, usually rendered as “soul” (here yv!p=n~, “my soul”)
    • <yY]j^—a plural noun referring to the physical life, span of life, etc., of a person (here yY`j^, “my life”)
    • dobK*—”weight”, often in the basic sense of “worth, value”, figuratively as “honor”, etc (here yd!obk=, “my weight/worth”)
      [some commentators read ydbk here as yd!b@k=, “my liver”, in the sense of “my inner(most) organ(s)”]

The purpose of this oath is to confirm—by magical-ritual means—the Psalmist’s innocence; from the religious standpoint of the Psalm, it is meant to demonstrate his loyalty to YHWH. He declares, indeed, that he has remained loyal, and would not have acted in such a disloyal way as he is accused of doing. That he is willing to take on the curse of the oath is an implicit proof that he is innocent. This oath section ends with a hl*s# (Selah) mark, frequent in the Psalms, and the exact significance of which remains uncertain. Here it can be used a structural indicator, marking a break before the next major section.

Verses 7-10 [6-9]

As indicated in the outline above, verses 7-17 are to be divided into three sections, or strophes. They make up a call to YHWH, for him to act as judge and declare justice for the Psalmist, vindicating him in the accusation against him. The call proper is contained in vv. 7-10, structurally (metrically) one of the most difficult portions of the Psalm. It is a challenge to divide this portion accurately into lines and couplets. As with verse 6, it seems most natural to view vv. 7-9a as utilizing a tricolon (three-line) format. The first tricolon (v. 7) is:

Stand up, YHWH with your (flaring) nostrils [i.e. in anger],
lift (yourself) up on (the) passing (slander)s of my foes,
rouse (yourself) my Mighty One—you have charge of judgment!

The three imperatives are intended to stir YHWH to action, which is the emphasis of these lines. The last verb (hwx, perfect form t*yW]x!) is a bit difficult to render; I take it as a precative perfect, reflecting the expectation of the Psalmist, in the sense that YHWH has the power to command (i.e. make) judgment and deliver justice. In the second tricolon (vv. 8-9a), He is seen as acting, and the imagery shifts to the assembling of the tribunal:

(May) the appointed (gathering) of tribes [<yM!a%] surround you,
and you seated at the high(est) place over it,
YHWH you act as judge (for all the) peoples [<yM!u^]!

This triad marvelously moves from the congregation of Israel (line 1) to an image of all the peoples [of the world] (line 3); in between is the comprehensive, unifying motif of YHWH seated high above on His throne (line 2). The verb form hb*Wv in the second line is best understood as deriving from bvy (“sit, dwell”) rather than bwv (“turn, return”). In the following lines, vv. 9b-10, this triadic structure expands to include a set of three bicola (6 lines), it seems, following a 3+2 meter. With the tribunal in place, the Psalmist now asks YHWH to make judgment on his behalf:

Judge me, YHWH, according to my just (loyalty),
and according to my completeness, (decide) over me.
Make an end of the evil of (the) wicked (one)s,
and establish (the one who is) just—
(indeed, the One) examining hearts and kidneys,
(you the) Mightiest (are) Just!

The initial verb (fp^v*, “judge”) is different from that in the prior line (/yD!, “[act as] judge”), and connotes the establishment of justice in the case at hand. The root qdx plays an important role in these lines, with the noun qd#x# in v. 9b (line 1), and the adjective qyd!x* twice in v. 10 (parallel lines 4 and 6). This key root is central to the idea of the covenant, and, as a consequence, to Israelite religious thought and theology as a whole. It has a relatively wide semantic range, but fundamentally refers to something that is right, straight, and according to a standard (measure). The noun qd#x# is often translated “righteousness” or “justice”, much as the similar noun dikaiosu/nh in Greek (indeed, the diakaio- word-group is close in meaning to Hebrew qdx); perhaps “right-ness” or “just-ness” would capture the meaning better, but there is no such corresponding word in English. In the context of the ancient binding agreement (covenant), it also denotes faithfulness and loyalty. In a judicial setting, the idea certainly is that of determining justice, making things right—and, of course, whether a person (and his/her behavior, cause, etc) is just and right. The loyal servant of YHWH possesses a “right-ness/just-ness” that mirrors that of God Himself (note the clear parallel in lines 4 & 6).

The last word in line 2 (MT yl*u*) has caused some difficulty, leading commentators occasionally to emend (or repoint) the text. Dahood (p. 45) suggests that it should be read as yl!u@, as a divine name, i.e. “(YHWH the) Most High”. However, the parallelism in the bicolon is perhaps better preserved by the (Masoretic) pointing—as the preposition lu^ with first person singular suffix—marking an absent, but implied, verb. Note:

    • judge me [yn]f@p=v*]
      • according to my right-ness [yq!d=x!K=], and
      • according to my completeness [yM!t%K=]
    • (decide) over me [yl*u*]

The parallelism in the second bicolon is antithetic, marking the precise contrast—between righteous and wicked, loyal and disloyal—that lies at the heart of the judgment scene. God is able to make a proper determination, since he is the one “examining [vb /j^B*] hearts and kidneys”—both of these inner organs were use to represent (and locate) the mind (thoughts, intention, desire, etc) of a person; in our idiom we would say “examining hearts and minds”. The significance of the characterization of YHWH as “just” (qyd!x*, cf. above) is two-fold: (a) it means that he is able to establish true and proper justice, and (b) it marks the “just” person as one who is, and remains, loyal to YHWH.

[The remainder of the Psalm (vv. 11-18 [10-17]) will be discussed in the next study.]

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 4

Psalm 4

This is the second Psalm of the collection designated as a musical composition (romz+m!), and one “belonging to David” (dw]d*l=); cf. the previous study on Psalm 3. The precise meaning of the opening word of the superscription remains uncertain—j^X@n~m=l^, found in the superscriptions of 55 Psalms (also Hab 3:19). The root jxn probably originally had the sense of “shine, [be] bright”, but the verb is rather rare in the Old Testament, occurring (outside of the Psalter) primarily in post-exilic writings (Chronicles, Ezra) in the technical sense of one who serves in a position of prominence or leadership, in a supervisory or overseeing role. This has led most commentators over the years to assume that in the Psalms the participle jxnm refers to the person directing/conducting the performance of the composition—a translation like “(the one) directing” is probably as good as any. Its place in the superscription relates to the musical direction which follows, i.e. how the composition is to be performed; in other words, it would seem to reflect a rudimentary performing tradition. Here the instruction simply indicates “on/with string (instrument)s” [tonyg]n+B!].

Verse 2 [1]

The opening lines mark the Psalm as a prayer, or petition, to God; at least, that is the framing structure (vv. 2, 8-9 [1, 7-8]) of the song. The central section (vv. 3-6 [2-5]) provides the religious (and theological) context for the Psalmist’s petition, the first line of which is:

“In my calling (to you), answer me, Mighty (One) [i.e. God] of my justice”

As always, in my translation, “Mighty (One)”/”Mightiest (One)” renders the Hebrew plural <yh!l)a$ used as a Divine title (i.e. Elohim), and typically translated “God”. The construct phrase “Mighty (One) of my justice” is a literal rendering of yq!d=x! yh@l)a$, though the expression “my justice” (yq!d=x!) is a bit ambiguous. In the construct syntax it could mean “my just/righteous God”, where the suffix serves as a possessive for the entire expression. However, much more likely is that it is essentially an object suffix, with the noun qd#x# here having a kind of verbal force—i.e., God as the One “working (out) justice for me”; the English “vindication” has been suggested as an appropriate rendering of qd#x# here (Dahood, p. 23). For a similar occurrence in the opening of a Psalm, see 17:1.

The initial phrase reads “In my calling, answer me”; this is often understood in a temporal sense and translated in English as “When I call…”, but this obscures the parallel with the second line, each line beginning with the preposition B= (“in…”). Let us see the two lines together:

“In my calling (to) you), answer me, Mighty (One) of my justice!
In (my) distress, you (shall) have made room for me:
Show favor (to) me and hear my petition!”

There is a chiastic structure at work here in these lines as well:

    • My calling
      • Answer me
        • (Precatory request): In my distress…
      • Show favor / hear me
    • My petition

In between the two imperatives (“answer…”, “hear…”) the core of the request is expressed by way of a precative perfect—i.e., a wish or request phrased in terms of something which has (already) been done. The verb is T*b=j^r=h!, a hiphil perfect form of bj^r*, “be open, large, wide”, the hiphil being a causative stem, “make large, make wide,” etc. It relates here conceptually to the noun rx^, which has the fundamental meaning of something narrow, tight, etc, which presses in on a person (i.e. “distress”). The expectation is that God will literally “make room” for the Psalmist, relieving and protecting him from the forces and difficulties which press on him. The royal setting suggested by the superscription (associating the Psalm with David) may well provide the (artistic, narrative) context for the conflict faced by the Psalmist, a possibility to be considered further below.

Verses 3-6 [2-5]

As noted above, these lines, which form the central core of the Psalm, provide the religious and theological thrust of the work. It functions on two levels:

    1. A contrast between the true God and the (false) idols of pagan (Canaanite) religion
    2. A contrast between the Psalmist who remains loyal to the true God and those who have gone after “idols”, i.e. who do not worship YHWH in the proper manner

Within the structure of the Psalm itself, there are two Selah pauses in this section, creating an interesting division:

    • Challenge (in the form of a question) to those prominent men who do not remain loyal to YHWH (v. 3)
      Selah Pause
    • Exhortation to the people, in two parts:
      (i) Promise that YHWH will honor those who are faithful to him (v. 4)
      (ii) Exhortation to purity and repentance (v. 5)
      Selah Pause
    • Challenge (in terms of religious ritual) for people to remain loyal to YHWH (v. 6)

Let us consider the lines together:

“Sons of man—until what [i.e. how long] is my Honor (to be given) to insult?
(How long) will you love an empty (thing) and seek after a lie? Selah
You should know that YHWH does wonders (for the one) loyal to him—
(indeed) YHWH will hear (me) in my calling to him.
You should be disturbed and not (continue to) err—
Show (this) in your heart upon your lying down, and groan. Selah
Slaughter (sacrifice)s of justice and show trust unto YHWH!”

There are several points in these lines where the Hebrew makes translation difficult; it is almost as though the sense of conflict and challenge comes to be expressed through the wording and poetic syntax itself. Some commentators have suggested emending the Masoretic text in various ways, but, for the most part, that would not seem to be necessary. Let us consider each portion of this section briefly.

Verse 3 [2]. The expression “sons of man” (vya! yn@B=) probably has a dual meaning here: (1) as an echo of the common “son of man” (<d*a* /B#), i.e. mortal human being, in contrast to YHWH; (2) the vya! with the specific sense of a certain (prominent man), i.e. “sons of a (prominent) man”, distinguished or notable persons. Also potentially misleading is the expression yd!obK=, “my honor”. We saw in Psalm 3 how dobK* can be understood as a Divine title, i.e. “Honorable One”; here, however, the parallel is with the expression “my justice” in verse 2 [1] (cf. above). In that earlier expression, the significance was a reference to God as the One who works/establishes justice for the person loyal to Him; the sense is similar here—YHWH as the One bestowing honor/worth to those faithful to Him. In any event, the expression is to be read as a Divine title.

The situation, however, is that certain prominent people in Israel have treated YHWH in a shameful way, with insult (hM*l!K=) rather than honor. And what is the nature of this shameful insult? The words “empty (thing)” (qyr!) and “lie” (bz`K*) are almost certainly intended here as euphemisms for idolatry (non-Israelite ‘pagan’ religion), which, according to the tenets of Israelite monotheism (and Yahwism) can itself serve as a pejorative description of any improper religious practice or behavior. It need not always denote worship of other deities; however, if the background of the Psalm genuinely derives from the kingdom period (or even the time of David), then specific Canaanite beliefs and practices, widespread in the surrounding population, may well be meant.

Verse 4 [3]. The Psalmist sets himself in contrast to these ‘prominent men’, as one who is “good” (dys!j*) to YHWH, the adjective having the sense of being loyal (i.e. the king as a loyal vassal) to God. As a result of this loyalty, YHWH hears and responds to the Psalmist’s prayer. The verb alp (al*p=h!), found in some manuscripts, should be read instead of hlp (hl*p=h!); the reference to God doing wonders (i.e. answering prayer, in a powerful/miraculous fashion) better fits the context, and removes the need for any further emendation in the verse.

Verse 5 [4]. The syntax of these two lines is most difficult, and nearly impossible to render accurately into English. Some commentators advocate emending or re-ordering portions of the verse (e.g. Kraus, p. 144-5), however, I do not know that such a step is at all necessary. Consider, for example, the beautiful symmetry of the (Masoretic) Hebrew as we have it, especially in the second line (v. 5b):

WMd)w+ <k#b=K^v=m! lu <k#b=b^l=b! Wrm=a!

The symmetry is both rhythmic/alliterative and conceptual, as can be seen from the following chiastic outline:

    • Wrm=a! “show/speak” (imperative)
      • <k#b=b^l=b! “in your heart” (location)
        • lu^ “upon” (locative preposition)
      • <k#b=K^v=m! “your (place of) lying down” (location)
    • WMd) “groan/wail/weep” (imperative)

I find the first line (v. 5a) actually to be more difficult. What is the sense of the two verbs in sequence? Actually, there is a similar, though different, sort of symmetry involved in this line:

    • Wzg+r! “be disturbed” (imperative)
      • la^w+ “and (do) not”
    • Waf*j$T# “you will err/sin”

The conjunction and particle of negation connect the two verbs, establishing the relation between them:

    • “You must be disturbed”—that is, troubled in soul/spirit because of their “idolatry”; and, if this mindset is in place, leading to repentance, then:
    • “You will not [will no longer] err”—i.e. will not sin (lit. miss the mark)

The sense of repentance is vividly expressed by the image of weeping/wailing/groaning on one’s bed, an idiom found in both Canaanite (Ugaritic) literature and the Old Testament (Psalm 6:7 [6]; Gen 48:30).

Verse 6 [5]. This short line stands on its own—a 4-beat single colon, instead of the 4+4 bicolon format that characterizes the Psalm. It serves, I think, to summarize the section as a whole, making clear the precise nature of the religious failure of the ‘prominent men’. Their failure is characterized by the two elements in this line: (1) sacrificial offerings that are not right, and (2) failing to trust in YHWH. It is hard to say whether by this is meant sacrifices made to deities other than YHWH; much depends on whether the Psalm (and/or its background) is to be dated to the time of David (or otherwise the early kingdom period). In light of the later messages by the Prophets, the expression “slaughterings [i.e. sacrifices] of justice” could be understood in terms of the prescribed sacrificial offerings in combination with the correct religious attitude and moral conduct (or lack thereof). In either case, there is definitely a ritual dimension at work—i.e. loyalty to YHWH expressed, in large measure, through sacrificial offerings. This loyalty here is defined in terms of “trust” (vb. jf^B*), probably with the sense of relying upon God as a trustworthy Sovereign, expressing confidence in Him. The language and idiom of vassalage is part of the royal ideological (and cultural) background in many of the Psalms, especially those associated with David; for more examples of this, cf. the previous studies on Psalm 2 and Psalm 3.

Verses 7-8 [6-7]

These lines return to the petition framework of the Psalm (v. 2 [1]), and may elucidate the context of the Psalmist’s prayer (or, perhaps, to the historical/ritual background of it). A precise interpretation depends on how one understands the noun bof (“good”) in verse 7. Dahood, in his commentary (pp. 23, 25-26), argues that here the “good” from God refers specifically to the rains, and that the setting of the Psalm is a prayer for rain (possibly in time of drought). For an ancient agricultural (and pastoral) society, one need hardly point out the importance of rain—both the proper amount, and in its proper season. Nearly all of the material “good” in society depended upon the rain. The emphasis on the “increase” in grain and wine in verse 8 would seem to confirm this interpretation, especially in connection with other Scriptural parallels (e.g., Deut 28:12; Jer 7:25 [cp. 3:3; Amos 4:7]; Psalm 85:13). However, I would not simply translate bof as “rain” (as Dahood does), but allow the Psalm to explain itself:

“Many are saying ‘Who will make us see the good?
The light of your face has fled (from) upon us!’ YHWH
You (shall) give joy (to me) in my heart
from the time (when) their grain and their wine multiplies.

There are couple of points of difficulty that should be mentioned. The first is the position of hwhy (YHWH)—does it belong to the end of verse 7 or the beginning of v. 8? This is especially important, if, as a number of commentators would argue, the MT hsn in v. 7b should be read as (and/or emended to) a form of either the verb sWn (“flee [from]”) or us^n` (“pull away [from]”); something of the sort would seem to fit the context, whereby the entirety of v. 7 represents the faithless words of the “many”. The mention of YHWH could be part of this (“the light of your face has fled from us, YHWH”); but just as easily it could be part of what follows: “YHWH, you shall give joy (to me) in my heart”. Even more difficult, it seems, is the syntax of verse 8. There are two components to this line, each of which makes fine sense in its own right:

    • “You (shall) give joy/happiness (to me) in my heart”
    • “Their grain and their wine multiplies/multiplied”

But how are these two statements related? The problem lies in the connecting word tu@m@, which, as parsed in the traditional MT, is apparently the noun tu@ (“time”) with the prefixed preposition /m! (“from”). Some would read this as a comparative, continuing the contrast from earlier in the Psalm:

“You give joy (to me) in my heart, more than (in the) time (when) their grain and wine multiplies”

At best this seems most awkward. Dahood proposes that the mem (m) prefix actually is an enclitic particle that belongs to the previous word (“my heart”), and that tu represents the related time-adverb hT*u^ written defectively (cf. Psalm 74:6; Ezek 27:24). By parsing the initial verb in verse 8 as a (precative) perfect form, it casts the line in a petitionary form much in keeping with the earlier part of the prayer:

“You (shall) have given joy (to me) in my heart; and now, (let) their grain and wine multiply”

In my translation above, I have attempted to capture something of this same sense, while respecting the traditional form of the Masoretic text:

“You (shall) give joy (to me) in my heart from the time (when) their grain and wine multiplies”

Verse 9 [8] and Summary

If we take seriously two key elements of the Psalm—(1) the issue of idolatry and (2) the idea of rain as the “good” from God—it may be possible to surmise an underlying historical setting. Through much of Israel’s history, from its settlement in Palestine down through the kingdom period, the influence of Canaanite religious beliefs and practices was prevalent in the culture. Most notable were those related to the god Haddu (better known by his popular epithet “Master”, Ba’al [cf. my earlier article]), representing the power of the storm/rain and dispenser of the life-giving waters from the heavens. It is altogether conceivable, even probable, that worship of Baal-Haddu underlies the references to ‘idolatry’ in the Psalm. For many Israelites, especially in the early kingdom period (i.e. the time of David and Solomon), it would have been most tempting and natural to blend together Baal- and Yahweh-worship in different ways. This would have been entirely in keeping with syncretic (and syncretistic) tendencies in the Ancient Near East, and, indeed, we see evidence for it at numerous points in the Scriptural record of Israelite history. It is hard to explain the prevalence of Baal-worship elements in Israelite society, over such a long period of time—from at least the time of the Judges until the reforms of Josiah—without the power and appeal of such syncretism. And if, indeed, the background of Psalm 4 involves a prayer for rain (cf. above), in the face of the threat of drought, etc, it is easy enough to image many ‘prominent men’ in Israel turning to the Canaanite god with power over the rains, perhaps including him (along with YHWH?) in the sacrificial offerings.

Whether or not such a reconstruction is accurate, there can be no doubt that the Psalmist feels himself at odds with important segments of society, their ‘idolatry’ (in whatever form it took) being central to the “distress” he experiences. In contrast to their lack of faith/trust in YHWH, the Psalms sees himself as remaining loyal to the true God, and this loyalty is proven by the fact that YHWH answers his prayer. It is possible that we have here a kind of parallel to the famous contest between Elijah and the Israelite ‘priests’ of Baal-Haddu (1 Kings 18): those offering sacrifices to other deities (Baal?) will not receive any answer, but YHWH answers (bringing rain) to the one who remains loyal to Him. If the Psalmist is meant to reflect a royal figure (such as David), then it is likely that his prayer is on behalf of the people as a whole; embedded in the Psalm is the message—the hope and expectation—that they, too, will remain faithful to YHWH.

The promise of God’s blessing and protection extends into the final lines (v. 9), and is similar to the statement of trust expressed in Ps 3:6 [5]. We may translate this bicolon as follows:

“In peace I lie down all (alone) and I sleep,
for you alone [YHWH] make me sit secure.”

The basic idea is clear enough, though the specific wording creates some difficulty. The adverbial particle wD*j=y~ can be tricky to render into English. Essentially it means “as one” or “at one”, sometimes in a comprehensive sense (“all together”) or in a temporal sense indicating suddenness (“at once”, etc). Here it is probably meant as a parallel to dd*B* (as an adverb) in the second line:

    • wD*j=y~ “all (alone)”, referring to the Psalmist
    • dd*b*l= “separately, alone”, i.e. by himself, referring to YHWH

Dahood (p. 27) suggests the possibility that wdjy here derives from the relatively rare Semitic (Canaanite) root µdw/µdy, “see, (be) visible”, and that it is functioning as a substantive for the appearance/manifestation of YHWH, parallel to “light of (his) face” in v. 7. It is an intriguing suggestion, but seemingly hard to square with the text as we have it, unless corruption occurred as the original word (and its meaning) was lost in the process of transmission.

The parallelism in the verse continues:

    • hb*K=v=a# “I (will) lie down”, i.e. to sleep
    • yn]b@yv!oT “you make me sit”, i.e. rest, dwell
      and, further
    • <olv*B= “in peace”
    • jf^b#l* “with trust/security”, i.e. safe, secure

Though hard to preserve in translation, the noun jf^b# is related to the verb jf^b* in v. 6; the root fundamentally means “trust (in), rely (on)”, but its range of meaning includes the idea of safety and security—i.e. the security which God provides is the basis for our trust in Him. We have here a beautiful image of complete trust and reliance on YHWH, a model of covenant loyalty, exemplified by the ruler (and/or the Psalmist) and intended as an exhortation for all the people.

References above marked “Dahood” are to Mitchell Dahood, S.J., Psalms I: 1-50, Anchor Bible [AB] Vol. 16 (1965). Those marked “Kraus” are to Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalmen 1 Teilband (Psalmen 1-59), Neukirchener Verlag (1978), English edition Psalms 1-59 in the Continental Commentary series (Fortress Press: 1993).

Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 3

Psalm 3

This is the first entry in the Psalter (following the customary order) which begins with a superscription, which for the Psalms typically contain an indication of subject/author and a musical instruction. According to the Hebrew verse numbering, the superscription counts as the first verse, while in most English versions it is regarded as part of the verse. In such instances, I will be utilizing the Hebrew numbering, but with the English numbering in parentheses.

Verse 1

The superscription marks this work as romz+m! (mizmôr) which simply means a musical composition, often specifically one that is sung. It is also said to be dw]d*l= (l®d¹wid), which would be “(belonging) to David”, either in the sense of being written/composed by him or, that he is considered to be the subject of the work. This setting of the song (according to the superscription) is David’s flight during the rebellion by his son Absalom (cf. 2 Samuel 15-18). The historical reliability of these traditional notices is disputed by commentators; generally, it does seem that they reflect attempts to place a particular Psalm into the context of a specific Scriptural narrative, one which fits the overall mood and tone of the work. Critical scholars regard the superscriptions as traditional, but quite secondary to the Psalms themselves; even among traditional-conservative commentators, few would treat the superscriptions as part of the original (inspired) text.

Verses 2-3 (ET 1b-2)

The tone of lament, which, of course, would suit the situation of David indicated in the superscription, comes through clearly in the opening lines, in which the root bbr (“to be many”) appears three times. This sets the lone Psalmist against his “many” opponents and enemies; whether this reflects an historical reality or poetic hyperbole is impossible to say. In any case, it is to God (YHWH) that the Psalmist raises his lament to ask for deliverance:

“YHWH, how many they are [WBr^], the (one)s hostile to me,
(how) many [<yB!r^] (the one)s standing up against me,
(how) many [<yB!r^] (the one)s showing (hostility) to my soul!
—There (seems to be) no help for him with the Mightiest [i.e. God]!”

The sense of these lines is straightforward, with one notable exception which affects the specific meaning (and translation) of the passage. In the third line, we have the participle <yr!m=a), from the verb rm^a*, which is typically translated “say, speak”. Following this standard interpretation, the fourth line reflects what the “many” say to the Psalmist (to “his soul”), as a taunt: “There is no help for him with God!”. However, the original, fundamental meaning of the Semitic root rma had more to do with making something visible (“shine, show”), from which came the idea of making something known through speaking. Admittedly, this earlier meaning of rma is not attested much in the Hebrew of the Old Testament; however, poetry often preserves older/archaic usage, and that may be the case in a number of Psalms. Dahood (p. 16) cites examples where he feels rma has the meaning of “see, look (at)” rather than “say”; perhaps the most relevant example is from Ps 71:10, where rma is set parallel to rmv (“watch”) in a construction very close to that here in Ps 3:

“My enemies say/show [Wrm=a*] to me, and the (one)s watching my soul [yv!p=n~ yr@m=v)] take counsel as one [i.e. together]”

This suggests that, in these instances, rma may indeed have the sense of looking at someone (with hostile intent). I have tried to capture both possibilities by rendering the participle <yr!m=a) as “(one)s showing (hostility)”. According to this interpretation, the fourth line would not necessarily record the words of the “many”, but could simply reflect the apparent hopelessness of the situation.

Verses 4-5 (ET 3-4)

In these lines, the Psalmist’s hope is restored by reflecting on the character of YHWH—as a Ruler who has proven that he will protect and reward his loyal vassals. It begins with an address to YHWH (v. 4 [3], continuing from vv. 2-3 [1b-2]), then shifts to an objective declaration of His character:

“And (yet) you, YHWH, are (my) Protection (round) about me,
my Honorable [lit. Weighty] (One), and (the one) lifting my head (up) high.
(When) I should call out with my voice to YHWH,
(then) indeed he answers me from (the) mountain of his Holiness.
Selah

Verse 4 (3) utilizes three idioms related to the language of royalty and suzerain-vassal relations:

    • /g@m*, a noun derived from the root /ng (“surround, protect”); it is often translated “shield”, but is better rendered according to its basic meaning (“protection”), perhaps as an honorific attribute of the ruler (i.e. Protector, Defender)
    • dobK*, a noun derived from db^K*, fundamentally referring to something with weight, i.e. value, worth, etc. It refers to the honor (and honorable/noble character) of the ruler, including the authority he possesses to bestow honor on others (cf. Psalm 84:12 [11]). The specific epithet “(my) honorable (one)” as a Divine title, is found in Pss 4:3 [2]; 62:8 [7]; 66:2 (Dahood, p. 18).
    • yv!ar) <yr!m@ (“[the] one lifting/raising my head high”)—to “lift the head” or “lift the face” is an ancient Near Eastern idiom, referring to one in a position of authority who shows favor to a subordinate.

If the Psalmist affirms YHWH’s status as a trustworthy and honorable Ruler in verse 4, he publicly affirms His faithfulness again in v. 5. I would agree with commentators who take this as a conditional sentence, one which demonstrates YHWH’s faithfulness. When a person calls out to YHWH (as the Psalmist is doing), He will answer, responding to the request. We ought to read here the same Ruler-Vassal language of v. 4 and understand the condition as referring to the request of a loyal vassal (e.g. David, in the purported setting of the Psalm). Moreover, the wording “call out with my voice” is presumably meant to indicate the intensity of the situation—the earnestness of the Psalmist, as well as his desperation. The sacred-mountain locale of the Deity is common, especially in the Semitic world where the Creator God °El/Ilu was typically seen as dwelling on (or in) a great Mountain-Tent. The Canaanite sky/storm deity Haddu (i.e. “Baal”) also had a mountain dwelling. Typically, a specific mountain which came to be associated with the deity was based on actual geographic circumstances—but any mountain could fill this role, even a modest hill such as that of Zion/Jerusalem. The mountain was foremost the dwelling place of God (El/YHWH).

This is the first Psalm (in the standard Psalter) with the musical notation Selah (hl*s#). Both the etymology and technical meaning of this term remain uncertain; presumably in the Psalms it refers to some kind of musical refrain, either instrumental or choral.

Verses 6-7 (ET 5-6)

The assurance of the Psalmist in verse 5 [4] receives even greater expression in these lines, with the answer/response of YHWH cast in more personal terms, according to the needs of the Ruler’s loyal vassal (the Psalmist/David):

“(When) I should lie down and sleep, (then) I wake (again), for YHWH rests (his hand on) me.
I will not fear from the multitudes of people placed around against me.”

Verse 6 [5] is probably best read as another conditional sentence, on the pattern of v. 5 [4]; it shows that YHWH’s protection extends even to the times when his vassal is asleep. We should assume here a setting of sleeping/waking in the midst of being surrounded by enemies, a situation which is made clear again in the following line. The verb Em^s* (“lay/lean [on], hold, support”) here is a bit tricky to translate; probably the sense is twofold: (a) of God laying his hand down on the sleeping Psalmist (as protection); and (b) as support under and around him. The idea of full protection all around is implied; indeed, this is the reason why the Psalmist does not fear the enemies surrounding him. The noun hb*b*r= (“multitude”) is related to the same root bbr used in vv. 2-3 (cf. above). However, there is a separate roor bbr which means “shoot (arrows)”, and it is possible that here the expression <u* tobb=r!m@ means something like “(groups of) arrows of the people” which surround the Psalmist. We see this idiom elsewhere in Scripture, most notably in Job 16:13, but there may also be two occurrences in the Psalms. In Psalm 89:51 [50], we read:

“Remember, my Lord, the scorn of your servants,
I carry (with)in my chest the <yB!r^ of the peoples”

Here <yB!r^ as “arrows” (i.e. things shot at him) makes much more sense than “many/multitudes”. Also worth noting is Ps 18:44 [43]:

“You have brought me out (away) from the <yb!yr! of the people”

Here, in the Masoretic text, the noun in question appears to be derived from the root byr! (“strive, contend, dispute”), with the expression <u* yb@yr!m@ meaning something like “from the strife/disputes of the people”. However, again the reading “from the ‘arrows’ of the people”—i.e., the scorn/taunts as something “shot” like arrows by the people—would make equally good sense, and would only require a general repointing of the consonental text. Cf. Dahood, p. 19.

Verses 8-9 (ET 7-8)

Verse 8 [7] the Psalmist returns to the immediacy of his dire situation, calling out to YHWH to act on his behalf:

“Stand up, YHWH, save me, my Mighty (One) [i.e. God]!
That you (would) have struck all my enemies (on the) jaw,
(and would) have broken the teeth of (the) wicked (one)s!”

The verbs in the first line are imperative forms, urging YHWH to take action. The verbs in the next two lines are perfect forms, and are almost certainly to be understood as precative perfects—i.e. what the Psalmist would have God do as though it already has been accomplished. The request is made in graphic, almost gruesome terms—breaking the jaws of the enemies and shattering their teeth—symbolic of a humiliating defeat at YHWH’s hands. According to Israelite (royal) theology, even if the defeat occurs through military action, it is still seen as God’s own work on behalf of his people, and his loyal vassal the king (David). The closing line of the Psalm serves as a final refrain, calling on God (YHWH) to save his people:

“Salvation, O YHWH!—Your blessing be upon your people.”

The prefixed preposition (l) may serve as a vocative marker (hw`hyl^, “O YHWH”), and that is how I have translated it here; otherwise the phrase would mean “Salvation (belongs) to YHWH”. It seems more likely that here it is a general call to YHWH for salvation/deliverance. Actually the petition is two-fold:

    • bring salvation (to the Psalmist) in his time of need, and
    • bring blessing (hk*r*B=) to the people as a whole

This second line, especially, forms a doxology to the Psalm which is quite similar to that of Psalm 2 (cf. the previous study):

“(The) happiness of all (the one)s taking refuge in Him [i.e. in YHWH]”

The general pattern which this establishes between the first two Psalms (2 and 3) is instructive. In each instance, we have a poem/song which draws upon Israelite royal tradition and theology. The first (Psalm 2) is rooted in the tradition of the coronation/enthronement of the new king; the second (Psalm 3) purports to come from a setting in the life of David (as king). However, each utilizes royal language and imagery which expresses the idea of the king as the faithful vassal of YHWH, ruling under His favor and protection. By the time these Psalms took on definite written form, and certainly by the time the Psalter was put together, the royal traditions had been re-interpreted and applied to the Israelite/Judean people as a whole. Most likely this took place under the influence of Wisdom traditions, such as those expressed in the opening Psalm 1 (cf. the initial study). Long after the monarchy effectively ceased to exist, Israelite and Jews—collectively and individually—could identify with the Psalmist. All of the themes and motifs from the earlier royal theology take on new meaning—trust in YHWH, the favor and protection he provides, deliverance from surrounding enemies, etc.—these all now apply more directly to the people‘s relationship with God. We will see this dynamic repeated numerous times as we proceed through these studies.

Interestingly, despite the royal/Davidic setting, there is no real evidence that Psalm 3 was ever interpreted or applied in a Messianic sense; this differs markedly from Psalm 2, as we saw.

Also, for those interested, I made no mention above of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the simple reason that Psalm 3 is not preserved among the surviving manuscripts of the Psalter. This is unfortunate, as it may have elucidated one or two textual points discussed above.

Yeshua the Anointed, Part 8: The Son of David

In Parts 6 and 7 of this series, I explored the background of the Messianic figure-type of King/Ruler from the line of David, examining the belief from the standpoint of Jewish writings in the 1st-centuries B.C./A.D., as well as the New Testament. In this part, I will be looking in more detail at the specific identification of Jesus as an Anointed Ruler from the line of David. This article will be divided into three areas of study:

    • The Gospel tradition—the Passion narratives and use of the expression “Son of David”
    • The association with David in early Christian Tradition (elsewhere in the New Testament)
    • The Infancy Narratives (Matthew 1-2; Luke 1-2)

The Gospel Tradition

For a survey and initial examination of the relevant and essential references, see the previous article. Here I will focus on: (1) The expression “Son of David”, (2) The question regarding the Messiah and the Son of David in Mark 12:35-37 par, and (3) The scene of the Triumphal Entry.

“Son of David”

Prior to Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem (according to the Synoptic narrative), and apart from the Infancy narratives and genealogy of Jesus (cf. below), the expression “Son of David” occurs 9 times—six of which are from the single Synoptic episode of Jesus’ encounter with the blind beggar on the way from Jericho (Mark 10:46-52, par Lk 18:35-43; Matt 20:29-34). In Mark’s account, this beggar (identified by name as Bartimaios, “Son of Timay” [Matthew refers to two beggars]), when he hears that Jesus is passing by, cries out: “Yeshua, (you) Son of David, show mercy (to) me!” (Mk 10:47, repeated in v. 48). The double-declaration, emphasizing the title “Son of David”, is more than just an historical circumstance; it reflects an important Gospel identification of Jesus, which will appear again in the Triumphal Entry scene and on through the Passion narrative. At the historical level, the beggar may simply have used the expression as an honorific title in addressing Jesus and does not necessarily indicate any particular Messianic belief (cf. verse 51 where he addresses Jesus as Rabbouni [on this title, cf. Part 4]).

Matthew records a similar (doublet) episode in Matt 9:27-31, where again two beggars cry out “show mercy to us, Son of David!” (v. 27); and similarly in Matthew’s version of Jesus healing the daughter of a Canaanite woman (Matt 15:22ff par). There thus appears, at least in Matthew’s Gospel, to be a connection between Jesus’ healing miracles and the address as “Son of David”. This is confirmed by the introductory narrative in Matt 12:22-23, where Jesus is said to have healed a demon-afflicted man who was blind (and mute); the reaction by the crowd is narrated as follows (v. 23):

“And all the throngs (of people) stood out of (themselves) [i.e. were amazed] and said, ‘This (man) is not the Son of David(, is he)?'”

The implication is that Jesus’ miracles lead the people to think that he might be the “Son of David”, almost certainly a reference to the Messianic figure of the Ruler (from the line of David) who is expected to appear at the end-time. Interestingly, however, there is little evidence, in Jewish writings of the period, for such an Anointed Ruler as a worker of (healing) miracles. As demonstrated previously (cf. Parts 6 and 7), the role of the Davidic Messiah was expressed in terms of the Scriptural motifs from Gen 49:10; Num 24:17ff; Psalm 2; Isa 11:1-4, etc—he who will judge and subdue/destroy the wicked nations and establish a Kingdom of peace and security for the people of God. Miracles, on the other hand, were more directly associated with the Prophet-figures of Elijah and Moses, and, especially, with the Anointed Prophet/herald of Isaiah 61:1ff (cf. Parts 2 & 3)—Jesus expressly identifies himself with this latter Messianic figure-type in Luke 4:18-20ff and 7:18-23 par. There is a loose parallel to Matt 12:23 in John 7:40-43, where people debate whether Jesus might be “the Prophet” or “the Anointed One”. In verse 42, some in the crowd declare: “Does not the Writing [i.e. Scripture] say that the Anointed (One) comes out of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem the town of David?” (for a list of the relevant Scriptures in this regard, cf. in Part 6). In Jn 7:41-42, the crowd is reacting to Jesus’ words (teaching), rather than his miracles.

Mark 12:35-37 / Matt 22:41-46 / Luke 20:41-44

In this Synoptic episode (set during Passion week in Jerusalem), Jesus himself raises a question regarding the relationship between the “Anointed (One)” and the “Son of David”, based on an exposition of Psalm 110:1. The precise meaning and intent of Jesus’ argument continues to be debated by commentators. Only traces survive of the historical setting—it appears to be part of a scholarly discussion between Jesus and certain authorities on Scripture (Scribes/Pharisees), a context that is best preserved in Matthew’s account (Matt 22:41-43ff) which records at least part of an exchange. In Mark and Luke, this is framed as a pair of (rhetorical) questions by Jesus:

    • Question 1: How do they count/consider the Anointed (One) to be the son of David? (Lk 20:41)
    • Question 2: (But) David calls him “Lord” and how is he (then) his son? (Lk 20:44)

The second question is based on the common-place idea that the son would call his father “Lord” (“Master, Sir”), not the other way around. The first question assumes that the “Anointed (One)”—here the future Anointed King/Ruler—would be a descendant of David, which is attested in Jewish writings of the period, as well as in the New Testament (cf. the previous two articles). The identification is derived from Scriptures such as 2 Sam 7:11-16; Psalm 132:10-12, etc. It is in this context that Jesus cites another Scripture—Psalm 110:1 (Lk 20:42-43 par), and the way he uses it would indicate that it was commonly understood in a Messianic sense; however, there does not appear to be any other surviving evidence for such an interpretation in Judaism at the time of Jesus (see the supplemental note).

In my view, Jesus uses Psalm 110:1 as a clever way to shift the meaning of “the Anointed (One)” from the Davidic King figure-type over to a different reference point—that of a coming Divine/Heavenly figure, generally referred to elsewhere by Jesus as “the Son of Man” (from Daniel 7:13). This particular Messianic figure will be discussed in detail in an upcoming article in this series.

The Triumphal Entry (Mark 11:1-11 / Matt 21:1-11 / Luke 19:28-40ff / John 12:12-19)

In the episode of Jesus’ (“Triumphal”) Entry into Jerusalem, recorded in all four Gospels—the Synoptic tradition and John—there are four distinctive Messianic elements to the narrative, the last three of which specifically relate to the idea of an Anointed (Davidic) King:

  • Malachi 3:1ff—the Messenger of the Lord coming to Jerusalem (and the Temple) at the time of Judgment (the Day of YHWH). I have argued that originally, this referred to a Divine/Heavenly being (Messenger of YHWH) who would appear as the personal representative (or embodiment) of YHWH himself. Eventually in the Gospels, by way of Mal 4:5-6 and subsequent Jewish tradition, the “Messenger” was interpreted as John the Baptist (“Elijah”) who prepares the way for the Lord (Jesus) to come into Jerusalem (and the Temple). In the Synoptic narrative, the disciples take over this role of “preparing the way” for Jesus (Mark 11:1-6 par, cf. also Lk 9:52; 10:1).
  • Zechariah 9:9ff—a future/eschatological King who will come to Jerusalem and establish a new reign of peace for Israel (Ephraim/Judah). The imagery in the Triumphal entry scene is a clear allusion to this passage, cited explicitly in Matt 21:4-7 and John 12:14-15. If we accept the historicity of Mark 11:2-6 par, then there is a strong likelihood that Jesus intentionally identified himself with the King of Zech 9:9-16. In any event, early Christians certainly made the connection.
  • The use of Psalm 118:26—In all four versions, the crowd recites Ps 118:26a: “Blessed is the (one) coming in the name of the Lord” (Mk 11:9/Matt 21:9/Lk 19:38/Jn 12:13). The original context and background of the Psalm had to do with the return of the (victorious) king to Jerusalem following battle (vv. 10ff), but early on it was used in a ritual/festal setting (vv. 26-27), and was recited as one of the ‘Hallel’ Psalms on the great feasts such as Passover and Sukkoth (Tabernacles). Jesus identified himself as the “one coming” in Luke 13:35 (par Matt 23:39), and there is very likely also a reference to this in Lk 19:41-44 (immediately following the Entry), blending, it would seem, the ancient traditions underlying Mal 3:1 and Psalm 118:26. Cf. also the use of Psalm 118:22f in Mark 12:10-11 par and elsewhere in early Christian tradition (Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4-7; Eph 2:20).
  • The Exclamation of the crowds—In addition to the use of Psalm 118:26, in all four Gospels, the crowds, in greeting Jesus, variously include references to David, King, or Kingdom:
    • Mark 11:10: “…blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!”
    • Matt 21:9: “Hosanna to the to the son of David…!”
    • Luke 19:38: “Blessed is the (One) coming, the King…[or, the coming King]”
    • John 12:13 “…[and] the King of Israel!”

We might also note the detail, unique to John’s account, of the use of palm branches by the crowds (Jn 12:13a), which could have a royal connotation (cf. 1 Maccabees 13:51; Testament of Naphtali 5:4). For a similar example of the crowds greeting an approaching sovereign, see Josephus, Wars of the Jews 7.100-103.

Early Christian Tradition (in the New Testament)

In the early Christian preaching (kerygma) as recorded in the first half of the book of Acts, Jesus is associated with David in several ways: (1) David prophesied in the Psalms regarding Jesus’ death and resurrection, (2) specific Psalms given a Messianic interpretation are applied to Jesus, and (3) Jesus is seen as fulfilling the covenant and promise to David. The most notable references are:

  • Acts 2:25-36, which cites Psalm 16:8-11 in the context of Jesus death and resurrection (vv. 25-28), and Psalm 110:1 in terms of Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand God in Heaven (vv. 34-35). In verse 30, Jesus is seen as the descendant of David who would sit on the throne as King (cf. Ps 132:10-11 and 2 Sam 7:11-16 etc), and is specifically said to be the “Anointed (One)” of God in the concluding verse 36.
  • Acts 4:25-27, where Psalm 2:1-2 is cited and applied to the Passion of Jesus; again he is identified with the “Anointed (One)” of God.
  • Acts 13:22ff, 33-37—again Psalm 2 and 16 are cited (Ps 2:7; 16:10), as well as Isaiah 55:3, indicating that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise/covenant with David.

Elsewhere in the New Testament, there are several references to Jesus as a descendant of David:

    • Romans 1:3—”…about His Son, the (one) coming to be out of the seed of David according to (the) flesh”
    • 2 Timothy 2:8—”Remember Yeshua (the) Anointed (One), having been raised out of the dead, (and) out of the seed of David…”
    • Revelation 22:16—(Jesus speaking) “I am the root and the ge/no$ of David…” (cf. also Rev 5:5, and note 3:7)

In Rev 22:16, ge/no$ is literally the coming to be (cf. gi/nomai in Rom 1:3), in the sense of something which grows or comes forth (from the ground, womb, etc), i.e. “offspring”, but given the use of “root” (r(i/za) something like “sprout” or “branch” may be intended. Jesus declares that he is both the root of David and the branch/sprout coming out of the root. For the Messianic significance of such images (from Isa 11:1ff etc), see the discussion in Part 7.

While the Anointed Ruler in Messianic expectation was thought to be a fulfillment of the covenant with David, and a continuation/restoration of that line, it is not always clear that this was understood in a concrete, biological sense. However, many early Christians certainly believed that Jesus was born from the line of David, and this is reflected in Romans 1:3. It was a central aspect of the Infancy narratives in the Gospels, as well as the associated genealogies of Jesus; and it is these passages which we will look at next.

The Infancy Narratives (Matthew 1-2; Luke 1-2)

I am treating these famous portions of the Gospels (of Matthew and Luke) separately, since they seem to reflect a somewhat later, and more developed, Christological understanding than that found elsewhere in the Synoptic tradition. This does not mean that the events recorded are not historical or factual, but rather that they appear to have been carefully shaped by a layer of interpretation within the composition of the narrative. To judge from the book of Acts and the NT letters, Jesus’ birth appears to have played little or no role in early Christian preaching and teaching; indeed, outside of the Infancy narratives, it is scarcely mentioned at all in the New Testament. Even the belief in Jesus as a descendant of David (cf. above) does not play an especially prominent role in early Christian tradition. The matter is rather different in the Infancy narratives—Jesus’ birth, and his identification as the Anointed Ruler (from the line of David), are set within a dense matrix of Old Testament Scriptural parallels and allusions (on this, cf. the Christmas season series “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus“). In just four relatively short chapters, we find dozens of references, the most relevant of which are outlined here:

  • Both Infancy narratives are connected with (separate) genealogies of Jesus (Matt 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38), which show him to be a descendant of David (Matt 1:6, 17; Lk 3:31-32). Matthew begins his genealogy (and the Gospel)  with the title: “The paper-roll [i.e. book] of the coming-to-be [ge/nesi$] of Yeshua (the) Anointed, son of David, son of Abraham” (1:1).
  • There are additional references to Joseph (Jesus’ earthly, legal father) as “son of David” (in the Angel’s address to him, Matt 1:20), as being from the “house of David” (Lk 1:27) and from the “house and paternal descent of David” (Lk 2:4). Some traditional-conservative commentators, as a way of harmonizing the apparent (and rather blatant) discrepancies between the genealogies in Matthew of Luke, have claimed that they actually reflect the lines of Joseph and Mary, respectively. This is flatly contradicted by the text itself—both genealogies belong to Joseph (Matt 1:16; Lk 3:23). However, the belief that Mary was from the line of David, and that Jesus was thus a true biological descendant of David, came to be relatively widespread in the early Church; Paul himself may have held this view (cp. Rom 1:3 and Gal 4:4).
  • Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, attested by separate (and independent) lines of tradition, is recorded in Matthew 2:1ff and Lk 2:1-20 (cf. also John 7:41-42). Bethlehem is specifically called “the city of David” in Luke 2:4-11, and connected with the (Messianic) prophecy of Micah 5:2 in Matthew 2:5ff (and cf. Jn 7:42).
  • The expectation of a future/coming Davidic Ruler (“King of the Jews”) called “the Anointed (One)” is clearly attested in Matthew 2:1-8, with the citation (and Messianic interpretation) of Micah 5:2.
  • The Angelic announcement in Luke 2:10-12 links David (“the city of David”) with “(the) Anointed (One)” and “(the) Lord”, reinforcing the royal and Messianic implications of Jesus’ birth. For the parallel between the “good news” of Jesus’ birth and the birth of Augustus in the Roman world (contemporary with Jesus), cf. my earlier Christmas season note.
  • The shepherd motif in Lk 2:8ff etc, may contain an allusion to passages such as Micah 4:8; 5:4 (cf. Matt 2:6) and Ezekiel 34:11ff (vv. 23-24)—passages both connected to David and influential on Messianic thought.
  • In the hymn or canticle of Zechariah (the Benedictus), the first strophe (Lk 1:68-69) reads:
    “He has come (to) look upon and make (a) loosing (from bondage) for his people,
    and he raised a horn of salvation for us in the house of David his child”
    This latter expression and image is derived from Scriptures such as 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalm 18:2; 132:17 and Ezekiel 29:21.
  • There are a number of other Scripture references or allusions in the Lukan hymns which should be noted—
    1 Sam 2:1-2; Psalm 35:9 (Lk 1:46-47)
    Psalm 89:10 (Lk 1:51-52)
    2 Sam 22:51 (Lk 1:55)
    1 Kings 1:48 (Lk 1:68a)
    Psalm 18:17 (Lk 1:71, 74)
    Psalm 89:3 (Lk 1:72-73)
    1 Kings 9:4-5 (Lk 1:74-75)
    {Num 24:17} (Lk 1:78)
    [On these and other references, cf. R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, Anchor Bible Reference Library (ABRL 1977, 1993), pp. 358-60, 386-9, 456-9]

Most significant of all is the Angelic annunciation to Mary in Luke 1:30-37, especially the pronouncement or prophecy in vv. 32-33:

“This one [i.e. Jesus] will be great and will be called ‘Son of the Highest’, and the Lord God will give to him the seat (of power) [i.e. throne] of David his father, and he will be king upon the house of Jacob into the Age, and there will be no completion [i.e. end] of his kingdom

(and, also in v. 35b:)

“…therefore the (child) coming to be (born) will be called holy, (the) son of God

There is no clearer instance in all the New Testament of Jesus being identified as the coming/future Ruler from the line of David. As I have noted on several occasions, there is a remarkably close parallel, in the combination of these titles and expressions, in the Aramaic text 4Q246 from Qumran (see italicized phrases above):

    • “he will be great over the earth” [column i, line 7]
    • “he will be called son of God” [column ii, line 1a]
    • “and they will call him son of the Most High” [column ii, line 1b]
    • “his kingdom will be an eternal kingdom” [column ii, line 5]
    • “his rule will be an eternal rule” [column ii, line 9]

Yeshua the Anointed, Part 6: The Davidic King (Overview and Background)

With this article, we will begin exploring the Messianic figure-type of Anointed King, which is probably what most people think of when they hear the term “Messiah”—a future ruler from the line of David who will “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6). However, as I have already discussed and demonstrated at length, Messianic thought and belief at the time of Jesus cannot be limited to this particular figure-type. When we see the term “Anointed (One)” (xristo/$, christós) in the Gospels, we ought not to assume that it necessarily means a Davidic King, though in subsequent Jewish tradition it did come to carry this meaning almost exclusively. Even by the time of the New Testament, however, the expectation of such an end-time Anointed Ruler was relatively widespread, and, by the end of the 1st-century A.D. was probably the dominant Messianic figure-type, with other traditions having merged into it. Because of the scope and complexity of the subject, it will be necessary to spread it out over three parts:

    • Part 1: Overview and Background
    • Part 2: Detailed Analysis, examining specific passages from Jewish writings and the New Testament
    • Part 3: “Son of David”—the use of the title in the Gospels and its application to Jesus in early Christian belief

Old Testament Background

It is necessary to begin with the Old Testament Scriptures which provide the foundation for the expectation of a coming Davidic Ruler at the end-time. As I pointed out in the Introduction, kings in the Ancient Near East were consecrated through the ritual/ceremonial act of anointing (with oil). This is recorded numerous times in the Old Testament, typically with the verb jv^m* (m¹šaµ, “rub, smear, apply [paint etc]”)—Judg 9:8, 15; 1 Sam 9:16; 10:1; 15:1, 17; 16:3, et al. The noun j^yv!m* (m¹šîaµ, “anointed [one]”) is used of the reigning/ruling king in 1 Sam 2:10, 35; 16:6; Psalm 2:2; 20:7; 84:10 (also Psalm 28:8; Hab 3:13 ?), and specifically of kings such as Saul (1 Sam 24:7, 11; 26:9, 11, 16, 23; 2 Sam 1:14, 16, 21 [?], cf. also 1 Sam 12:3, 5), and especially David (and/or the Davidic line, 2 Sam 19:22; 22:51; 23:1; Psalm 18:51; 89:39, 52; 132:10, 17, including Solomon in 2 Chron 6:42). David and his son Solomon were the greatest of Israel’s kings, and under their rule the kingdom reached by far its greatest extent of territory, sovereignty (over vassal states), wealth and prestige. It is only natural that, following the decline and fall of the kingdom(s) of Israel/Judah in the 8th-6th centuries, Israelites and Jews in the Exile, and for generations thereafter, would look to David as the ideal king, especially when judged in terms of political and military power.

Even in the Old Testament itself, we see the promise of a future Davidic ruler, and its development can generally be outlined as follows:

  • In the time of David and Solomon, a specific royal (Judean) theology grew up around the kingship, expressed and preserved in specific Psalms which would have enormous influence on subsequent Jewish (and Christian) thought. Two Psalms in particular—Psalm 2 and 110—set around the enthronement/coronation/inauguration of the (new) king, draw upon ancient Near Eastern language and symbolism, depicting the reigning king as God’s appointed, chosen representative (figuratively, his “son” [Ps 2:7])
  • This same theology crystalized in the Scriptural narrative, associated with a particular oracle by Nathan the prophet, regarding the future of the Davidic dynasty (2 Samuel 7:8-16). The critical and interpretive difficulties regarding this section are considerable, and cannot be delved into here. The prayer of David following in 2 Sam 7:18-29 must be read in context, along with the parallel(s) in Psalm 89 (cf. also 2 Sam 22:44-51 / Ps 18:44-51).
  • The so-called Deuteronomic history (Judges–Kings) uses an ethical and narrative framework, comparing the good and wicked kings, according to the extent to which they followed the way of the Lord—defined, in part, in terms of the example of David (“as David his Father did”, 1 Kings 9:4; 11:4-6, 33-34, etc). David thus serves, in many ways, as the model/ideal ruler. Historical circumstances clearly showed that the promise regarding the Davidic dynasty was conditional—his descendants would maintain rule only so far as they remained faithful and obedient to God (cf. 1 Kings 11:9-13, 31-39). Thus the oracle of Nathan would be (re)interpreted to allow for a (temporary) end to Davidic kingship.
  • The Davidic promise is given new form in the oracles of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel, in the historical context of the fall of Judah and the Babylonian exile. Jer 23:5ff declares that God will raise for David “a righteous sprout [qyD!x* jm^x#]” who will rule as king. The same expression and message is found in Jer 33:14-16ff. That these prophecies point to the future, in contrast to the historical circumstances in the prophet’s own time, is indicated by the surrounding context (cf. Jer 22:30; 33:19-26). In Ezekiel 34:23-24, there is a similar promise that God raise up for Israel “one shepherd, my servant David”; cf. also Ezek 37:24-25.
  • In the early post-Exilic period, Zerubbabel appears to have been seen as a fulfillment of the restoration of Davidic rule (Haggai 2:21-24; Zechariah 4:6-14, cf. also 3:8; 6:11-14). Ultimately, of course, the true fulfillment had to wait for a future coming King, as indicated in the (later) oracle Zech 9:9-10ff.

There are several other Scripture passages which would play a key role in the development of Messianic expectation:

  • Genesis 49:10—part of the blessing of Jacob over his sons, specifically for Judah (vv. 8-12), where it is stated:
    “The (ruling) staff will not turn aside from Judah, nor the engraved rod from between his feet, until the (time/point) which shîloh comes, and the obedience of the peoples will be(long) to him.”
    The exact meaning of hýyv! (šîlœ, shiloh) remains uncertain and problematic. Among many commentators today, the element yv is read as a relative particle attached to a suffixed preposition (i.e. “…until he comes to whom it [i.e. the staff] belongs”). The JPS Torah Commentary (N. Sarna on Genesis [1989], pp. 336-7), following earlier Rabbinic interpretation, reads it as the noun yv^ (šay, “gift, homage, tribute”) attached to the preposition, resulting in the attractive poetic line “…until tribute comes to him, and the homage/obedience of the peoples be(long) to him”. However, by the time of Jesus, shiloh had already come to be understood as a Messianic title, as seen in the (pesher) Commentary on Genesis from Qumran (4Q252 frag. 1, col. 5); and so it would often be interpreted subsequently in the Targums as well as in Jewish (and Christian) tradition.
  • Numbers 24:17-19—in the fourth oracle of Balaam (Num 24:15-24), we find the famous line: “…a star will march/tread (forth) from Jacob, and staff will stand (up) [i.e. rise] from Israel” (v. 17). The first verb (Er^D*) can also be understood in terms of (exercising) dominion; that the seer speaks of a conquering/ruling king is clear from the following verses (“and from Jacob he will [come and] tread [them down]”, v. 19a). Verse 17a ambiguously sets this prophecy in the future: “I see him/it, but not (yet) now; I observe him/it, but not (yet) near”. This passage was understood as a Messianic prophecy by the time of Jesus (cf. the references below), as well as in the Targums (Onkelos, Jonathan); famously it was applied to the quasi-Messianic revolutionary leader Ben-Kosiba (“Bar-Kokhba” = “Son of the Star”), cf. j. Ta’anit 68d.
  • Isaiah 11:1-9—the prophecy begins with the declaration “A branch will go out from the stem of Jesse, a fresh/green (sprout) will grow (out) from his roots”. This passage, along with Psalm 2, would be extremely influential in associating the coming Davidic ruler with the defeat/subjugation of the nations and the end-time Judgment. Here also we find the idea of Judgment (vv. 3-4) followed by a new Age of peace (vv. 6-9), common to much Messianic thought. In relation to Jesus, we may note the reference to the Holy Spirit resting upon him (cf. Isa 61:1 / Lk 4:18ff; and the description of his Baptism, Mk 1:10 par).
  • Amos 9:11-15—a promise for the (future) restoration of Israel/Judah, which begins with God declaring: “On that day I will make stand up (again) [i.e. raise] the hut of David th(at) has fallen…” Here the ‘hut’ (i.e. a covering, presumably woven with branches) represents the “house of David”, his kingdom/dynasty. By the time of Jesus, this passage had come to be understood in a Messianic sense, as indicated by the Qumran text 4QFlorilegium [4Q174]; cf. also in the Damascus Document [CD 7, manuscript A] and the citation in Acts 15:16-18.
  • Micah 5:2-5 [Hebrew 5:1-4]—famous from Matthew 2:1-12, this prophecy refers to a coming (Davidic) ruler, who will restore/reunite the kingdom of Israel (cf. also Mic 4:8), establishing a reign of peace and security.
  • Zech 3:8; 6:12-13—references to the “sprout” or “branch” [jm^x#] (cf. above).
  • Daniel 9:25-26—the famous and controversial reference to an “Anointed leader/ruler [dyg]n` j^yv!m*]”, set in the context of the prophecy of Seventy Weeks (cf. Jer 25:11-12; 29:10; Dan 9:2). The exact identity of this Anointed figure, in the original historical/literary context, remains much debated. The term dyg]n` generally refers to a prominent leader/ruler, etc.—often specifically of a military commander, but it can also be used of religious leaders (i.e. priests) and various kinds of dignitaries. This passage will be discussed, by way of a supplementary note, in a subsequent article.

The Messiah-King figure in Judaism

Here it is best to begin with a survey of references from the Qumran (and related) texts, most of which can be dated from sometime in the 1st century B.C.

j^yv!m* (m¹šîaµ), “Anointed”

We find the specific expression “the Anointed (One) of Israel” in the Damascus Document (CD 12:23-13:1; 14:19 [= 4Q266 10 i 12]; 19:10-11; 20:1), as well as the Qumran 1QS 9:11 (passage apparently missing from 4Q259 1 iii 6); 1QSa 2:14-15, 20-21; and also 4Q382 16 2. In most of these passages it is the role as future leader of the Community that is emphasized, though the end-time Judgment on the wicked is also implied. Several of these references are to “the Anointed (One)s of Aaron and Israel“, indicating the expectation of an Anointed Priest-figure (to be discussed in an upcoming article). Though not specified, “Anointed (One) of Israel” presumably refers to a (Davidic) Ruler (cf. below); the simple “Anointed (One)” in 1QSa 2:11-12; 4Q381 15 7; 4Q458 2 ii 6 probably refers to the same figure. In 4Q252 5:3-4, the “Anointed (One) of Righteousness” is identified as the “branch [jm^x#] of David”.

ayc!n` (n¹´î°), “Prince/Leader”

The term ayc!n` literally means “(one who is) lifted up”, i.e. raised/lifted over the other people as ruler or leader, often translated “Prince”. In the Qumran texts, it appears to be used often in a Messianic sense, likely inspired by Ezek 34:24; 37:25. Presumably it refers to a (Davidic) ruler-figure also called “the Anointed of Israel” (above, cf. 4Q496 10 3-4). The texts generally mention him in the context of his role as leader/commander over the Community, expressed especially by the larger expression “Prince of (all) the congregation” (hduh [lk] aycn)—CD 7:19-20; 1QSb 5:20; 1QM 5:1; 4Q161 2-6 ii 19; 4Q266 3 iii 21; 4Q285 4 2, 6; 5 4; 6 2; 4Q376 1 iii 1. In CD 7:19-20, he is identified as the ruler’s staff [fbv] that will arise from Israel in Num 24:17 (cf. above), and with the “branch of David” in 4Q285 5 4. In the War Rule [1QM] he participates in the defeat and judgment of the nations (cf. also 4Q285 4 6).

dyw]d` jm^x# (ƒemaµ D¹wîd), “Branch of David”

This expression is derived from Jer 23:5; 33:15 (also Isa 11:1; Zech 3:8; 6:12, cf. above), and clearly refers to a coming Davidic ruler. His end-time appearance is interpreted as a fulfillment of several of the Old Testament Scriptures outlined above. The expression is found in the following Qumran texts: 4Q161 7-10 iii 22; 4Q174 1-3 i 11 (on 2 Sam 7:14); 4Q252 5:3-4 (on Gen 49:10); and 4Q285 5 3,4 (executing judgment on the wicked/nations).

Other references in the Qumran texts

In light of the Messianic interpretation of the “staff” [fbv] from Gen 49:10 and Num 24:17 (in CD 7:19-20 [4Q266 3 iv 9]; 1QM 11:6-7 and 4Q175 12), we might also mention the occurrence of the word in the fragmentary texts 4Q161 2-6 ii 19 [restored] and 4Q521 2 iii 6.

Also, given the association of the Anointed (Davidic) ruler as God’s “Son” (/B#) in 2 Sam 7:14; Psalm 2:7 and related tradition (cf. the interpretation of 2 Sam 7:14 in 4Q174), we should also mention 4Q246, referenced in previous notes and articles, which refers to the future rising of a (Messianic?) King who is given the titles “son of God” and “Son of the Most High” (col. 2, line 1, cf. Luke 1:32, 35). Note also the apparent reference to a particular figure as God’s “firstborn [rwkb] (son)” in the uncertain fragments 4Q369 1 ii 6; 4Q458 15 1.

Other Jewish Writings from the 1st centuries B.C./A.D.

Several of these passages will be discussed in more detail in the next article; I list the most relevant references here, in summary/outline form:

  • Sirach 47:11, which mentions the exaltation of David’s horn (by contrast, cf. 45:25; 49:4-5); note also the Hebrew prayer following Sir 51:12 (8th line)—”give thanks to him who makes a horn to sprout for the house of David…” [NRSV translation].
  • The 17th and 18th of the so-called Psalms of Solomon, especially the reference to David in Ps Sol 17:21, to the “Anointed” of God in Ps Sol 17:32[36]; 18:5, 7, and the influence of Psalm 2 and Isa 11:4ff throughout (cf. 17:21-25ff; 18:6-8).
  • The Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch) 29:3; 30:1; 39:7; 40:1; 70:9; 72:2 [Syriac]; and note esp. the context of chs. 72-74, which describe the coming Messiah, judgment of the nations, and the establishment of the (Messianic) Kingdom of God on earth.
  • 2/4 Esdras (4 Ezra)—the core of the book (chapters 4-13, esp. 7, 11-12, 13:3-14:9) assumes an eschatological framework similar that of 2 Baruch (both books are typically dated from the end of the 1st century A.D.). The “Messiah” is specifically referred to in 7:28-29 (called God’s “Son”) and 12:32 (identified as the offspring of David).
  • The prophecy by Balaam (Num 24:17) is given a Messianic interpretation in the Testament of Levi 18:3ff and Testament of Judah 24:1-6. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as we have them are Christian (2nd cent. A.D.?) expansions/adaptations of earlier Jewish material, such as we seen in the Aramaic Levi text [4QTLevi] from Qumran.

The Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37-71) make mention numerous times of the “Righteous/Elect One” and “Son of Man”—a heavenly figure who functions as judge and ruler over the nations, and is presumably the one called God’s “Anointed” in 1 Enoch 48:10; 52:4—however the promise of the restoration of Davidic rule plays little or no part in the book. Nor does the idea of a Davidic Messiah-figure have any importance in the writings of Josephus and Philo. The quasi-Messianic figures described in Antiquities 18.85-87, 20.97-8, 169-72 and Wars 7.437ff seem to represent end-time wonder-working Prophets according to the type of Elijah or Moses, rather than a Davidic king. However, Josephus claims that the war against Rome (66-70 A.D.) was fueled by a prophecy (perhaps the oracle of Balaam, Num 24:15-29 [cf. above]) that one coming from Judea would rule the world (Wars 6.312f, cf. also Tacitus Hist. 5.13.2; Suetonius Vespasian 4.5). Somewhat later, such an interpretation (of Num 24:17) certainly played a role in the Bar-Kokhba rebellion (132-135 A.D.), and Messianic expectation perhaps influenced the revolt of 115-117 A.D. in Egypt and Cyrenaica as well.

For a convenient collection of many of the Qumran references cited above, I have found most useful the article by Martin G. Abegg and Craig A. Evans, “Messianic Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls” in Qumran Messianism: Studies on the Messianic Expectations in the Dead Sea Scrolls, eds. James H. Charlesworth, Hermann Lichtenberger, and Gerbern S. Oegema (Mohr Siebeck: 1998), pages 191-203.

Birth of the Son of God: Romans 1:3-4

Continuing with the Christmas season theme of “The Birth of the Son of God”, the last articles in this series looked at Jesus as the “Son of God” within the context of early Christian preaching (i.e., the sermon-speeches in the book of Acts)—in Acts 2:29-36 and 13:26-41. Today I will examine Romans 1:3-4, often considered by scholars to be part of an early creed or hymn adapted and included by Paul within his greeting.

Romans 1:3-4

The opening and greeting (Epistolary Prescript [praescriptio]) of Romans 1:1-7 is actually a single sentence in Greek, framed by verses 1 and 7—”Paul…. to the (one)s in Rome…”—and the core of which is built upon the concluding words of verse 1: “the good message [i.e. Gospel] of God”. The syntax of vv. 2-6 may be outlined as follows:

“the good message of God”—

  • which [o^] He gave as a message [i.e. announced/promised] before(hand) through his Foretellers in (the) holy Writings (v. 2)
  • about [peri\] His Son [tou= ui(ou= au)tou=] (v. 3)
    • the (one) coming to be [tou= genome/nou] out of the seed of David (v. 3)
      —according to the flesh
    • the (one) marked (out) [tou= o(risqe/nto$] (as) Son of God [ui(ou= qeou=] in power (v. 4)
      —according to (the) spirit of holiness out of the standing-up [i.e. resurrection] of the dead
    • Yeshua (the) Anointed [xristou=] our Lord [tou= kuri/ou] (vv. 4-5)
      • through whom [di’ ou!]
        • we have received… (v. 5)
          • in [e)n] all the nations
          • in/among [e)n] whom (v. 6)
        • you also are called
      • of Yeshua (the) Anointed

Verses 3-6 represent the Christological kerygmatic statement that “fills” the epistolary prescript, in two portions:

  • vv. 3-4 are about Christ proper (i.e. the person of Christ)
  • vv. 5-6 are about believers in Christ (the result of his work)

Verses 3-4—this verse pair is made up of two participial phrases:

  • “the one coming to be” [tou= genome/nou] (v. 3)
    • “out of the seed of David” [e)k spe/rmato$ Daui\d]
    • “according to (the) flesh” [kata\ sa/rka]
  • “the one marked (out)” [tou= o(risqe/nto$] (v. 4)
    • “(as) Son of God in power” [ui(ou= qeou= e)n duna/mei]
    • “according to (the) spirit of holiness” [kata\ pneu=ma a(giwsu/nh$]
      • “out of (the) standing-up [i.e. resurrection] of the dead” [e)c a)nasta/sew$ nekrw=n]

The poetic parallelism is clear, with the possible exception of the last phrase. Let us look at each verse in detail.

Romans 1:3

First, it should be noted that manuscripts 51 61* 441 and later Byzantine MSS, read gennwme/nou (gennœménou) instead of genome/nou (genoménou), also reflected in some versional witnesses (Syriac and Old Latin MSS). The reading gennwme/nou, from genna/w (“come to be [born]”) rather than cognate gi/nomai (“come to be”), would more specifically emphasize Jesus’ birth, as mentioned in my discussion of genna/w/gi/nomai in prior notes. That such a reading could be seen as indicating the reality of Jesus’ human birth, can be seen from the arguments by Tertullian (On the Flesh of Christ §22) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.22.1) against their “gnostic” opponents. However, genome/nou is certainly the original reading. Occasionally, traditional-conservative scholars have cited the use of gi/nomai (instead of genna/w) here as evidence for Paul’s belief in the virgin birth, but this reads far too much into the text.

In terms of the reality of Jesus’ birth, this is already indicated with the phrase kata\ sa/rka (“according to [the] flesh”)—an expression normally used by Paul in a different theological/anthropological sense (part of a dualistic contrast between “flesh” and “spirit”), cf. Rom 8:4-9, 12-13; Gal 3:2-3; 5:16-19; 1 Cor 5:5; Phil 3:3. Here, it is used in an ‘ordinary’, conventional sense—of Jesus’ human nature, growth and upbringing, his ethnic/social background, etc—comparable to that in Rom 4:1; 9:3, 5. For similar early use of “flesh” (sa/rc) in this respect, applied to Christ, see 1 Pet 3:18, and the ‘credal/hymnic fragment’ in 1 Tim 3:16.

The phrase “out of the seed of David” (e)k spe/rmato$ Daui\d) is somewhat more problematic. That Jesus was a (real) descendant of David is evidenced by the Matthean/Lukan genealogies (Matt 1:1-17 [v. 6]; Luke 3:23-38 [v. 31]), as well as Acts 2:30; Luke 1:32, 69; 2 Tim 2:8; Rev 5:5; 22:16, and may implied in Mark 12:35-37 par; John 7:42. Within the Infancy narratives, Joseph certainly is designated as a descendant of David (Luke 1:27; 2:4; Matt 1:20), and this is presumably how the genealogies are to be understood—i.e., Joseph as legal (but not biological) parent of Jesus. Here too, in Romans, “out of the seed of David, according to the flesh” could be viewed in this same legal/metaphorical sense, except that a comparison with Gal 4:4 suggests otherwise:

“coming to be [geno/menou] out of the seed of David [e)k spe/rmato$ Daui\d]” (Rom 1:3)
“coming to be [geno/menon] out of a woman [e)k gunaiko/$]” (Gal 4:4)

Did Paul (and/or the tradition he inherited) understand Mary as being of Davidic descent? It is hard to be certain, since he never actually mentions Mary anywhere in his letters, nor the birth of Jesus specifically apart from these two references. Of course, Mary as a descendant of David came to be a common-place belief in the early Church, attested already in the early 2nd century by Ignatius (Ephesians 18:2) and the so-called Proto-Gospel (Protevangelium) of James (§10). However, there is no indication of this in the New Testament itself; indeed, what little evidence we have (Luke 1:5) suggests descent from the tribe of Levi rather than from Judah. Traditional-conservative commentators have often sought to harmonize the (partially) discordant genealogies of Matt 1 and Lk 3 with the theory that they record the genealogies of Joseph and Mary, respectively; but this is flatly contradicted by the text itself—both genealogies are for Joseph (Matt 1:16; Lk 3:23), despite the apparent discrepancies.

The title “Son of David” is used of Jesus in numerous places in the Gospels—Mk 10:47-48 par; 12:35-37 par; Matt 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 21:9, 15. This title is used in conjunction with “Lord” (ku/rio$) in Matt 15:22; 20:30-31, and has a clear Messianic connection in Mark 12:35-37 par; Matt 12:23; 21:9 [par Mk 11:10].

What about Paul’s own understanding of Jesus as God’s Son? There is a strong likelihood that Rom 1:3 indicates something akin to the orthodox view of Jesus’ divine pre-existence. While this is not absolutely certain, such a general belief is expressed elsewhere in his writings (cf. Phil 2:6-7; Col 1:15ff). In examining Paul’s use of ui(o/$ (“son”) in relation to Jesus, these references can be divided more or less into three categories:

  1. Of a general relationship with God the Father—1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 1:19; Rom 1:9; 8:29
  2. Indicating his post-resurrection position and status in heaven (cf. Acts 13:33ff)—1 Thess 1:10; 1 Cor 15:28; Gal 1:16?; also Col 1:13
  3. Indicating divine status/nature in (or prior to) his death—Gal 2:20; Rom 5:10; 8:32

Galatians 4:4 is a close parallel to Rom 1:3 (cf. also Rom 8:3) which I have discussed in considerable detail in other notes and articles (see the recent note).

Romans 1:4

The verb o(ri/zw has the basic meaning “mark out, mark off”, as of a limit, boundary, etc., and is often used in the sense of “determine, designate, appoint” and so forth. An early kerygmatic (Christological) signficance here is indicated by its use in:

  • Acts 2:23—referring to the role of Jesus’ death in God’s (predetermined) plan
  • Acts 10:42; 17:31—Christ is designated or appointed as eschatological/heavenly Judge

There are two principal ways the verb can be understood in Rom 1:4—Jesus is “marked out / appointed” as Son of God, either:

  1. By divine foreknowledge, prior to his death; as previously discussed, early Christians could speak of Jesus as God’s “Son” in terms of: (a) divine pre-existence, (b) birth, or (c) at his baptism
  2. Through his death and resurrection—i.e., by means of, or as a result of

The first view is more amenable to orthodoxy, as suggested by the common Latin rendering praedestinatus (instead of destinatus), which would seem to assume Greek proorisqe/nto$ (from proori/zw, “mark out [i.e. determine/appoint] beforehand”). This reading is not found in any manuscript, but it is used or mentioned by several Church Fathers—Eusebius, Against Marcellus 1:2; Epiphanius Panarion 54.6 (cf. Fitzmyer, pp. 234-5). The use of o(ri/zw in Acts 2:23 might otherwise confirm this meaning as well.

However, the overall context of Rom 1:3-4, as well as a comparison with the early Gospel preaching in Acts 2 and 13, etc (see the previous notes), strongly suggests option #2—that it is through his death and resurrection that Jesus is designated/appointed as “Son of God”. This would seem to be indicated by the qualifying phrase “in power” (e)n duna/mei) as well. There are two ways that “power” (du/nami$) is used in the preaching of Acts and in Paul’s letters: (a) of miraculous deeds, and (b) specifically in reference to the Spirit. These of course are related. Even though Jesus’ miracles during his ministry are referred to as “power” (Acts 10:38), it is in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ that God’s power is most prominently made manifest. The connection between the Spirit and the power of God is certainly clear (see esp. Luke 1:35; 4:14; Acts 1:8; 8:19; 10:38; Rom 15:13, 19; 1 Cor 2:4, etc), and it is in his exalted position (at the right hand of God) that Jesus has this power (Acts 2:33; Mark 14:62 par), receiving the Spirit from the Father. In both Luke-Acts and the Gospel of John, we find the idea of the raised/exalted Christ sending the Spirit (from the Father) to his disciples. There may be a parallel to the specific phrase “in power” (e)n duna/mei) in the ‘credal fragment’ of 1 Tim 3:16, where Jesus is said to have ascended “in glory” (e)n do/ch|).

There is some difficulty surrounding the expression “spirit of holiness” (pneu=ma a(giwsu/nh$). In his letters, Paul nearly always uses pneu=ma in reference to the the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of God/Christ); that fact, plus the connection between “spirit” and “power” (cf. above) might lead one to assume that this is what is meant here as well. However, this is by no means certain. His very use of the particular expression “spirit of holiness” may be intended to draw a distinction with the more common “Holy Spirit”. As I mentioned above, pneu=ma is juxtaposed with sa/rc (“flesh”), but not in the typical Pauline sense; again this, in part, may be why Paul qualifies pneu=ma with a(giwsu/nh$ (“of holiness”). Is this meant to indicate the way in which Jesus is “appointed” Son of God—in terms of God’s holiness?

Interestingly, “holy” and “holiness” are only rarely used of Jesus specifically in the New Testament, being limited primarily to the earlier strands of Christian preaching—i.e. the appellation “Holy (One)”, using both a%gio$ and o%sio$, Acts 2:27; 3:14, and note Lk 1:35; cf. also Acts 4:27, 30; 13:34-35. In his letters, Paul almost never uses “holy/holiness” of Jesus (1 Cor 7:34 is close), though he certainly sees a close connection between Christ and the Holy Spirit, viewing the Spirit, to a large extent, as the abiding presence of Christ in and among believers. Holiness, of course, is often seen as a characteristic and attribute of God, but even this association is relatively rare in Paul’s writings. Somewhat surprisingly, the noun a(giwsu/nh (“holiness”) only appears 3 times in the New Testament, the other two occurrences also being from Paul’s letters:

  • 1 Thess 3:13—prayer/exhortation to establish the hearts of believers to be “blameless in holiness” before God at the (eschatological) appearance of Jesus
  • 2 Cor 7:1—believers are urged to cleanse themselves, “completing holiness in the fear of God”; here too we find a similar juxtaposition of “flesh” and “spirit”

Perhaps the best way to understand the expression in context is as the (personal) holiness of Jesus which is manifest by God in the resurrection—or, viewed another way, as the holiness of God being manifest in the person of Christ. This may be similar to the idea of the “righteousness of God” being manifest in his person (1 Cor 1:30; cf. Rom 1:17; 3:21ff, etc).

It is possible that the reference to the resurrection in Rom 1:4 should not be limited simply to Jesus’ own resurrection—there may be an association with the wider idea of resurrection, such as we see expressed by Paul in 1 Cor 15:20, 23, where Jesus, by his resurrection, is the “firstfruits” of the harvest, i.e., those who will be raised again to life at the end-time. Notably, Paul describes this in terms of sonship in Rom 8:23, 29 (cf. Gal 4:5). Even more significant for our Christmas season theme is the further image of birth within this same context—Jesus is the “firstborn” (prwto/toko$) out of the dead (Col 1:18; cf. Rev 1:5), and, as such, the “firstborn” of “many brothers” (Rom 8:28; cf. also Heb 1:6; 12:23). Once again we see a powerful statement of two-fold birth: Christ as the Son of God and believers as the “sons of God”.

References here marked “Fitzmyer” are to J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans (Anchor Bible [AB] volume 33, 1993).

“And you shall call His Name…”: Matthew 2:5-6, 16ff

Matthew 2:5-6, 16ff

By all accounts, the tradition that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem stems from an interpretation of Micah 5:2ff, just as we see in the Matthean Infancy narrative. In the text, Herod brings together the leading religious officials (priests) and scribes (those learned in the Scriptures) and inquires of them “Where (is) the Anointed (One) [i.e. Messiah] to be born?” (Matt 2:4). Their answer (“in Bethlehem of Judea”), as presented in the narrative, is followed by a modified citation of Micah 5:2 [Heb v. 1]:

“And you, Bethlehem, (in) the land of Yehudah {Judah},
are not (in) one thing least among the leaders of Yehudah;
for (one) who leads [i.e. a leader] shall come out of you
who will shepherd my people Yisrael {Israel}.” (v. 6)

The portions in italics indicate points where the citation in Matthew differs from both the Hebrew (Masoretic) text and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). The last line is the result of joining 2 Sam 5:2 to the quotation from Micah. The differences otherwise are relatively slight, except for the first half of line 2, which alters entirely the sense of the original. It is hard to know whether this reflects a variant reading or an intentional change by the author; certainly, an early Christian such as the Gospel writer would be inclined here to emphasize the importance of Bethlehem.

The Messianic significance of Bethlehem relates to its association with David, as the “city of David”. This title normally applies to the original citadel of Jerusalem, as taken over and developed by David and his successors; however, in the New Testament, it refers to Bethlehem as David’s hometown (Lk 2:4; cf. Ruth 4:11; 1 Sam 17:12ff). The tradition of Bethlehem as the Messiah’s birthplace, presumably based on a similar interpretation of Micah 5:2ff as in Matt 2:4-6, is attested in John 7:40-42, where certain people express doubt that Jesus, coming out of Galilee, could be the Messiah:

“Does not the (sacred) Writing say that (it is) out of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem the town where David was, (that) the Anointed (One) comes?” (v. 42)

Matt 2:4-6ff sets the stage for the dramatic scene of the slaughter of the children (vv. 16-18) which functions as a parallel to the Moses Infancy narrative (cf. the previous article). The connection is much more obvious when we consider elements added to the Exodus narrative (1:8-22) in later Jewish tradition. In Josephus’ Antiquities (2.205) the scribes make known to Pharaoh a prophecy regarding an Israelite leader/deliverer who was about to be born:

“One of those sacred scribes, who are very sagacious in foretelling future events, truly told the king, that about this time there would be born a child to the Israelites, who, if he were reared, would bring the Egyptian dominion low, and would raise the Israelites; that he would excel all men in virtue, and obtain a glory that would be remembered through all ages” [LOEB translation]

In Matthew’s version of the Micah quotation, the Messianic implications are heightened by every one of the changes made to the text:

  • “land of Judah” instead of “Ephrathah”—this second reference to Judah widens the scope of the scene to the (entire) territory of Judah/Judea; David’s kingdom was centered in Judah and Jerusalem, from which it extended its influence and authority. The coming Messianic rule would follow a similar pattern.
  • “not in one thing least among” instead of “(too) small to be among”—as noted above, the reference to Bethlehem’s ‘smallness’ has been eliminated; the adaptation (or reading) instead emphasizes Bethlehem’s greatness
  • “among the leaders of Judah” instead of “among the clans/thousands of Judah”—the comparison has shifted from clan and territory to the ruler of the territory. The ruler who comes from Bethlehem (i.e. the Davidic Messiah) will be greater than the other rulers of Judah.
  • “who will shepherd by people Israel”—this citation from 2 Sam 5:2 brings in another Messianic association with David: that of shepherd. David had been a shepherd, and, in the ancient Near East, kings and rulers were often referred to as a shepherd over the people, along with relevant symbolism (cf. Isa 44:28, etc). These two elements come together in passages such as Jer 23:1-6; Ezek 34 (esp. vv. 23-24); 37:24ff, which were influential in the development of Messianic thought.

In emphasizing the connection with Judah, one is reminded of the title earlier in v. 2 (“King of the Jews”). We are clearly dealing with the Messianic figure-type of a future ruler from the line of David. Let us consider how this has been brought out in the Matthean Infancy narrative:

  • The genealogy of Joseph (1:1-17), who is descended from David—vv. 1, 5-6, 17. In verse 20, the Angel addresses Joseph as “Son of David”, a (Messianic) title which would be applied to Jesus during his ministry. It occurs much more frequently in Matthew than the other Gospels (cf. Matt 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; 22:42). That this is an authentic historical (Gospel) tradition is confirmed by the fact that the title appears nowhere else in the New Testament outside of the Synoptic Gospels. For the earliest (Messianic) use of the title, cf. Psalms of Solomon 17:23(21) (mid-1st century B.C.)
  • Joseph is established as Jesus’ (legal) father. This occurs through the completion of the marriage and his naming of the child (vv. 18, 20-21, 24-25). As a result, Joseph’s genealogy becomes that of Jesus as well (vv. 1, 16).
  • The birth in Bethlehem (2:1, cf. above)
  • Jesus’ identification as “King of the Jews” (v. 2) and “Anointed One” (v. 4)
  • The Star marking his birth (vv. 2, 7, 9-10)

For more on this Messianic figure-type, and the title “Son of David”, as related to Jesus, cf. Parts 6-8 of my earlier series “Yeshua the Anointed” (soon to be posted here).

That Joseph was a descendant of David should be considered completely reliable on objective grounds. If early Christians had been inclined to accept or “invent” a fictitious (Davidic) origin for Jesus, for doctrinal reasons, they likely would have made Mary a descendant of David. And, indeed, this is precisely what happened subsequently in Christian tradition (cf. already in Ignatius Trallians 9:1; also Smyrneans 1:1; Ephesians 18:2; 20:2). The distinction of a genealogy based on legal, rather than biological, paternity was soon lost for Christians, especially as the faith spread out into the wider Greco-Roman world. Quite contrary to later developments, there is no indication in the Gospels whatever that Mary was herself a descendant of David. If the information in Lk 1:5, 36 is regarded as historically accurate, then it is more likely that Mary came from the line of Levi, rather than Judah. The only New Testament reference which might suggest otherwise is Romans 1:3, especially when compared with Gal 4:4. It has been popular in traditional-conservative circles, as a way to harmonize the apparent discrepancies between the two lists, to treat the genealogies in Matthew and Luke as being that of Joseph and Mary, respectively. However, such a solution is flatly contradicted by the text itself—both genealogies belong to Joseph (Matt 1:16; Luke 3:23).

“And you shall call His Name…”: Luke 1:43

Luke 1:43

Following the annunciation scenes in 1:8-23 and 26-38, the Gospel writer brings together the two narrative strands—related to John the Baptist and Jesus respectively—into a single episode (vv. 39-56). It may be outlined as follows:

  • Narrative introduction, establishing the unifying motif—Elizabeth and Mary in the same house (vv. 39-40)
  • Elizabeth’s reaction and blessing (vv. 41-45)
  • Mary’s hymn of praise to God (vv. 46-55)
  • The narrative conclusion, with a notice of Mary’s separation from Elizabeth (v. 56)

There is a wonderful symmetry—in between the two short narrations, Elizabeth and Mary, while they are together, each are depicted uttering inspired (hymnic) poetry, as befitting the grand and lofty occasion established by the narrative context. Today I will be looking at the first portion—the words of Elizabeth—before turning to the hymn of Mary (the Magnificat) in the next note. Elizabeth’s reaction is described in verse 41:

“And it came to be, as Elisheba heard the welcome of Maryam, the baby in her belly jumped and Elisheba was filled by the holy Spirit”

The dramatic character of the scene is increased as the description continues in verse 42:

“and she raised up (her) voice (with) a great cry, and said…”

Elizabeth utters a two-fold blessing to Mary, in vv. 42 and 45. The first is a blessing proper, addressed both to Mary and her child:

  • “Well counted [eu)loghme/nh] are you among women,
    and well counted [eu)loghme/no$] is the fruit of your belly!”

The verb eu)loge/w means “to give a good account (of someone), speak well (of him/her)”. In a religious or ritual context, it commonly refers to giving praise and honor (in speech) to God; or, in the reverse direction, it can indicate God showing favor to (i.e. speaking blessing upon) a person. The idea of praise and honor (given to Mary) is certainly present in the use of the verb—she will be spoken well of and highly regarded, by both God and His people. Moreover, it relates specifically to the favor (xa/ri$) which God has shown to Mary (cf. the Angelic annunciation in vv. 28ff), by the conception of Jesus within her (“the fruit of [her] belly”). The second blessing in verse 45 is more generalized, but certainly relates to Mary’s words in v. 38; it uses the parallel adjective maka/rio$ (“happy”):

“and happy [makari/a] (is) the (one) trusting that there will be a completion [i.e. fulfillment] to the (thing)s spoken to her (from) alongside the Lord!”

The blessed and favored status of Mary has touched Elizabeth as well. According to the narrative, both women have experienced a miraculous conception, and each will give birth to a child who will play a major role in God’s plan of salvation for His people. The reason for Elizabeth’s inspired reaction is expressed in verse 43, with wonder and amazement:

“how has this (happened) to me, that the mother of my Lord should come toward me?”

The specific phrase “the mother of my Lord” (h( mh/thr tou= kuri/ou mou) is of utmost significance in the context of the passage, and must be examined in more detail.

The word ku/rio$ (“lord”) has already been used 10 times in the Lukan Infancy narrative to this point (vv. 6, 9, 11, 15-17, 25, 28, 32, 38), but always in reference to God the Father, the God of Israel (Yahweh). This is the first time that the title (“Lord”) is used of Jesus. In the earlier article on Yahweh, I discussed the traditional use of °A_dœn¹y (yn`d)a&), “My Lord”, as a divine name, substituting for the name hwhy (YHWH, Yahweh). This is literally what Elizabeth says here—o( ku/rio$ mou (“my Lord”). Yet one must be cautious about assuming that Jesus is being identified here with God the Father. The only other occurrences of the specific phrase “my Lord” in either the Synoptic Gospels or Luke-Acts as whole involve the citation of Psalm 110:1 (Luke 20:42 par; Acts 2:34). There can be little doubt that Psalm 110 was highly influential on the early Christian use of the title “Lord” (Ku/rio$) for Jesus. The Greek text (LXX) of verse 1 reads:

ei@pen o( ku/rio$ tw=| kuri/w| mou
eípen ho kýrios tœ¡ kyríœ mou
“The Lord said to my lord…”

The same word (ku/rio$) is used twice, creating an obvious wordplay (as well as potential confusion). However, the original Hebrew reads:

yn]d)al^ hwhy <a%n+
N®°¥m YHWH la°dœnî
“Utterance of YHWH to my lord:”

The LXX version is the result of the standard substitution, when reciting the Psalm, of °A_dœn¹y (“My Lord”) in place of YHWH. In the original context of the Psalm, the “lord” (°¹dôn) was understood as referring either to David, or to the reigning king (in the Davidic line). Eventually, in Jewish tradition, it came to be interpreted in a Messianic sense, of a future Davidic ruler who would deliver God’s people and judge the nations at the end-time. Jesus himself treats Ps 110:1 this way in the Synoptic tradition (Lk 20:41-44 par). The two main ‘Messianic’ passages from the Psalms utilized by Christians from the beginning were Ps 2:7 and 110:1—the first establishing Jesus as Son of God, the second as Lord. In this regard, believers went beyond the standard Messianic interpretation. The earliest Gospel preaching (kerygma), as recorded in the book of Acts, understands Jesus as Lord and Son of God specifically in terms of his resurrection and exaltation to heaven at the right hand of God (Acts 2:24-36; 13:33ff). Even in the Gospel of John, which otherwise has a more developed Christological sense of Jesus as God’s Son, the expression “my Lord” occurs in a setting after the resurrection (Jn 20:13, 28). Luke 1:43 is unique in the Gospels in applying the title to Jesus prior to his death—indeed, before his very birth.

In what sense should the child Jesus be understood as “my Lord” here as uttered by Elizabeth (v. 43)? In my view, we do not yet have a clear sense of Jesus’ deity in view at this point in the narrative, even though Christians reading or hearing the Gospel would naturally make the association. This will be discussed further in the note on 1:76ff. More likely, the use of ku/rio$ here is meant primarily in a Messianic sense (cf. the earlier article on Lk 1:46-55 in “The Old Testament and the Birth of Jesus”). This would seem to be confirmed by two parallels in the Old Testament from 2 Samuel, both involving David (cf. Brown, Birth, pp. 344-5):

  • 2 Sam 6:9—In the narrative of the transportation of the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem (vv. 1-4ff), in the midst of celebration, the sudden death of Uzzah (who had unintentionally touched the Ark), brought fear upon the people (vv. 5-9a), as well as with David who exclaimed: “How shall the box {Ark} of YHWH come to me?”. The Greek of v. 9b is reasonably close to Elizabeth’s wording in Lk 1:43.
  • 2 Sam 24:21—At God’s command, David visits Araunah the Jebusite to purchase his threshing-floor and erect an altar to the Lord there. Upon David’s approach, Araunah asks “(For) what reason does my Lord the king come to his servant?”. Again, there is a formal similarity in the Greek to Elizabeth’s words.

Given the parallels between 2 Sam 7 and the pronouncement by Gabriel in vv. 32-33 (cf. the previous note), the likelihood increases that there is an allusion here to the earlier episode in 2 Sam 6. The primary reference would be to Jesus as the Anointed Davidic ruler (Messiah) who would deliver God’s people. Even so, the context of the Ark of the Covenant, like the use of the title ku/rio$ (“Lord”), implies something deeper as well—the manifestation and presence of God Himself. This will be discussed in upcoming notes as we progress through the narrative.

References above marked “Brown, Birth” are to R. E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Anchor Bible Reference Library [ABRL] (1977 / 1993).