God’s Covenant with David

In a previous post, I wrote about the Messianic expectation of the Old Testament. In that post I tried to explain how the Messianic hope developed through the centuries. However, in that post I did not explain the origin and the complexity of that hope. As one reader wrote in a comment posted on Facebook, “the concept of Messiah varied greatly from group to group among the Jews. A variety of images appear in the literature describing a Messiah figure.”

His statement is true. It was not my desire in that post to describe the “variety of images” that were present in the Messianic expectation of Israel. These various images were the pieces of the puzzle I alluded to in that post. That would be the subject of another post.

In the present post, I want to discuss the origin of the Messianic hope in the Bible without going into the development of the idea. That, in brief, was the purpose of my first post.

The Messianic hope in the Old Testament begins with God’s covenant with David and God’s promise that David’s throne would be established forever. I consider 2 Samuel 7, the text dealing with God’s covenant with David, to be one of the most important passages in the Old Testament. In this text, God promised to make a house for David, that is, God guaranteed the perpetuity of David’s kingdom by establishing an eternal dynasty for him.

In this post, I will focus on God’s promise to David. God promised that he would be a father to every descendant of David who would sit on David’s throne. I will also deal with two other passages where God’s promise was reaffirmed to a descendant of David.

2 Samuel 7:14

“I will be his father, and he will be my son.”

God’s covenant with David is a unilateral covenant in which God established a new relationship with Israel through David. The Davidic covenant was based upon God’s promise to David that his throne would be established forever. It was an unconditional covenant because it was not based on human behavior. It was God who assured David that his throne would “be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:16). God’s promise to David would bring stability to the monarchy and hope for the permanency of his kingdom in spite of the fact that historical events would threaten the fulfillment of God’s promises.

The promise in 2 Samuel 7:14 was not a reference to Christ and his kingdom, as many interpreters in the past and in the present have understood the passage. In the context of God’s promise to David, the one who would inherit David’s throne and build a house for God’s name would be Solomon:

12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.

13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men (2 Samuel 7:12-14).

Although the promise was made to Solomon and after him, to all the sons of David who became king of Judah, none of the kings who sat on the throne of David were able to meet the divine expectations for the ideal king. When Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C. and the dynasty of David came to an end, many people believed that God’s promise to David had failed. However, the people of Israel had to wait many more years, even centuries, before the people could welcome another son of David:

“Hosanna to the Son of David” (Matthew 21:9).

“Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David” (Mark 11:10).

The concept of the Davidic king being the son of God helps to explain two very important texts in the Old Testament: Psalm 2:7 and Isaiah 9:6.

Psalm 2:6-7

“I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.” I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me, “You are my son; today I have begotten you.”

Psalm 2 is a Royal Psalm that was used for the celebration of the investiture of a new king. In this psalm God affirms the son of David to be his chosen one because he continues the kingly line of David. The king was proclaimed to be God’s son on Zion, God’s holy hill. God’s words reaffirmed the selection of a descendant of David to be God’s representative on earth and the election of Jerusalem, the city of David, as the place from which the new king would rule.

The “decree of the Lord” was the royal protocol which was given to the king during the investiture ceremony. This document endowed the new king with legitimacy and authority.

The statement, “You are my son; today I have begotten you” carries two important ideas. First, the expression “You are my son” says that on the day the descendant of David was crowned king, the king developed a new relationship with Yahweh, becoming his representative on earth. The day of the king’s coronation was the day when the divine decree took effect. The idea that the king was God’s son was common in the Ancient Near East. The idea of God as the Father and the king as the son also appears in other texts in the Old Testament (cf. Psalm 89:26-27; 1 Chronicles 28:6). Thus, in Judah, the king became the son of God on the day he ascended to the throne of David.

God’s covenant with David was considered to be an eternal covenant. God promised to David that “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:16). The divine declaration to the new king in Psalm 2:7 served as an affirmation of the divine promise and as a renewal of God’s relationship with the house of David in the person of the new king.

Second, the expression “today I have begotten you” expresses a symbolic “new birth,” a process by which the son of David became the son of God by adoption. Adoption outside of the royal realm was common in Israel. Rachel adopted Bilhah’s son as her own son and Jacob adopted Ephraim and Manasseh, Joseph’s sons, as his own sons (Genesis 48:5). By this process of investiture and adoption, the new Davidic king became an heir of the divine promise to David and a representative of Yahweh before the people.

God’s words in Psalm 2:7 express the adoption of a new king as God’s son the moment this descendant of David assumed the throne to carry out God’s promise to David and rule over God’s people.

Isaiah 9:6

“For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

This passage, Isaiah 9:5-6 (Hebrew 9:4-5) is a hymn celebrating the coronation of a new king. The rejoicing of the people in 9:3-4 (Hebrew 9:2-3) is the result of the celebration at the enthronement of a new king who will conquer the enemies who oppressed the people.

Verse 4 describes the situation of the oppressed people: “For the yoke of their burden, and the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian.” In this verse, the oppressed people are treated like animals of burden. The people carry a heavy yoke upon their shoulders and are forced to labor hard by the rod which chastises them.

The day of the people’s redemption began the day the son of David was crowned king of Judah and ascended the throne of his father. The ascension of a new heir to the throne of David and his adoption by God was seen as the fulfillment of God’s promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-14, a promise which brought hope of deliverance from the oppression imposed upon the people of God by the heavy hand of Assyria.

This new king was Hezekiah and the words used by the prophet to describe the new king are the divine ideals for God’s representative and are meant to describe the rule of the one who would sit on David’s throne, but ideals which were never attained by Hezekiah or any other king. It was the failure of the kings of Judah to attain these ideals that forced the people to look to the future and hope for the coming of a new David.

Claude Mariottini

Professor of Old Testament

Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Covenant, David, 2 Samuel 7, Messiah, Psalm 2:7, Isaiah 9:6

Did David and Solomon Exist?

Buy the book from Amazon.




Eric Cline, Chair of the Department of Classical and Semitic Languages and Literatures at The George Washington University, has written an article, published in The Bible and Interpretation, in which he discusses the archeological evidence for the existence of David and Solomon. The article is an adaptation of Cline’s new book, Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009).

The following excerpt was taken from the introduction to the article:

The debate as to whether or not David and Solomon existed has been one of the “hot-button” topics in biblical archaeology since the early 1990s. The introduction of a variety of new data has put to rest some aspects of the debate but intensified other aspects, and the debate itself shows no sign of coming to an end. The majority of the arguments by various scholars, on both sides of the debate, have been published in scholarly journals seldom read by students or the general public.

I recommend this article to all readers because Cline’s article is an excellent introduction to the archaeological discoveries related to David and Solomon and to the discipline of archaeology.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, David, Eric Cline, Tel Dan Stele, Solomon,

The Archaeological Evidence for David and Solomon

Image: The Tel Dan Stele


Norman Hammond, the archaeology correspondent for the Times has a review of Eric Cline’s new book, Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction, in which Cline introduces the discipline of biblical archaeology and the results of archaeological work in the lands of the Bible.

The following is a short excerpt from Hammond’s article.

Until 15 years ago, Professor Eric Cline notes in a new book, there was no extra-biblical documentary mention of even the House of David as ruling in Judea. The fragmentary Tel Dan Stele, found reused as building material at a site in what is now northern Israel in 1993-94, provided the first evidence outside the First Book of Kings.

Dating to about 842BC, the Tel Dan inscription describes the defeat of Joram, king of Israel, and Ahaziyahu, king of Judah, by a ruler of Aram-Damascus earlier in the 9th century BC. The Israelites had invaded his territory, located somewhere in Lebanon or southern Syria, but he “slew seventy kings, who harnessed thousands of chariots and thousands of horsemen. And I killed Joram son of Ahab, king of Israel, and I killed Ahaziyahu, son of Joram, king of the House of David.”

“However, we are still lacking any contemporary or near-contemporary inscriptions that mention Solomon: at the moment we do not have a single one,” Professor Cline says. “Moreover, there is still very little archaeological evidence for the existence of David.”

The status of Jerusalem at this period is also debated, with some scholars arguing that the Bible account of a powerful capital city is true, others that it was, two millennia after its first settlement in the Bronze Age, what Professor Cline dubs “a small ‘cow town’. In fact, it is still not clear where David is positioned along the continuum from tribal chieftains to might kings.”

Hammond has presented a good review of Cline’s book. In the article there is a photo of the Tel Dan Stele. However, the caption of the photo misspelled Tel Dan; it reads “The Ten Dan Stele.”

Notwithstanding this obvious mistake, Hammond has written a good article.

You can buy the book on Amazon.com.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags:Archaeology, David, Eric Cline, Tel Dan Stele, Solomon

When Was David Crowned King at Hebron?

When David became the king of the Southern tribes, before he became the king of the United Monarchy, David reigned from Hebron, where he was proclaimed king of Judah. This is how 2 Samuel 5:4-5 describes the chronology of David’s kingship:

“David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years. At Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months, and at Jerusalem he reigned over all Israel and Judah thirty-three years.”

Although we know that David reigned from Hebron, we do not know when he began to reign. At least we didn’t, but now we know.

Recently, MK Yaakov Katz, head of the National Union Party in Israel, speaking from the Knesset plenum, told the Knesset about his visit to the ancient Biblical city of Hebron. Mr. Katz said:

“I met there with many representatives of the Arab media, from Al Jazeera and others, and I told them that we respect the prophet Muhammed and the millions of practitioners of Islam, but still and all, the fact is that King Herod built the Machpelah Tomb building atop the burial sites of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs hundreds of years before Islam was even founded. Not only that, but King David was King of Israel in this city of Hevron some 700 years before Herod!”

At this point in Mr. Katz’s speech, Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin corrected Mr. Katz’s chronology. He said: “It was exactly 922 years earlier, not 700.”

So, now we know when David became king of Judah at Hebron.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hebron, David, Yaakov Katz

A Slide Presentation on Khirbet Qeiyafa

Yosef Garfinkel of Hebrew University and Saar Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority have developed a slide presentation on Khirbet Qeiyafa.

I want to thank Chris Heard for calling my attention to the presentation and for pointing out that I had the wrong picture of Khirbet Qeiyafa in my previous post.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, David, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Shaaraim, Yosef Garfinkel,

The City Where David Killed Goliath

Photo: Khirbet Qeiyafa

Gwen Ackerman has written an article on Khirbet Qeiyafa, “a walled city over a plain where the Bible claims David killed Goliath.” The article was published on Bloomberg.com. The following is an excerpt from the article:

The remains of a walled city over a plain where the Bible claims David killed Goliath; a pottery shard bearing script that experts claim is the oldest Hebrew text ever found; an ancient water tunnel.

Do these support Scripture's story of King David and his empire? It depends on who you ask. Recent archeological finds have reopened the debate on David and Solomon, whose reigns almost 3,000 years ago as chronicled in the Bible left so little physical proof that scholars like Neil Asher Silberman, a University of Massachusetts historian, question biblical accuracy.

Hebrew University professor Yosef Garfinkel, in an interview, said his findings amid the ruins of a fortified city in Khirbet Qeiyafa, a five-acre site 20 miles west of Jerusalem, support the biblical portrayal of David as a ruler of a kingdom strong enough to field an army. The findings, the most important of which were a second city gate and the shard, dispute claims by some scholars that David was a chieftain of a largely illiterate tribe.

The remnants might be the most important archaeological find about David since 1993 when a piece of basalt rock bearing an Assyrian king's inscription about a Davidic dynasty was found in Tel Dan in northern Israel.

To read the article, visit Bloomberg.com.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, David, Goliath, Khirbet Qeiyafa

New Evidence Surfaces of David’s Kingdom

“New Evidence Surfaces of David’s Kingdom”: This is the title of an article written by Matthew Kalman, a writer for The San Francisco Chronicle and published in the SFGate.

The article describes the discovery of the city of Sha’arayim (Khirbet Qeiyafa), a Hebrew name that means “Two Gates.” The city was discovered by Yosef Garfinkel, an archaeologist at the Hebrew University.

The name of the city is mentioned in 1 Samuel 17:52 as the place where many Philistines were killed: “The troops of Israel and Judah rose up with a shout and pursued the Philistines as far as Gath and the gates of Ekron, so that the wounded Philistines fell on the way from Shaaraim as far as Gath and Ekron.”

The finding of this 10th century city is important because “Garfinkel believes the city provides evidence that King David ruled a kingdom from his capital of Jerusalem.”

He also said that Sha’arayim “appears to have been a fortress on the western border with the Philistines” and “indicates a kingdom with a developed political and military organization that was powerful enough to include a major fortified city.”

The discover of Sha’arayim comes a few weeks after Garfinkel and his team of archaeologists discovered the oldest Hebrew inscription ever found in Israel. That inscription was the 3,000-year-old pottery fragment bearing five lines of text in proto-Canaanite script, a precursor of Hebrew. The ostracon found at the site contains the words “king,” “judge,” and “slave” (see my posts on this Hebrew text here and here).

According to the article, “Garfinkel knew from the biblical text that Sha'arayim was near the location of the famous duel between David and Goliath and wondered whether the ruins might be the city. Locating the second gate confirmed his belief that he had found the only site mentioned in the David and Goliath narrative that has yet to be discovered.

Read the article in its entirety by clicking here.

HT: Jim West

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, David, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Shaaraim, Yosef Garfinkel,

Earliest Known Hebrew Text In Proto-Canaanite Script

Science Daily has an excellent article about the ostracon containing the earliest known Hebrew text in proto-Canaanite script.

Excepts:

The Elah Fortress archaeological site could prove the existence of the United Monarchy, which scholars often question ever existed. The artifacts found at the site thus far all indicate that there was most likely a strong king and central government in Jerusalem - earlier than any discovered until now - rather than a number of small villages scattered throughout Judea. This would verify descriptions and narratives found in Samuel and Chronicles.

Over 100 jar handles bear distinct impressions which may indicate a link to royal vessels. Such a large quantity of this feature found in one small locale is unprecedented.

According to Prof. Garfinkel, this is the only site in Israel where one can investigate the historical King David. "The chronology and geography of Khirbet Qeiyafa create a unique meeting point between the mythology, history, historiography and archaeology of Kind David."

Read the article here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: David, Elah Fortress, Khirbet Qeiyafa, Ostracon, Yosef Garfinkel

Proof of Bible’s King David?

The National Geographic has provided a video that shows the ostracon found in the Valley of Elah. National Geographic asks the question: “Does the discovery prove the Bible’s story of King David?

Watch the video by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: David, Goliath

Is Israel Returning to Kingship?

According to a news report published in Arutz Sheva: Israel National News, biblical scholar and historian David Solomon said that the current political situation in Israel “could have all the necessary ingredients for the appointment of a king.”

In an interview on Israel National Radio, Solomon said that “problems and divisions within Israel today and the threats it faces from outside to its security could be interpreted as the conditions that precede the appointment of a king.”

Solomon said: “We need a unified leadership, we've got anti-Semitic regimes on our doorstep that want to wipe us out, we have fractures within the population.” The report continues:

Drawing a parallel between the current “disastrous absence of genuine political and spiritual and religious leadership” in Israel today and the period leading up to the anointing of Israel's first king, Saul, he said that many people might view a theocratic monarchy as an answer to Israel's troubles today as it was then.

Discussing the period of the early chapters of the book of Samuel, dated historically at around 1100 BCE, Solomon said that the situation at that time saw a crisis of political and religious leadership based upon corruption, exploitation and the abuse of power. It was as a result of this that the people of Israel turned to the prophet Samuel seeking a different model of leadership, asking instead for a king.

This call for the return of kingship in Israel is very interesting. Now that the Temple Institute is committed to see Israel rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, even to the point of preparing some of the vestments for the High Priest, the call to restore kingship in Israel will intensify Jewish expectations for the coming of the Messiah.

Is it possible that the return of kingship may be a fulfillment of Hosea 3:4-5? Hose prophesied: “For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or idol. Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the LORD their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the LORD and to his blessings in the last days.”

Even though Solomon warns about the perils of re-establishing the monarchy, I am sure that many people in Israel would welcome the return of kingship.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, King, Kingship, Hosea 3

David and the Water Tunnel

Archaeologist Eilat Mazar, who has been excavating in the ancient City of David, has discovered a tunnel built thousands of years ago. According the her report, it is possible that this tunnel was the same tunnel used by David and his men to conquer the city of Jerusalem. The tunnel was uncovered in the ancient City of David, just outside the Old City and across the street from the Dung Gate.

According to Mazar, “there is a high probability that the tunnel is the one referred to as the ‘tsinor’ in the Biblical story of King David’s conquest of Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:6-8; 1 Chronicles 11:4-6).”

Mazar also said that “the new discoveries in the excavations in the City of David illuminate the ancient history of Jerusalem and the reality described in the Bible.”

Read the report of Mazar’s discovery by clicking here.

Recent archaeological findings have amazed students of the Bible. Although many people still deny the historical reliability of some of the events mentioned in the Bible, archaeology little by little is demonstrating that the events mentioned in the Bible are not the result of creative writing in the post-exilic period.

Those who have adopted a minimalist approach to the history of Israel are running out of arguments to deny the basic historicity of the facts mentioned in the books of Samuel and Kings. What else do they need? One of these days archaeologists many find in the City of David a document that actually mentions David. We already have one or two, but these were found someplace else. Will that convince the skeptics? Probably not!

Related posts describing the work of Eilat Mazar:

Nehemiah’s Wall
Gedaliah ben Pashhur
David’s Palace Discovered
Shelemiah the son of Shevi

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, David, Eilat Mazar, Tsinor, Water Tunnel,

The Oldest Hebrew Text

Photo: Archeologist Yossi Garfinkel displays a ceramic shard bearing a Hebrew inscription at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Garfinkel says the ceramic shard containing five lines of faded characters written 3,000 years ago at the time of the Old Testament's King David, was found in the ruins of an ancient fortified town south of Jerusalem and is the oldest Hebrew inscription ever discovered, according to Garfinkel.

Archaeology again may contribute to our understanding of Israelite history. Archeologists have found an ostraca with writings that dates back to 3,000 B.C., the period when David was king. According to the news report, the words “judge,” “slave,” and “king” appear on the five lines of texts. The written material was found on a site called Elah Fortress. The Valley of Elah was the place where Israel fought against the Philistines and David killed Goliath (1 Samuel 17:2).

Because of the importance of the finding, I am posting in its entirety the news report published by Reuters. According to the press release, the article was written by Ari Rabinovitch and edited by Sami Aboudi.

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Archaeologists in Israel said on Thursday they had unearthed the oldest Hebrew text ever found, while excavating a fortress city overlooking a valley where the Bible says David slew Goliath.

Experts have not yet been able to decipher fully the five lines of text written in black ink on a shard of pottery dug up at a five-acre (two-hectare) archaeological site called Elah Fortress, or Khirbet Qeiyafa.

The Bible says David, later to become the famed Jewish king, killed Goliath, a Philistine warrior, in a battle in the Valley of Elah, now the site of wineries and an Israeli satellite station.

Archaeologists at Hebrew University said carbon dating of artifacts found at the fortress site, about 20 km (12 miles) southwest of Jerusalem, indicate the Hebrew inscription was written some 3,000 years ago, predating the Dead Sea Scrolls by 1,000 years.

They have been able to make out some of its words, including "judge," "slave" and "king."

Yosef Garfinkel, the lead archaeologist at the site, said the findings could shed significant light on the period of King David's rule over the Israelites.

"The chronology and geography of Khirbet Qeiyafa create a unique meeting point between the mythology, history, historiography and archaeology of King David," Garfinkel said.

It is amazing the kind of information archaeology can provide in clarifying the past. So far, the five lines of text have not been translated. However, if the words “judge” and “king” are correct, the ostraca may be a reference to the late period of the judges or the early years of the monarchy.

I just hope that archaeologists and epigraphers provide a translation of the text as soon as possible. This finding may radically transform our understanding of the early history of Israel.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, David, Elah, Goliath, King, Philistines, Yosef Garfinkel

Messianic Expectation

Part 1: The Messiah
Part 2: Messianic Expectation

According to the narratives of the biblical text, David, the second king of Israel, was one of the greatest kings Israel ever had. A leader, both in battle and in politics, a good administrator, organized, and a musician, David became a hero to his people very early in his life. Because of the exceptional qualities ascribed to him in the biblical text, to the biblical writers, David became the model for all the kings who succeeded him, both in Judah and in Israel.

The dynasty of David obtained its religious legitimation by the so-called Nathan prophecy found in 2 Samuel 7 (cf. 2 Samuel 23:l-7) where God made an everlasting covenant with David (2 Samuel 23:5), a covenant in which God promised to establish the throne of his kingdom forever (2 Samuel 7:13). In this covenant between God and David, the dynasty of David was promised eternal existence (2 Samuel 7:16, 29; cf. also Psalm 89:3-4, 29-37; 132:11-12).

Thus, the Messianic expectation in Israel is linked to God’s covenant with David and to a well-developed world of ideas that came with the aggrandizement of David and the idealization of the Davidic kingdom. This Messianic ideal in Israel grew as the monarchy declined. It appears that the beginning of what is known as the Messianic hope in Israel begins to take place in the eighth century, primarily with some of the oracles of the pre-exilic prophets Isaiah and Micah. These two prophets begin to speak of a deliverer in terms which suggest that this deliverer will be an ideal king like David. Passages such as Isaiah 9:l-7; 11:l-9 and Micah 5:2-4 speak of a “shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse” and a ruler who will come from Bethlehem, one “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” The ancient time mentioned by Micah is a reference to the times of David.

The Messianic hope that God would send an ideal king, one who would be like David, increased during and after the exile, at a time when the people in Babylon hoped for a return to the promised land and the reestablishment of the Davidic kingdom. However, the lack of detail about a Messianic expectation in the prophetic books indicates that a developed Messianic hope in Israel did not come into full bloom until later in post-exilic times.

Later additions to the prophetic books provide a good overview of the development of the prophetic hope in the exile and the post-exilic period. For instance, an addition to Hosea declares that the Son of David would be the bond of union among the tribes (Hosea 3:4-5). An addition to Amos says that David’s tent, which had fallen down, would be set up again (Amos 9:11). Micah promised that the remnant of Israel would become a strong people and the Lord would reign over them and that Bethlehem would be the birth place of the son of David who would rule in Israel (Micah 5:2-4). Isaiah said that David’s throne would be occupied forever and that the Gentiles would come to the root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:10). Jeremiah (Jeremiah 33:15-16) and Ezekiel (34:23-24) pointed to the reestablishment of the kingdom under one Shepherd and King, who should be David (that is, a son or descendant of David). The book of Daniel speaks about the coming of the Son of Man who should become ruler over nations (Daniel 7:13-14). Haggai and Zechariah speak of a son of David who was destined to be the great temple builder who would rule as the Lord’s “signet ring” (Haggai 2:23) and as the Lord’s servant and he would be known as “the Branch” (Zechariah 3:8).

In the inter-biblical period, at a time when many people began to believe that revelation had ceased, the expectation of a coming Messiah grew. The idea of a coming Messiah is present in the several apocalyptic writings of this time.

William Barclay, in his book, Jesus As They Saw Him (London: SCM Press, 1962), pp. 112-137,
developed a list of events and ideas associated with the coming of the Messiah. This list was drawn from the Old Testament and from the literature of the inter-biblical period:

(1) Elijah will return to be the herald and the forerunner of the Messiah.

(2) The Messianic Age was to begin with what was called the “travail of the Messiah.”

(3) Before the arrival of the Messianic age, there will be a time of terror.

(4) This time of terror will be a time of complete disintegration of society.

(5) The coming of the Messiah will be preceded by a time of cosmic upheaval.

(6) The beginning of the Messianic Age will be a time of judgment.

(7) The Gentiles will have a place in the Kingdom.

(8) The time of the Messiah will be a time for the ingathering of Israel.

(9) In the Messianic Age, Jerusalem would be restored and renewed.

(10) The resurrection of the dead is a regular hope and expectation of the Messianic Age.

At the beginning of the first century, the Messianic hope in Israel was in full bloom. In the Judaism of the time of Jesus, the Messiah expected by Israel was to be someone who would reveal God’s glory. This Messianic hope included the expectation of a deliverer who was to free the people of Israel, who for centuries were ruled and oppressed by foreign conquerors. The Messiah, who would be a man of Israel, would defeat Israel’s enemies and rule over the nations.

Thus, the Messianic expectation in Israel pointed to a coming king, a king who would be raised up from the family of David, reign over the house of Israel, who would rule supreme over the nations, and who would bring the end of time. This was the Messianic expectation of the first century.

This picture of the Messiah is not what the writers of the gospels presented in their writing. The Synoptic gospels’ presentation of Jesus’ life and work, when measured by Messianic expectations of first century Judaism, leaves no doubt that Jesus Christ was not the kind of Messiah people expected.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Christ, David, Messiah, Religion

Understanding Numbers 24:24

A few days ago, a reader asked me to explain Numbers 24:24. The interpretation of this verse is not easy because of the problems of translation and the issues raised by the text. In what follows, I will try to explain how three translations have dealt with the text and then try to explain the message of the text.

Numbers 24:24 is a section of the Balaam cycle. Balaam was the son of Beor. He was a diviner employed by Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab, to curse Israel. According to the biblical text, Balaam tried to curse Israel but God told Balaam to bless Israel. Unable to curse Israel, Balaam told Balak to entice Israel by engaging Israelite men into having sexual relations with the women of Moab.

There are seven oracles in the Balaam cycle. Numbers 24:23-24 is Balaam’s seventh oracle, an oracle against Asshur and Eber. The three examples below reflect the ways the versions have translated Numbers 24:24:

New Revised Standard Version (NRS): “But ships shall come from Kittim and shall afflict Asshur and Eber; and he also shall perish forever.”

Douay-Rheims American Edition (DRA): “They shall come in galleys from Italy, they shall overcome the Assyrians, and shall waste the Hebrews, and at the last they themselves also shall perish.”

New King James Version (NKJ): “But ships shall come from the coasts of Cyprus, And they shall afflict Asshur and afflict Eber, And so shall Amalek, until he perishes.”

According to the text, Kittim refers to a place from which a group of invaders will come in ships to conquer Asshur and Eber. The name Kittim is probably a reference to a city in Cyprus named Kition. Kittim is also used to designate Cyprus (Isaiah 23:1). The invaders from Kittim have been identified with the Sea Peoples and more specifically, with the Philistines. In the Septuagint of Daniel 11:30 the word Kittim is translated as “Romans.” In 1 Maccabees 1:1, Kittim refers to the Greeks. In the literature of Qumran, Kittim becomes a word to describe the eschatological enemies of God

Asshur has been identified with the Assyrian empire that dominated the Ancient Near East from the ninth to the seventh centuries BCE. Some scholars have identified the word “Asshur” with the Asshurim (NIV: Asshurites), a nomadic group who lived in the Negev (Genesis 25:3, 18; Psalm 83:8). If Asshur is a reference to the Asshurim, then Eber must be one of their neighbors.

The name Eber appears in the genealogy of Shem (Genesis 11:14-17). Some have identified Eber with the inhabitants of Mesopotamia. The Septuagint translates the name Eber as “Hebrews.”

The Douay-Rheims version follows the Septuagint and translates Kittim as Italy and Eber as Hebrews.

The New King James Version (NKJ) adds the word “Amalek” to verse 24. The word “Amalek” does not appear in the Hebrew text. The word comes from verse 20. It seems that the translators of the New King James Version wanted to emphasize that Amalek was one of the nations that would also be destroyed.

Various interpretations have been proposed to solve the difficulties offered by the text. The most probable interpretation and one that has satisfied a number of commentators is that the words of Balaam are an oracle alluding to the conquest of the Moabites (24:17), the Edomites (24:18), the Amalekites (24:20), and the Philistines (24:24).

Thus, Numbers 24:24 says that the invaders from Kittim, that is the Philistines, would conquer the Asshurim and the Hebrews (the Israelites) but the Philistines would also be conquered and destroyed. The defeat of the Philistines was accomplished by David after he established his kingdom.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Asshur, Balaam, David, Eber, Numbers 24, Philistines

The Sons of Rizpah: Reflections on a Mother’s Love

Then Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it on a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodies by day, or the wild animals by night. (2 Samuel 21:10).

This coming Sunday is Mother’s Day. On that day most churches will be honoring mothers and the contributions they have made to the lives of their children. As part of the celebration, ministers will be talking about biblical mothers. Generally, sermons about biblical mothers use Hannah, Elizabeth, Mary, and a few other notable women as examples of mothers who love their children and set a positive role model for mothers today.

One mother who probably will never be remembered on Mother’s Day is Rizpah. Ask yourself this question: how many sermons about Rizpah have you heard preached from the pulpit? Probably, you have never heard or you have never preached a sermon about the extreme demonstration of love Rizpah displayed on behalf of her sons. Today, I want to honor Rizpah and her love for her children. Here is her story:

During the days of king David there was a severe famine over all the land that lasted three years. The time of the famine is unknown and except for the reference in 2 Samuel 21:1-10, there is no other reference to this famine in the Bible. Not knowing the reason for the famine, David went to inquire of the Lord in order to ascertain the cause of the famine and the reason the Lord was punishing Israel.

The Lord answered David’s prayer and he was told that Saul and his house were guilty of the massacre he had inflicted upon the Gibeonites. Nothing is known about this event and what caused Saul to shed Gibeonite blood. The Gibeonites were part of the original inhabitants of the land. With their tricks, they deceived Joshua and the people of Israel. Their deception led Joshua and Israel to make a covenant with them.

According to 2 Samuel 21:2, Saul, because of his zeal for the honor of Israel and Judah, tried to destroy the Gibeonites. Saul persecuted the Gibeonites and planned to exterminate them so that they would be completely removed from all the territory of Israel (2 Samuel 21:5). It is possible that the Gibeonites had done something wrong and Saul had used the occasion to exterminate them from Israel.

Because of the revelation from God that Saul’s bloodshed caused the famine, David called the Gibeonites together to decide how to repair the wrong done to them. David said to the Gibeonites: “What shall I do for you? And with what shall I make atonement, that you may bless the inheritance of the Lord?” (v. 3).

The Gibeonites refused to take any money from Saul or from his family. They also recognized that they were not allowed to kill anyone in Israel. When David asked again what he could to make amends for the crime committed against them, the Gibeonites answered:

The man who consumed us and planned to destroy us, so that we should have no place in all the territory of Israel, let seven of his sons be handed over to us, and we will impale them before the Lord at Gibeon on the mountain of the LORD” (2 Samuel 21:5-6).

To save Israel from the famine, David agreed to their request. In making his selection, David spared Mephibosheth, the son of Jonathan, because of the promise he had made to Jonathan. In order to select the seven descendants of Saul, David selected Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Rizpah, the daughter of Aiah, Saul’s concubine. David also selected the five sons of Merab, Saul’s daughter and the wife of Adriel, the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

The Gibeonites took the seven descendants of Saul and impaled them on the mountain before the Lord. The seven were impaled at the beginning of the barley harvest.

There, at the foot of the cross, “Rizpah the daughter of Aiah took sackcloth, and spread it on a rock for herself, from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens; she did not allow the birds of the air to come on the bodies by day, or the wild animals by night” (2 Samuel 21:10).

The sackcloth was a type of clothing worn when mourning for the dead. Out of love for her dead sons, Rizpah kept a watch over her dead sons “from the beginning of harvest until rain fell on them from the heavens” (2 Samuel 21:10), that is, from March until October.

Deuteronomy 21:22-23 says that when a person was impaled (or crucified), the body should be removed at the end of the day: “When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree.” The sons of Rizpah remained on the stake more than six months and Rizpah stayed with her sons until it rained.

The reason the bodies were left on the cross was because they were making atonement f Saul’s sin and they had to remain there until the end of the drought. The coming of the rain was a sign that God’s judgement had come to an end and that the sins of the nation had been forgiven.

Day and night, week after week, Rizpah kept a dreary watch over her dead sons, scaring away scavenger birds from feeding on their bodies during the day and not allowing wild animals to eat their bodies at night.

This demonstration of maternal affection is very moving. Her action is the action of a loving mother moved by grief, deeply affected by the agony her sons suffered on that cruel cross. Her attempt at protecting the integrity of the exposed bodies of her sons reveals the fire of love which burned intensively in Rizpah’s heart.

The tragedy and the agony of Rizpah has been captured in the poem by Felicia Hemans:

The Vigil of Rizpah

Who watches on the mountain with the dead,
Alone before the awfulness of night?
A seer awaiting the deep spirit’s might?
A warrior guarding some dark pass of dread ?

No, a lorn woman! –On her drooping head,
Once proudly graceful, heavy beats the rain;
She reeks not–living for the unburied slain,
Only to scare the vulture from their bed.

So, night by night, her vigil hath she kept
With the pale stars, and with the dews hath wept.
Oh! surely some bright Presence from above
On those wild rocks the lonely one must aid!
Even so; a strengthener through all storm and shade,
The unconquerable Angel: mightiest Love!

May the memory of this loving mother be a blessing to all!


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Gibeonites, Love, Mother, Rizpah

David and Goliath as Metaphors

The Wikipedia defines a metaphor as follows:

Metaphor (from the Greek: metapherin) is language that directly compares seemingly unrelated subjects. In the simplest case, this takes the form: "The [first subject] is a [second subject]." More generally, a metaphor is a rhetorical trope that describes a first subject as being or equal to a second subject in some way.

Then, the same article describes a mixed metaphor as follows:

A mixed metaphor is one that leaps from one identification to a second identification that is inconsistent with the first one. Example: "He stepped up to the plate and grabbed the bull by the horns," where two commonly used metaphoric grounds for highlighting the concept of "taking action" are confused to create a nonsensical image.

Some times people use the language of the Old Testament in speeches to illustrate what they are trying to communicate to a group of people. Once in a while, people use the language of the Old Testament in a way that creates mixed metaphors. Take for example, the case of Mayor Dennis Donohue of Salinas, California, a city in which I lived for three years. Speaking to a group of people at their annual faith community luncheon, the Mayor told those attending the luncheon “that he sees the city as David from the Old Testament, up against the Goliath of gangs and other challenges.”

I think this is a good example of a mixed metaphor. David and Goliath are people while the city is a political entity and gangs are a group of individuals. I am quite sure the Mayor’s illustration described to his audience the great challenge the city is facing, however, in my view, he used two items that are equals (two individuals) to illustrate two items that are not equal (a city and a group of people).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Goliath, Metaphors

Can Archaeology Prove Mythology?

Archaeologists have discovered an ancient Roman cave that has led many people to believe that the cave is the shrine of the Lupercale, the sacred place where according to Roman mythology, Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were suckled by a wolf.

The picture above shows the underground grotto believed to be the sacred place where the wolf nursed Romulus and his twin brother Remus.

The discovery has generated heated debate among archaeologists. According to the news report published in USA Today,

Archaeologist Andrea Carandini of Rome's La Sapienza University calls the finding “one of the greatest discoveries ever made” and says the chances are “minimal” that the cave is not the site revered by the Romans as the Lupercale. Carandini and others point to discoveries such as the cave and earlier findings of ancient structures as evidence that myths about the city's founding reflect history, and say that the founder of Rome may actually have been named Romulus.

On the other hand, T.P. Wiseman, of the University of Exeter in England, said that “Archaeology by its nature can’t provide such evidence.” In addition, Christopher Smith, a historian at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland said that “even if artifacts clearly reference the Romulus and Remus story, all they will show is that the cavern is a place where first-century Romans celebrated the legend — not that the story is real.”

So, the question is: can archaeology prove mythology? The answer is “no.” However, if the myth is based on history, then archaeology can demonstrate the historical foundation for the myth. Take for instance, a book edited by Raymond-Jean Frontain, The David Myth in Western Literature (West Lafayette: Purdue Research Foundation, 1980), a book in which David is presented as a mythical figure in Jewish literature. For many scholars, the biblical David was a figure of legend because his name did not appear anywhere outside the Bible.

Then, in 1993 archaeologists excavating at Tel Dan discovered “The House of David Stela,” A monument erected by an Aramean king which contains the reading “house of David.” In addition, some epigraphers have proposed that the phrase “house of David” also appears in the Mesha Stele.

Archaeology cannot prove mythology and it cannot prove the theological claims of the Bible. Although archaeology cannot yet demonstrate that David and Solomon ruled over a large empire, archaeology has shown that “the mythical David” was not a myth. To the contrary, the Tel Dan Stela reveals that David existed and that his descendants were known as “The House of David.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, David, Lupercale, Mythology, Tel Dan

The Wisdom of Old Age

James Ball Naylor (1860-1945) was a physician and also a prolific writer of early Ohio history. He wrote poetry and historical novels, with a focus on the struggles between frontier settlers and Indian tribes in the Ohio territory. Recently, I found one of his quotes that speaks about the wisdom of old age:

King David and King Solomon
Led merry, merry lives,
With many, many lady friends
And many, many wives;
But when old age crept over them,
With many, many qualms,
King Solomon wrote Proverbs
And King David wrote the Psalms

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Proverbs, Psalms, Solomon

The Lost Kings of the Bible: A Review

On Sunday, May 6, 2007, The National Geographic Channel will present the “Lost Kings of the Bible.” This program is a study of the reign of David and Solomon and a discussion of recent archaeological discoveries that have a bearing on the historical events described in the biblical text.

The blurb describing the program summarizes the content of the program: “Are two of the most famous kings of the Bible - King David and King Solomon - mythical heroes or made of flesh and blood?” The program will explore what the National Geographic Channel calls “groundbreaking new evidence that may provide answers to these questions.”

The purpose of this post is to review some of the issues that will be raised by the program and addressed by some of the archaeologists that were interviewed in the program. The issues discussed in this post are in the forefront of the debate raging in scholarly circles on the historicity of David and his monarchy.

The question that has been raised by biblical scholars and archaeologists concerns the historical reliability of the biblical texts. In recent years, archaeologists have claimed that the patterns of settlement in the land of the Bible have cast doubts about whether there was a united monarchy during the days of David and Solomon.

The traditional view says that after the death of Saul, David became the king of Judah first and then of Israel. David became the king of a united Israel. David’s kingdom grew and became a small empire. With the conquest of neighboring nations, David’s kingdom covered a territory that extended from the borders of Egypt all the way to the Euphrates.

However, this view has been challenged by archaeologists. In their book, The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman (p. 131) say that there is no archaeological evidence for David’s conquests or for his empire. Their conclusion was that archaeologists misdated the evidence for David and Solomon by a century (p. 142).

Some biblical scholars are skeptical about the historicity of the Davidic monarchy. In his review of Storia d’Israele: Introduzione alla storia d’Israele e Giuda dalle origini alla rivolta di Bar Kochbà by Alberto J. Soggin, Jim West wrote:

One overarching question that needs further address (not only by Soggin but by most historians of ancient Israel) is, How can so much be said about so many when historical sources are so few (and almost fairly said, nonexistent)? How can Soggin really say what he says about the Davidic monarchy when there is no historical source for it?

After discussing the problem of history vs. historiography, Jim concludes:

In short, what Soggin brilliantly offers us here is theology in the makeup of history. If the makeup is scrubbed off and the pristine skin of theology laid bare for what it is, we have a simple retelling of the story of the Bible. Or perhaps an archaeological example will be better. If the patina of theology is scrapped [sic] off the underlying historical events, the one who scrapes will soon discover that the patina is so thick that the actual artifact is forever encased and hence lost unless the patina is thoroughly shattered, which would sadly also shatter the membrane-thin artifact beneath. What Soggin (and virtually all other historians of ancient Israel) offers us is more patina on the existing patina of historicism. If this is not the case, I have a simple solution: let two or three witnesses (aside from the biblical text) be called and testify to what they have seen and heard or else admit the hearsay nature of the evidence and dismiss the case called Historical Ancient Israel as unfounded.

There are three witnesses (aside from the biblical text) that mention the house of David: the Tel Dan Stela, the Mesha Stela, and the Karnak Inscription.

The Tel Dan Stela. The discovery and publication of the fragments of the Tel Dan inscription revealed for the first time the existence of “the house of David.” This reference to David in the Tel Dan Stela is the first time that the name of David appears in a non-biblical material. Although a few scholars have made an attempt at translating byt-dwd as the “Temple of Dod,” this translation has been almost universally rejected. Dod as the name of a god does not appear in any ancient literature.

The Tel Dan mentions a king of Israel and a king from the House of David. Although the fragments are broken, the names have been identified with Jehoram, son of Ahab and king of Israel, and Ahaziah, a king from the house of David.

The Mesha Stela. The second reference to the House of David appears in the stela of Mesha, king of Moab. Mesha ruled in the 9th century B.C. Mesha had been paying tribute to Israel since the days of Omri but after the death of Ahab, Omri’s son, he rebelled and reconquered several cities that were under Israelite control, including the city of Horonen, which was under the control of the house of David.

The Karnak Inscription. The third reference to the house of David may be found in the Karnak inscription in Thebes. The inscription celebrates Shishak’s victory against the Asiatics.
Shishak, also known as Shoshenq I, was a Libyan and the founder of the Twenty-Second Dynasty of Egypt. Shishak invaded Canaan in the fifth year of Rehoboam, son of Solomon and king of Judah. The information about his presence in Canaan is found in 1 Kings 14:25-26 and in 2 Chronicles 12:2-9. According to the biblical text, Shishak took as tribute the wealth of the temple and the treasures of the royal palace. The inscription lists the places in Israel and Judah that Shishak said he conquered. Among the names listed there is a list of places located in “the heights of David.”

In addition to this possible evidence for the name of David, other recent archaeological discoveries are shedding light on the tenth century and events associated with the life of David. For instance, I have written about the discovery of David’s palace by Eilat Mazar and about Aren Maeir’s discovery of a broken piece of pottery containing an inscription in early Semitic style spelling with the name of Goliath.

More and more archeologists are discovering evidence that David was a real person. The discovery of inscriptions bearing the title “the house of David” tends to substantiate that David was a real person. Now, there is no reason to deny the historicity of David and his house.

As for the reality of a monarchy, the recent findings may not be enough yet to prove that there was a government in Jerusalem during David’s reign. Was David the leader of an Iron Age chiefdom? Is the concept of a united monarchy the legacy of the post-exilic community?

As Finkelstein and Silberman wrote:

There is hardly a reason to doubt the historicity of David and Solomon. Yet there are plenty of reasons to question the extent and splendor of their realm. If there was no big empire, if there were no monuments, if there was no magnificent capital, what was the nature of David’s realm?

I do not believe that the “Lost Kings of the Bible” will answer this question. Until a few years ago, some people were willing to say that David and Solomon never existed and that they were invented to promote a utopian view of a united Israel.

Today we can say with certainty that there was a “house of David” and that someone was called “Goliath.” Today we can say that Omri, Ahab, Jehoram, Jehu, Jehoash, Menahem, Pekah, and Hoshea, kings of Israel, are mentioned in extra-biblical documents. We can also say with certainty that David, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Uzziah, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, kings of Judah, are also mentioned in extra-biblical documents.

What else is buried in the remains of old cities? What kinds of written material are buried that have not yet been discovered? We do not know what else will be discovered a few years from now or in the next decade. But one thing is sure: little by little we are learning that the lost kings of the Bible are being found, one at the time.

References:

Biran, Avraham. “‘David’ Found at Dan.” Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April 1994): 26-39.

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil A. Silberman. The Bible Unearthed. New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Kitchen, K. A. “A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and the Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76 (1997): 29-44.

Lemaire, Andre. “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription.” Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1994): 30-37.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Karnak Inscription, Lost Kings of the Bible, Mesha Stela, Solomon, Tel Dan Stela

Lost Kings of the Bible

The National Geographical Channel will present “Lost Kings of the Bible” on Sunday, May 6, 2007, at 10 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, 9:00 p.m. Central. The program deals with the reign of King David and whether or not David was a real person.

The following is a short description of the content of “Lost Kings of the Bible” provided by the
National Geographical Channel:

Are two of the most famous kings of the Bible - King David and King Solomon - mythical heroes or made of flesh and blood? Jews, Christians, and Muslims have all chronicled the fantastic lives of these kings but skeptics have historically dismissed the stories for their lack of proof. Now, in Lost Kings of the Bible, the National Geographic Channel explores the groundbreaking new evidence that may provide answers to these questions.

The new evidence mentioned above is the Tel Dan Inscription. Scholars agree that the Tel Dan Inscription mentions “the house of David” and gives evidence to the historicity of David. This is a program worth watching.

To watch a brief video of “Lost Kings of the Bible,” click here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

UPDATE: Jim West has a post about the “Lost Kings of the Bible.” In his post he has comments from Eric H. Cline and Aren Maeir who are participants in the program. Both of them agree that the program is balanced and gives a fair presentation of the scholarly debate about David and Solomon. I specially recommend that you read Cline’s comment.

UPDATE II: I have written a post reviewing the issues discussed in the program. Read "The Lost Kings of the Bible: A Review."

Tags: Archaeology, David, Solomon, Tel Dan Inscription

A Royal Priesthood

Several days ago, I wrote two posts dealing with the idea of priesthood in the Old Testament. The first post “Jesus: A High Priest After the Order of Melchizedek,” dealt with the priesthood of David and the fact that he inherited the religious traditions of Jerusalem and became a priest in the same way Melchizedek served as priest and king of the old Jebusite city.

That article also dealt with the priesthood of Jesus. Jesus, a man from the tribe of Judah, became a priest, not because he was a Levite or from the tribe of Levi, but because he was a descendant of David. As such, he was considered eligible to carry on the tradition initiated by David. Thus, Jesus was a priest according the tradition established by Melchizedek and adopted by David.

The second article, “Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: ‘David’s Sons Were Priests,’” dealt with the statement in 2 Samuel 18:8 that the sons of David were priests. Although the writer of Chronicles was not willing to affirm that David’s sons could serve as priests, the article concluded that David’s sons were indeed priests. They did not become priest because they were Levites. David’s sons exercised the priesthood because, as sons of the king of Jerusalem, they followed the same tradition established by Melchizedek and continued by David when he became king of Jerusalem.

Today I want to address the passage in 1 Peter 2:9 and offer a new proposal for the proper understanding of the fact that Christians are called “a royal priesthood.” My proposal is based on my previous discussion in the articles above. I presuppose that you have read those articles; if you have not read them, I suggest that you do so for the proper understanding of the discussion below.

The text in Peter reads: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9 ESV).

The expression “a royal priesthood,” has been interpreted in many different ways. Most commentators understand this expression as describing the dignity of the priestly office that Christians have attained (see 1 Peter 2:5). This expression was taken from Exodus 19:6. In Exodus the entire nation of Israel was to be a kingdom of priests. Thus, for Peter, Christians were set apart to offer spiritual sacrifices to God.

The word “royal” has been understood in different ways: that these priests belong to the king, that they are priests of the kingdom of God, that this title demonstrates the exalted position of believers, or the dignity of their office as priests, or that they belong to God, the king, and for this reason, all of God’s followers are royal.

Peter H. Davids, in his commentary on The First Epistle of Peter (p. 87) wrote:

The term for “priesthood” is found in the NT only here [2:5] and in 2:9. The latter reference shows clearly that Peter sees the church in terms of Israel’s priestly functions, for it alludes to Exod. 19:6. And other NT authors pick up the theme using different words (e.g, Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6)–such language is used elsewhere only of Christ as a priest in Hebrews and of the Aaronic priesthood in Jerusalem.

The expression in 1 Peter 2:9 “a royal priesthood, a holy nation,” is taken from Exodus 19:6:

“You shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

All English translations translate the expression ממלכת כהנים as "a kingdom of priests.” The Septuagint (LXX) translates the Hebrew expression as “a royal priesthood” in Exodus 19:6 and in Exodus 23:22, although the extended text of Exodus 23:22 does not appear in any English translation. It is clear that the citation in 1 Peter 2:9 was taken from the Septuagint.

What is lost in all the discussion of 1 Peter 2:9 and in all the commentaries of the text is the most obvious question: how could Gentile Christians become priests of God? Since most believers were not Jews, the possibility of a Levitical priesthood is out of the question. How could non-Levites act as priests of God even when they only offered spiritual sacrifices (as in 1 Peter 2:5)?

The answer seems to be in the way David’s sons served as priests. Since David, a man from Judah, served as a priest following the tradition established by Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, David’s sons exercised a “royal priesthood,” a priesthood based on the authority delegated by their father, who was a king.

Jesus, a man from Judah, exercised the priesthood following the tradition established by Melchizedek and continued by his ancestor David. His followers became priests by the authority given to them by their Lord, who was the King of kings.

Both the sons of David and the followers of Christ did not exercise a Levitical priesthood because they were not from the tribe of Levi or from the family of Aaron. They exercised a “royal priesthood,” the type of priesthood established by Melchizedek who was the king and priest of Jerusalem and adopted by David when he became the leader of the Canaanite population who continued to live in Jerusalem after the conquest of the city.

Reference: Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing House, 1990.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: 2 Peter 2:9, David, Melchizedek, Priesthood, Priests

David, History, and Evangelicals: A Response to Chris Heard

My fellow blogger Chris Heard has written a post, "David’s sons and the history of biblical ideas," in which he addresses some of the issues I raised in my post on the priesthood of David’s sons, Rereading 2 Samuel 8:18: “David’s Sons Were Priests.” Some of the issues Chris raised deserve some kind of response. It is impossible to provide a detailed response to every one of these issues, but I hope with this response to Chris’ post, to clarify some of my views and address some of Chris’ concerns.

The Historical Issue

Chris wrote: As Claude wrote, the Chronicler apparently found it unacceptable for non-Levites to be priests, but, in Claude’s words, “Since David performed some priestly functions in the Jerusalem cult, it is very possible that he delegated some of his priestly responsibilities to his sons.” Claude apparently means this as a historical point about David, which I judge a tenuous point to make.

There is much debate about the historicity of David and some events related to his kingdom. Those who are familiar with the history of the debate also know that scholars on both sides of the issue cannot come to a definite conclusion.

Notwithstanding the unwillingness of scholars and archaeologists to accept the reality that David is mentioned in extra-biblical sources, archaeological discoveries make references to the “house of David,” clearly indicating that David was a historical figure. The name of David appears in the Tell Dan stela, in the Mesha stela, and possibly in the Karnak monument commemorating Shishak’s conquest of cities in Canaan.

If David conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites and made it his city, and even if Jerusalem was a small city, it is possible that he would become king or leader of the Jebusite city and assume some of the duties associated with the religious life of the city. I have no problem in accepting the historical reality of “the house of David.

"From “Priests" to "First Ministers"

Chris wrote: we are basically presented with the dilemma that either the author of the smallest original unit containing 2 Sam 8:18, as well as (presumably) the tradents who preserved that unit through to canonical expression, either (a) did not know anything about the Priestly Torah’s insistence that only Levites may be priests, or (b) were not bothered enough by David’s flouting of these commandments to rewrite the text or to insert an editorial comment on the impropriety, or (c) they themselves were not happy with this situation but thought it represented historical reality, and they were historically sensitive enough to realize that times change.

Chris’ statement may reflect a lack of understanding of the theology behind the Deuteronomistic history (even though I doubt it). The books of 1 and 2 Samuel are part of what is known as the Deuteronomistic history and were probably the work of the people involved in Josiah’s reform c. 622 B.C.

In their book The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein and Silberman wrote (p. 14) that “archeology has provided enough evidence to support a new contention that the historical core of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History was substantially shaped in the seventh century B.C.E.”

Finkelstein and Silberman also wrote (p. 14): “And we shall side with the scholars who argue that the Deuteronomistic History was compiled, in the main, in the time of King Josiah, aiming to provide an ideological validation for particular political ambition and religious reforms.”

The book of Deuteronomy, which is the initial chapter of the Deuteronomistic History, makes a clear distinction between the Levitical Priests and the Levites. The writers of the Deuteronomic History were well aware that there were priests who were not Levites. In fact, at the instigation of the reformers, Josiah “deposed the idolatrous priests whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense in the high places of Judah and round about Jerusalem” (2 Kings 23:5).

So, the historian knew about priests who were not Levites. It is the Deuteronomist who insisted that all priests be Levitical priests. Chris’ statement, that the writers of 2 Samuel 8:18 “did not know anything about the Priestly Torah’s insistence that only Levites may be priests” is incorrect because it was the writer or writers of 2 Samuel 8:18 and the whole Deuteronomistic history who insisted that all priests must be Levitical Priests.

The tradition initiated in the seventh century continued in the post-exilic period and the Chronicler was very adamant that only descendants from the tribe of Levi could become priests. In saying this, I am avoiding the controversy between the Zadokites and the Aaronites, an issue that, I believe, is very evident in the book of Chronicles.

The Dictation Theory

Chris wrote: Many on the conservative/evangelical end of Christendom apply to the Bible a Qur’anic model of inspiration, resulting in the idea that God basically wrote the Bible by means of dictation to human secretaries.

I am surprised that Chris could make such a statement. His statement that evangelicals believe in the dictation theory is mind-boggling. The statement shows that Chris may not have a clear understanding of the evangelical movement. The fact is that only a minority of fundamentalist Christians would accept dictation theory. Many conservatives and evangelicals are not fundamentalists and they reject the dictation theory.

I hope he is not including me among those who believe in the dictation theory. If Chris has been reading some of my posts, he should know by now that I reject any view that can be classified as dictation theory. I believe in the inspiration of Scriptures but I reject any aspect of the dictation theory.

Chris’ Conclusions

At the end of his post, Chris wrote: By implication, it seems that the restriction of the priesthood to the Levites did not occur in some pre-monarchical wilderness experience, real or imagined, but sometime relatively late in the monarchy or after it. The whole thing has implications for the authorship and provenance of the Torah and of the book of Samuel.

First, I never said that “the restriction of the priesthood to the Levites occurred in some pre-monarchical wilderness experience.” To the contrary, I inferred in my post that the restriction was the work of the Chronicler. What I did not say in the post was that I believe the restriction originated at the time of Josiah’s reform.

Second, I never implied in my post that the Torah was the work of Moses or that the book of Samuel was written by Samuel himself or even written in the early monarchy. Maybe if I had given more detailed information in my post, Chris would have had a better understanding of my own position.

Now, let me clarify what I tried to convey in my post. First, I believe that David and his sons exercised some form of priestly duties by virtue of having conquered Jerusalem from the Jebusites. Yes, I believe in a historical David and I believe that there was a “house of David.”

Second, I believe that with the Deuteronomic reform the cultus was centralized in Jerusalem and that all non-Levitical priests were removed from official duty and that in the seventh century, restrictions were established on who could serve as priests.

Third, in the post-exilic period, the Chronicler made an attempt at eliminating the reference that David’s sons served as priests in Jerusalem because during his days only Levites could serve as priests.

I hope these clarifications will give Chris a better understanding on where I stand on these issues.

Reference: Israel Finkelstein and Neil A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed. New York: The Free Press, 2001.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: David, Deuteronomic History, Evangelicals, Priests