Theology for the Masses

The first of the two prophetic oracles initiates the interpreter into the enthronement ritual. Here the prophet announces that Yahweh has extended to the king a position of prestige at his right hand. This imagery is incomparable; in the Psalter a king is regularly represented as sitting (bvy) before God’s face (ynEåp.li),[1] but rarely at His right hand (ynI+ymiyli(). This subtle shift and its similarities with Egyptian symbolism has led some scholars to suggest that the image is “imported from Egypt, as an invitation for the king to ‘dwell’ rather than ‘sit’ at the right hand of God.”[2] The imperative (bveî) is not merely a command but an invitation which permits the king to inhabit Yahweh’s presence.[3]

Yahweh’s invitation has three implications. First, the authority of kingship and the victory over enemies is entirely derivative. The enthronement ceremony involves an “actual transferral of authority,”[4] which occurs by divine decree (~aun>) spoken by a prophet, but God is the real King and the earthly ruler rules “as a co-regent and representative, deriving his authority from his divine counterpart.”[5]

Second, the summons assumes the king shares in the life and actions of the divine King. The king has dominion over his foes, not as a passive agent,[6] but as a sovereign who subjugates enemies in a manner that concedes he is deriving his power from and participating in the larger purposes of the God of Israel. Yahweh will make his enemies a footstool for his feet.[7] Subdued enemies becomes the theme of vs. 2 in explanation of the extent of the king’s authority which expands from Zion[8] right into the midst of his enemies (br<q<åB.). The metaphor employed here is an extended scepter (hJ,m;), an emblem of world dominance, martial authority, and national glory (Jer. 48:17).[9] The phrase dealing with world dominance is controlled by an imperative (hdEªr>÷) that involves an element of promise: the prophet assures the king that the vanquishing of his rivals will most certainly take place in the future.[10]

Finally, the transmission of authority and the promises of world dominance and divine protection are intimately connected in history and ritual with the king’s divine Sonship: an idea which speaks nothing of ontological realities, but rather of status and adoption. In the ceremony of conferral of authority, the prophet enacts a legal transmission whereby the king is declared the adopted son of God.[11] The designation of divine sonship finds its roots in Ps. 2:7, the parallel text to 110:3.  110:3 has long been deemed “mysterious”[12] and the “most obscure verse in the whole Psalter.”[13] Understanding the verse entails considering a fair amount of textual alteration and thus this text has fashioned numerous scholastic constructions and explanations. The factors are numerous but here are a few. First, the verse contains two nominal clauses which offer the interpreter no indication of time. Second, a textual variant in 3b might be rendered either “holy majesty” (MT) or the minority reading, “on the holy mountains.” Here I will retain the MT reading primarily because the majority rendering of vd<qoß-yrEd>h;B. provides a fitting transition between the discussion of kingship and the discussion of priesthood. Third, due to the corruption of the Hebrew text and its lack of verbs, the LXX offers the most likely route for interpretation by inserting evxege,nnhsa,. This makes the most sense, especially in light of Ps. 2:7. Fourth, a hapax legomenon (rx’v.mi) occurs in the second phrase creating the usual interpretive difficulties associated with such an anomaly.[14]

Verse 3 begins with the imagery of the king’s subjects eagerly offering themselves to his military service, then moves to a three line description of the king’s Sonship which occurs in mixed-metaphor. The first metaphor, as already noted, has two possible Hebrew constructions. The majority reading used here portrays the king as “arrayed in holy splendor (Ps. 29:2).” The word vd,qo places his kingly majesty in a cultic context and creates a nice transition into vs. 4.[15]

The metaphor shifts at this point into two lines describing how the king was begotten of God “from the womb of the dawn (rx”+v.mi ~x,r<äme).”[16] Employing the LXX reading, which provides the word evxege,nnhsa,, the final line carries the metaphor of birth by asserting that Yahweh is the progenitor of the king. The king is the son of God through divine decree and a decisive transformation “of the kings essential nature (Ps. 2:7)”[17] through the set of legal acts previously footnoted[18] This proclamation legitimizes the kings rule. By the time of the Psalter’s compilation, this psalm had clearly taken on messianic, eschatological significance, but at the time this particular psalm was written, it would have served the political ideologies of “that segment of society (urban elite) who benefited from a centralized government”[19] because of its exaltation of the king to the status of sharing in divine glory and receiving divine power with Yahweh’s “unconditional commitment to protect and prosper Israel.”[20] Centralizing political power into one figure is now accompanied by centralizing religious power in the same figure.

—————————————————————————————–

---

[1] Ps. 61:7

[2] Bvy can mean both “to sit” and “to dwell.” Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 263. Keel provides other evidence for this suggestion by citing the fact that certain reconstructive models of the temple have placed the royal palace on the right side of the temple, threshold to threshold with God’s dwelling place. The other option is that the ark may have been processed into the Gihon spring and the throne of the king placed beside it. Allen, 80.

[3] Bill T. Arnold & John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 63.

[4] Kraus, 112.

[5] Allen, 86.

[6] Some scholars have suggested that the psalm is so Yahweh-centered that it depicts the king as a relatively passive agent who sits protected as Yahweh goes to war for him. While this is largely true, the psalm is concerned primarily with Yahweh’s actions, it misses the evidence of verse 3 where the king has troops who offer themselves as free will offerings as they rally around the king for battle.

[7] Such imagery has parallels in ancient Egpyt. Certain iconographic archeological discoveries depict adversaries situated underneath the feet of Egyptian rulers. At times the imagery in these discoveries depicted other deities being dominated by the superior, Egyptian deities. (Keel, 255) The implications of such a reading for Ps. 110 are staggering. Yahweh subdues the enemies of Israel, not merely as secular enemies but as enemies which are such because they have devoted themselves to false deities who are also defeated and possess no authority of their own.Greg Boyd, God at War. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997), 243. Aside from the possible Egyptian parallels, the Old Testament uses the footstool metaphor repeatedly in reference to Davidic kings and Yahweh’s defeat of their enemies (I Kings 5:3).

[8] The place of the kings coronation according to Ps. 2.  “It is the city of Jerusalem in its political and historical existence, particularly in the realm of cultic language and thus religious thought: it is concerned with the city of Yahweh. Zion in the place where Yahweh dwells or at least may be reached.” Randy G. Haney, Text and Concept Analysis in Royal Psalms. (New York: Peter Lang Publishers, 2002), 123.

[9] Allen, 86. Furthermore, it seems possible that the hJ,m; is reference back to the Exodus where Yahweh rescued Isreal from Egypt with a shepherds staff.

[10] The action itself is still dependent upon Yahweh’s prior actions because such ends lie “outside the power of the [king].” Arnold & Choi, 64.

[11]Referring to Ps. 2:7, Kraus notes, “The prophetic and procedural declaration, ‘You are my son, today I have begotten you,’ is disclosed as a creative word that establishes new existence. The divine choice is reflected in adoption. The chosen king is placed at god’s side by adoption. He is elevated to the position of representative of God’s sovereignty and of heir to his power. Thus it is that in the Old Testament the king was not “son of God” by nature, nor did he by his ascending the throne necessarily enter into the sphere of the divine, but by a decision of Israel’s God he was declared to be son at his entry into the office of king.” Kraus, 113.

[12] Ibid., 114.

[13] Allen, 80.

[14]Some have seen here a reference to the Canaanite deity Shahar in the word rx’v.mi, but this is entirely unlikely because the imagery in this verse is one of giving birth and Shahar was a male, not a female, deity. Also, Isaiah 14:12 describes the king of Babylon as rx;v’_-!B, (a son of the dawn), which seems to be a clearer connection with that Shahar.  Robert Davidson, The Vitality of Worship. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Col, 1998), 365. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004), 64.

[15]If the minority text is employed, “on the holy mountains,” the phrase would then describe “the location and process of begetting to the heavenly sphere. The king comes forth from heights beyond the world, from the world of God…Thus in Ps. 110:3 on the day when the ruler ascends the throne he is ascribed miraculous origin from on high and the hope of a dawning light, birth from the ‘heavenly world.’” This, of course, would flow nicely with the following assertion of divine sonship in the last two lines of this verse and the reference to the morning dew. Kraus, 114.

[16] The other attractive option at this point in this terribly difficult verse, is that the writer continues to speak of those who volunteered for the kings military service. The metaphor of the dew describes the vast number of warriors at the kings disposal. In this reading the entire army of Israel is dressed in holy attire, not just the king. Haney, 124.

[17] Kraus, 113.

[18]Taken in the larger military context of this passage, it seems plausible that Yahweh’s begetting of the king in the womb of the dawn is an indication that the king is Yahweh’s tool for helping Israel in her time of need, events often associated with the morning (Ps. 46:5-6). Such a reading also places this assistance nicely within the immediate context of the king having a zealous army at his side .Again, however, it should be remembered that the kings military might is derived from Yahweh not his own strength or military prowess.

[19] Brueggemann, 606.

[20] Brueggeman, 606.

The following is written by Jon Zens, a prolific Reformed writer and authority on New Covenant Theology:

First, 1 Cor.7:1-5 is the only place in the NT where the word “authority” (Greek, exousia) is used with reference to marriage. But it is not the authority of the husband over the wife, or vice versa, that is in view, but rather a mutual authority over each other’s body. 1 Corinthians 7:4 states that the wife has authority over her husband’s body. One would think that this would be a hard pill to swallow for those who see “authority” as resting only in the husband’s headship.

Second, Paul states that a couple cannot separate from one another physically unless there is mutual consent (Greek, symphonou). Both parties must agree to the separation or it doesn’t happen. The husband cannot override the wife’s differing viewpoint.

John Piper suggests that “mature masculinity accepts the burden of the final say in disagreements between husband and wife, but does not presume to use it in every instance” (p.32). The problem with a dogmatic statement like this is that it will allow for no exceptions. But 1 Corinthians 7:5 contradicts Piper’s maxim. If the wife disagrees with a physical separation, the husband cannot overrule his wife with the “final choice” (p.33). Such separation can occur only if both husband and wife are in “symphony” (unity) about such an action.

Now if mutual consent applies in an important issue like physical separation from one another for a period of time, wouldn’t it seem proper that coming to one-mindedness would be the broad model for decision-making in a healthy marriage? Piper feels that “in a good marriage decision-making is focused on the husband, but is not unilateral” (p.32). In light of 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 I would suggest that decision-making should focus on finding the Lord’s mind together. Over the years the good ideas, solutions to problems and answers to dilemmas will flow from both husband and the wife as they seek the Lord as a couple for “symphony.”

1 Corinthians 7:5 throws a wrench into the works for those who would include the husband’s “final say” in male headship. Paul teaches that unless the couple can agree on a course of action, it cannot be executed. I suggest that this revelation invites us to re-examine what the husband’s headship really entails (cf. Gordon D. Fee, “1 Corinthians 7:1-7 Revisited,” Paul & the Corinthians: Studies On A Community in Conflict, Trevor J. Burke/J. Keith Elliott, eds., Brill, 2003, pp.197-213).

The 110^th Psalm’s structure is anchored within two prophetic pronouncements (vs. 1 and 4). Though scholars have espoused various structural breakdowns, a two section division seems most sensible. Parallelisms between verses 1-2 and 4-5 are too numerous to ignore. These include the repetition of the name hwhy and repetition of His acts of pronouncing a future reality.[1]

The entire psalm is a particularization of the phrase “until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet (^yl,(g>r:l. ~doåh] ^yb,ªy>ao÷ tyviîa’-d[;).” This particularization occurs by means of numerous contrasts: hands and feet; sitting and moving; Zion and the nations; my right hand and your right hand.

The first pronouncement proclaims that the king will sit on Yahweh’s right hand until the time at which his enemies become a footstool for him. As noted, this idea is then particularized in the four subsections that follow, essentially announcing “how” hwhy will bring this reality about. The second pronouncement (vs. 4) connects the king with the priestly lineage of Melchizedek, a feature which might seem out of place if we were discussing Aaronic priests, but because Melchizedek’s Genesis context is being blessed by Abraham after the defeat of the kings of Sodom, the psalmist’s connecting him to military imagery seems natural. This pronouncement is, like the first, accompanied by four subsections which serve to particularize verse 4.[2]

Finally, one of the more interesting features of the psalm involves a stylistic connection, at points, with prophetic oracles. Each of the two statements anchoring the structure of the psalm stylistically reflects prophetic discourse.[3] Examples of prophetic discourse and the importance of the structure of this psalm will be discussed in the following post in this series.

---

[1] There are also other occurrences which indicate this two fold division, namely the repeated use of certain elements in the one section with no reference to the element in the other section. For example, Allen astutely notes the first strophe is characterized by the eightfold repetition of the pronominal suffix ^ (your) in vs. 1-3, while the second is marked by the fourfold repetition of the preposition l[;. Neither of these elements occur with the same frequency in the alternative strophe.

[2] Other notable features involve an inclusion that moves from the first verse with there reference to the kings enemies being placed under his feet (lg<r,) to the final verse which references his head (varo,) being lifted up. The alliterative aspect of this inclusion highlights another prominent feature of this psalm.

[3] One example will suffice here. The “Day of Wrath” rhetoric occurs in numerous prophetic books. It is a day in which Yahweh is viewed as a divine warrior warring against pagan nations and intervening to protect the king and His people. Is. 5:15, Jer. 9:21, Ez. 32:5-6

Within the canonical context, there can be little doubt that the 110^th Psalm is messianic and eschatological in nature. Not only does the New Testament cite this psalm more than any other in reference to Jesus Christ, but the actual placement of the psalm within the Psalter either “beside a pair of Davidic psalms, Ps. 108, 109, or subsequently attracting them to it as a cluster, already reflects a messianic understanding”[1] at the time of the Psalter’s compilation.

 That said, there remains substantial difficulty in discerning the dating of this psalm.[2] The ascription places the dating at the time of David, possibly his enthronement or his successful sacking of Jerusalem. An assortment of scholars align the psalm with post-exilic priestly activity, arguing for a redaction from a prior document rooted in the Davidic dynasty. Still other speculations span from the eras of Abraham, Simon Maccabeus, King Josiah, and King Solomon. While recognizing the difficulty involved in dating, this series works from the assumption that the earliest materials[3] present within this psalm originate in the Davidic dynasty.[4] With the biblical evidence suggesting that the Davidic kings did in fact have mediatory, cultic functions (I Kings 8:22-26, Jer. 30:21),[5] there seems to exists no incontrovertible evidence excusing the extraction of this text from a pre-exilic locale.

Composed of two prophetic pronouncements, the voice present in this psalm is probably that of a court prophet serving as a subject of a newly enthroned king (ynI©doal;()[6] and probably performing a professional function during the enthronement procedures.[7] The pronouncement of the prophet entails Yahweh’s endowment of the king with dominance over his adversaries[8] and cultic, mediatory authority.[9] Such a merging of military and cultic privilege is a well documented practice in Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature, though admittedly rather rare in the Old Testament.

With the ambiguity of the introductory material noted,[10] the remainder of this series will be concerned with working from within the text itself, beginning with a brief sketch of the structure of the psalm and concluding with a lengthier set of comments on the more noteworthy features of the text.

---

[1] Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150. Vol. 21. The Word Biblical Commentary. (Waco: Word Books Publisher, 1983), 79.

[2]  For broader reasons for the difficulty of dating this and the other Royal Psalms, see Gunkel, 118.

[3] Though the earliest writer materials indicated a time during the Davidic kingly era, some of the rituals and traditions behind this document likely go back to the Jebusite royal traditions, of which the Melchizedekian comes to the foreground for this psalm.

[4] The primary argument for a post-exilic dating asserts that vs. 4 indicates the period of the Maccabean priest-kings, most likely around 105 B.C.E. The problem, however, is that the text does not say that a priest will become king. Rather, a king is given the status of priesthood, and that status is not even Aaronic. Post-exilic Maccabean priestly rulers would have certainly found this and other psalms helpful, but the evidence that they authored these psalms is scant. A comparison with non-canonical, post-exilic poems demonstrates that the non-canonical psalms of this period are exceptionally weak, “reflecting corroded imitations of ancient patterns. They are removed from the outstanding flourish of the songs in Pss 2 and 110.” Gunkel, 119.

[5] Hans­-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms. A Continental Commentary. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 111.

[6] Gunkel identifies the 110^th Psalm as a Royal Psalm, and suggests it was sung on the “day of anointing of the young ruler” and assists us in gaining insight the “situation of the enthronement from the reports of the historical books.” Hermann Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 67.

[7] James Luther Mays, Psalms. Interpretation. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), 350.

[8] Whatever else may be said, this psalm is closely connected with Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7, both of which elevate the military conquests of Yahweh’s king by Yahweh’s hand.

[9] As already noted, vs. 4 indicates that military success does not exhaust the kings job description, he also retains cultic functions. This sacerdotal efficaciousness “will assure the success and well-being of the people (v. 3),” Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 606.

[10] Allen, 84.  The priest/king connections in this psalm do not really help at this point either. Verse 4 could indicate a post-exilic dating, but “if vs. 4 can be harmonized with the Davidic monarchy, the way is mainly open toward a pre-exilic setting.” The military references seem to indicate a pre-exilic setting, some have suggested Josiah. Whatever the case it seems the most likely suggestion is that the earliest form of this psalm is pre-exilic, though I am not convinced one could be too dogmatic in this assertion. .

Yahweh has been acknowledged as the universal sovereign over all creation in verse 1-2, an unambiguously kingship oriented statement. Now, His title as “king” is officially announced. Again, His kingship cannot be separated from His having founded the world upon the sea. Creation and kingship belong together. Furthermore, the general setting in this final section belongs to the return of the Ark from war – the return of God’s presence to Jerusalem.

The final section begins with two imperatival statements, the first commanding the anthropomorphized gates to lift up their heads and the second commanding anthropomorphized ancient doors to be lifted up.[1] This call to lift up and be lifted up reminds the reader again of Yahweh’s mighty acts in creation by reflecting Baal’s words to other deities prior to defeating Yam, “Lift up your heads, O gods.”[2] Here, it is not pagan deities, but the gates and doors of the temple which respond to Yahweh’s return from battling the forces of chaos (vs. 2). The gates and doors are anthropomorphized so that they become persons who are capable of response to Yahweh’s approach, “courtiers awaiting the return of the Divine Warrior.”[3]  Their response is a repeated inquiry, “Who is He, this King of Glory?”

The answer to the question of the gates and doors is that zWZæ[i hw"hy> is the King of Glory. The identification of their deity with kingship is not uniquely Israelite. No, “the conception and designation of the deity as King are primitive Semitic practice, of which incontestable evidence is afforded by the large number of personal names compounded by melek going back to the most ancient period.”[4]

That said, the title “King of Glory” is entirely unique within the Old Testament, but we can be sure that, assuming an exilic composition, this title would have been quite subversive.[5] To proclaim Yahweh’s kingship in the midst of exile would be to call into question the claims of authority and sovereignty of mere earthly rulers, who themselves were viewed as deities. “As long as Yahweh is kin, his faithful followers can live under the human rulership of any number of foreign monarchs and still maintain their loyalty and allegiance to the one true king, Yahweh.”[6]

The answer to the question is the identity of Yahweh as the zWZæ[i hw"hy. The idea here is that Yahweh is a divine warrior who has, by virtue of his victories, maintained his kingship. The title “LORD of Hosts” is “the throne name of Israel’s God (Is. 6:5)…and refers to the hosts who surround the LORD’s heavenly throne and who praise and consult him and carry out his decisions as sovereign over the world.”[7] The name was associated with the Ark, which was identified as the throne of Yahweh, and which has been connected by the author to Yahweh’s activities in creation.  

CONCLUSION

I have demonstrated here that, though the kingship metaphor of Yahweh plays such an integral part of this psalm, it is subsumed under the idea of Yahweh as creator. The first two verses are particularized in both of the following sections and provides the foundation for His worship and His kingship. In the end, however, I do not intend to draw a sharp disconnect between the elements (even though the structure and flow of the psalm could arguably suggest such a disconnect). Rather, it is important to see the entirety of the psalm and its claims as a whole. Creation, holiness, and kingship are intimately tied together in this psalm. Each of them informs the other and demonstrates the universal sovereignty of Yahweh and His moral claims on the world.

---

[1] Both of the words have the same root, which occurred earlier in verses 4 and 5.  The first of  afn in this verse 7 is a standard, active Qal, but the second is a passive Niphal. This seems to have no significance beyond poetic variation.

 

[2] Cragie, 214. The LXX is slightly different, calling for the princes to lift up their heads: a;rate pu,laj oi` a;rcontej u`mw/n.

[3] Richard J. Clifford, Psalms 1-72. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 136.

[4] Eichrodt, 194.

[5] Even in a pre-exilic setting, the title still relativizes all claims to power by any earthly ruler, especially Israelite ones, who were prone to think to highly of themselves and forget Yahweh.

[6] Wilson, 454.

[7] Mays, 123.

 The second section moves the passage from chaos and creation to morality[1] and immorality, thus establishing a connection between order and ethics.[2] It also serves as a movement from the larger setting of creation to particular sacred space and from the inhabitants of the earth to those who wish to approach Yahweh in worship.[3] It cannot be forgotten here that any conception of justice or morality derived from this psalm is connected with the ordered world of verse 1-2. This ordered world exists as such primarily because Yahweh has subdued the forces of chaos. Thus Torah obedience is intimately connected with creation theology.

Controlling this segment, primarily, is two questions, “Who may ascend to the hill of Yahweh?” and “Who may stand in His holy place?” Essentially, the questions stem from the first two verses; they desire to know the identity and characteristics of the creature who desires to be in the presence of the Creator. As the worshipers flock into the sacred space, the priests ask these questions to motivate repentant meditation.[4] They serve as a reminder of the otherness of the Creator and the following requirements serve as a reminder of the immorality of the creatures.

            The requirements[5] of these worshippers who wish to enter Yahweh’s presence are four-fold[6] and communicated in chiastic fashion:

A. Clean Hands (External)                                B. Pure Heart (Internal)

B. Does Not Lift Soul to an Idol (Internal)      A. Does Not Swear by What is False (External)

  The first requirement is clean hands. The Hebrew yqin” means “innocent,” a term often associated in the OT with possessing hands that are free from having shed innocent blood. No innocent blood cries up to Yahweh from the ground against this person.

            The second requirement is the internal compliment of the first: a pure heart. The one who approaches Yahweh must not only keep from outward sins, but he must also possess an internal character that is without flaw. His character must be rB; , reflecting the commandments of God (Ps. 19:9).

            The third element brings with it the first verb of verse 4, afn . afn is a Qal, Experiential Perfect, which carries with it the idea of a present state of mind.[7] Thus, at the time in which the worshiper desires to stand in Yahweh’s presence, he must not be in a state of idolatry. The translation “soul” (NIV) is insufficient. The idea of vp,n< is “self” and in the present context involves the idea of lifting up one’s very life and personhood to a afn,[8]  that is, offering one’s life and existence to the very gods (literally or figuratively) who have no claims of sovereignty (vs. 1-2), instead of the God who gives life and vp,n< (Ps. 25:1).[9]

            The final moral requirement moves back to an external action – swearing deceitfully (hm’(r>mil. [B;äv.nI), that is, having taken an oath upon himself which he had no intent to execute.[10] The term is quite easily attached to the previous requirement of lifting one’s being to an idol. Only here, the subject has created his situation by virtue of verbal falsity. The Stative Niphal of [B;äv.nI describes a state produced by means of the verbal action[11] – the subject speaks falsehood into existence.

            The person who meets these requirements will receive blessings from Yahweh. Instead of lifting (afn) his soul to an idol, this person will bear (afn) a blessing from God. The imperfect form of this verb (aF’äyI) indicates an enduring blessing and an enduring righteousness. The blessing and righteousness refer “to both the practice and consequence of participating in the worship of God in his place.” In other words, they are the ones worthy to ascend the hill of Yahweh and to stand in his holy place. They receive a public vindication (hq’d’c.)[12] of their character that originates in the will of the God of their salvation.[13]

            Two shifts occur within the final verse of this section. First, there is a shift from a singular person to a generation of those who seek Yahweh’s face. Second, there is a shift from the third to the second person, whereby the psalm becomes a speech addressed to Yahweh for just a line.

There are two different words for “seeking” employed here: vrd and vqb.[14] The second, a Frequentive Piel participle (yve’q.b;m.), pluralizes the action of the first verb and implies a repeated, busy action – the seeking of God’s face[15] is an intentionally active and repeated event. Interestingly, Yahweh, the one whose face is sought, is merely called “Jacob.” The LXX assists us at this juncture with tou/ qeou/ Iakwb.[16]

---

[1] I choose “morality” intentionally here because the ideas of rB; and yqin” are not part of the purification texts of the OT, but are terms related to moral activity. Neither word appears in the context of purification rituals in Torah.

 

[2] “Human conduct that enacts justice is a counterpart to Yahweh’s own work of justice. For that reason, Israel’s worship life has an ethic of justice at its core and never imagines being in God’s presence except as those who have justice as their identifying agenda.” Walter Brueggemann, “Justice: The Earthly Form of God’s Holiness.” The Covenanted Self. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 56.

[3] Kraus rightly notes that this movement starts with the distinctive event of the promise of the land and the occupying of it, in which Israel came to know Yahweh’s right to a possession of the land of Canaan. The expansion to universal dimensions in creation theology is possible only because of the particular history of Israel in its land, the land of Yahweh. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 62.

[4] Wilson identifies the congregation receiving the question as “exilic or post exilic pilgrims, reaching them end of their long journey through treacherous lands and over dangerous seas to arrive at this moment of communal worship with an international fellowship.” Wilson,  450. While this setting creates a strong connection between Yahweh’s defeat of the “natural” forces of chaos and the treacherous journey of these people through those forces, he may be reading too much into the actual evidence of the passage. If nothing else, the psalm indicates nothing in the way of journeying peoples or multi-national worship. This is not to say there is no pilgrimage aspect to the psalm, only that an international pilgrimage goes beyond the evidence within the text.

[5] Brueggemann notes here that when reading these moral requirements “it is important to recall that this spiritually reflects only the well-oriented community, on that has not yet addressed a theologically ambiguous or morally disruptive world.” Walter Brueggemann, The Message of the Psalms. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1984), 42. Brilliant as Brueggemann is, I think his suggestion is unfounded. First, strict Torah obedience as a religious requirement need not be restricted to well-oriented communities. Indeed, sociologically speaking, communities in ambiguous contexts may very well draw such sharp lines. Second, the evidence of the psalm suggests that this is not a well-oriented community. It is a community that has first hand struggles with the forces of chaos (1-2) and lives in a time of warfare (7-10), which always raises ethical questions regarding religion and conduct.

[6] This four-fold list is a shortened form of what is found in Psalm 15. Peter C. Cragie, “The Word Biblical Commentary.” Vol. 19. Psalm 1-50. (Waco: Word Books, 1983), 213.

[7] Arnold & Choi, 55.

[8] afn literally means “emptiness/vanity.” Connected with the verbal idiom “raised mind,” the idea here “implies an attitude of adoration and worship.” Cragie, 213.

[9] I wondered, as I worked through this passage, if in the larger context of this Psalm, the connection between afn and vp,n< and creation is a reflection of Genesis 1, even though the exact same words are not employed.

[10] Cassiodorus, quoted in Thomas C. Oden, “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture.” Vol. VII. Psalms 1-50. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 186.

[11] Arnold & Choi, 41.

[12] This is a legal term “that denotes a ruling by a judge regarding what should have occurred in a case under judgment…What one is declare saddiq, then one received sadaqah, a public acknowledgment of compliance with the expectations in the case.” Wilson, 452.

[13] Konrad Schaefer, Psalms. (Collegville: The Liturgical Press, 2001), 61.

[14] Kraus understands these two words to be associated with yearly pilgrimage to the sanctuary Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 1-59. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 314.

[15] That Yahweh’s face is sought communicates that those who live holy lives are also seeking holiness. The face of God is unambiguously a reference to His holiness in the OT. Thus, it is reinforced that the means to God’s holiness is holy living.

[16] A similar use occurs in Ps. 75:10, only there is ~yhil{a/ present. This provides us with precedence to follow the LXX here.

Section 1: Yahweh as Sovereign Owner of All Creation

            The first verse is composed of a synonymous parallelism, the effect of which is to proclaim Yahweh’s absolute ownership of everything in creation, particularly “all who live in it” (Hb’( ybev.yOæw>)). The Hebrew stresses the divine name hwhy by situating it at the front of the sentence; the earth belongs to Yahweh and no other. This emphatic declaration becomes more significant with the substantiatory claim of verse two. 

            The yKi indicates the subsequent statement serves as a substantiation of the preceding assertion. He is the sovereign owner because He has subdued the forces of chaos in the world, establishing the world upon (l[;) them.[1]

Like the first, the second verse is composed of a synonymous parallelism. The first line of the parallelism proclaims that Yahweh founded the world upon ~y”, a Canaanite deity and cosmic opponent which Yahweh elsewhere is said to have subdued (Ps. 8:27-29). In Canaanite mythology, Baal defeats ~y” in a cosmic battle for sovereignty. But here the claims given to Baal are transplanted to Yahweh. The claims of Baal and ~y” to sovereignty are denied and neither is given authority, neither will threaten Yahweh’s sovereignty. Yahweh, not Baal, defeats ~y” and retains kingship (7-10).[2]

The Qal verb (Hd”_s’y>) is a Complete Perfect, indicating an accomplished action with the entire sequence of events in view.[3] The significance of this is brought to light by the main verb in the parallel statement, h’n<)n>Aky>, a Progressive[4] Imperfect, which indicates the action of “establishing” is still underway. In other words, there is an already-not-yet aspect to the psalm. From “already” standpoint, the world is already founded upon the waters and Yahweh is, therefore, the owner of all things. From the standpoint of the “not yet,” the forces of chaos are still be subdued, but Yahweh owns all things based on the inevitability of that defeat.

The first verse, substantiated by the second, serves as the general assertion that governs and is particularized in the final two sections of the psalm. In other words, Yahweh’s sovereignty over all creation signifies, first, that creation is not morally neutral because Yahweh is not morally neutral. Therefore all creatures who wish to approach Yahweh must possess moral perfection. Second, Yahweh’s sovereignty over all creation naturally moves into the kingship metaphor which is connected in this psalm with a title of warfare.

 

---

[1] It should be noted that the psalm does not indicate any sort of cosmic battle. Though the metaphor of Yahweh as warrior arises within the third section of the psalm, there is no indication, as in Canaanite religion, that Yahweh created the world in the aftermath of battles with other gods. There is some indication elsewhere of a cosmic battle, but the other gods lose their power in Hebrew theology, not only because Yahweh is said to have subdued them, but more particularly because He does so in a way that demythologizes and disarms them, demonstrating  they have nothing more than false claims to ownership and authority.

 

[2] This comment also serves to relativize the claims of kingship by earthly rulers, including Israelite ones. James Luther Mays, Psalms. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), 120.

[3] Bill T. Arnold & John H. Choi, A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax.( New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 55.

[4] The other possibility here, and maybe the more likely one, is that this Qal Imperfect with the was consecutive is a Preterite, which would suggest that the Imperfect is merely a stylistic change for the poet, but the meaning would essentially be parallel to that of the previous Qal verb.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Most scholars agree that the 24^th Psalm, despite its ambiguous compositional history, was employed in processional ceremonies pertaining to the return of the Ark to Jerusalem.[1] The antiphonal aspects of the Psalm, composing of two-thirds of its content, suggest a dramatic, liturgical movement between the priests within the city gates and those who bore the Ark back into the city.[2]

Traditionally, scholars thought the psalm originated in the initial relocation of the Ark from the residence of Obed-edom to Jerusalem by King David (2 Sam. 6:12). This association most likely accounts for the ascription, “A Psalm of David” (rAmðz>miñ dwI©d”l.), and while the psalm may have ancestry in that event and the early monarchy,[3] the ascription must nevertheless be questioned. The most likely explanation of authorship and composition is exilic or pre-exilic[4] monarchial priests.[5]

With that background in place, the remainder of these posts will concern themselves with working from within the text itself, beginning with a brief sketch of the structure of the psalm and concluding with a lengthier set of comments on the noteworthy features. The persistent premise throughout is that the proclamation pertaining to Yahweh’s acts in creation are the controlling thought for the entire psalm. The moral requirements and the kingship metaphor and inseparably linked to the idea of Yahweh’s defeat of the forces of chaos in creation.

STRUCTURE

The structure of the 24^th Psalm is straightforward, splitting into three distinct elements: First, verses 1-2 herald Yahweh’s sovereign ownership of all creation. Second, verses 3-6 reveal the moral requirements of those who aspire to admission into the “holy place.” Finally, verses 7-10 are a declaration of the identity of the “King of Glory” as “Yahweh Sabaoth.”

While the structure of the psalm is easy enough to examine, the thematic intention of its arrangement is the crux of the interpretive process.[6] Most scholars suggest the central subject matter of the psalm is Yahweh’s kingship, secured in the first section by His subdual of the forces of chaos, strengthened in the second section by the maintenance of His moral requirements, and finally in the overt announcement of his kingship in the third section.

The principal theme, connected of course with Yahweh’s kingship, is Yahweh as creator. This theme substantiates the kingship metaphor, not the other way around. Thus Yahweh’s creative activities have exegetical priority in that all that follows should be read though that lens. This is supported, most specifically, in the first two verses, which, as I will argue, form a general assertion which gets particularized throughout the entirety of the psalm.

---

[1] One of the key indicators suggesting the connection between this psalm and the Ark is the divine title “Yahweh Sabaoth.” This was a popular designation when referring to Yahweh’s warrior-like actions, which were often associated with the presence of Ark of the Covenant during battle.

[2] Related to this, it has been suggested that this Psalm was a hymn used during the procession whereby the two voices the antiphonal liturgy are actually two choirs of alternating singers. Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50. The Anchor Bible: Vol. 16. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006), 151.

[3] Anchoring the psalm in the early monarchy helps explain the otherwise unknown title “King of Glory” in vs. 7-10. Even if the psalm is not in its final compositional stage in the early monarchy, it seems clear enough that aspects of it go back that far. The priests in the early monarchy would have easily linked the rise of the monarchy with Yahweh’s kingship.

[4] Furthermore, a pre-exilic dating is indicated by the fact that the employment of antiphonal liturgical movements in this Psalm are well attested to long before the Exile and are imitated by both the prophets Micah and Hosea. Hermann Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 318.

[5] Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. 1, (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), 196. Eichrodt also suggests the psalm is related to the royal festivals on Zion where by there was a “visitation of the people by their God.”  The purpose was not to re-enthrone Yahweh, but to reaffirm Yahweh’s election of Zion and the establishment of Israel’s king (127).

[6] Gerald H. Wilson, Psalms. Vol. 1, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 446.

It’s been a while since I’ve posted here, so I thought I’d do a little writing on a psalm I’ve been working through – here are the first thoughts in what will be a series on this psalm.

——————————-

The ANE was a place filled with deities, spirits, and mythologies all clamoring for allegiance, devotion and worship. The land was carved up by the nations, each with their own local deity and story substantiating that particular deities “rights” to that nations plot of land. These deities were often crowned King as a result of their victories over other deities.

But in the 24th Psalm we do not have one deity among many clamoring for His own piece of land. We do not see a deity beholden to a specific ethnic group. Nor do we have a God who is fighting other deities in an attempt to jockey for supremacy amongst the nations.

Rather, we have Yahweh, the Lord of the entire cosmos and all the inhabitants thereof. He refuses to share his creation with anyone. He will not allow allegiances to be paid to the neighboring gods, He refuses to acknowledge the authority of the surrounding mythologies, and He refuses to let humanity find genuine meaning in anything other than Himself.

The breakdown of this Psalm falls into three parts
1.    Vs. 1-2 Where Yahweh’s sovereign ownership of the entire world is confessed and substantiated.
2.    Vs. 3-6 Where the Psalmist lays forth the requirements of those who wish to approach Yahweh and the blessings given to the one is worthy.
3.    And Vs. 7-9 (the climax of the psalm) where an ancient liturgical formula of Call-and-Response is employed to exalt Yahweh as a King as the ark enters Jerusalem. The entirety of the Psalm is really to be interpreted as an exaltation of Yahweh’s kingship, his narrative of creation, and his redemptive purposes that involved the defeat of all other claims to allegiance.

Vs. 1 The earth is the Lord’s and Everything in it, the world, and all who live in it.

The central proposition of this verse is that every inch of created space has a stamp on it that bears Yahweh’s name. He has written His name on every tree, every unborn child, every terrorist, politician (sigh!), and every codgery old person in your church. He has placed his name on them and said one word – MINE, MINE, MINE!

He will not share his sovereignty with competing nations (America or otherwise!). He will not share his sovereignty with competing narratives (the American Dream or otherwise!). He will not share his sovereignty with competing deities. And he will not share his sovereignty Christians who assume God is on their side, their own little marionette to be jerked around at their every political whim.

No, in fact, in this verse there is a movement from general (world) to particular (the inhabitants of the world). Though Yahweh could care nothing for our notions of private property He cares even less for our assumptions about ownership when it comes to people. It is not dictators, presidents, or even pastors who own the souls of men and women – it is Yahweh and Yahweh alone. We are not permitted to oppress, subjugate, or manipulate either the creation or the inhabitants of creation because none of it is ours and they are not ‘our’ people.

Do you see the soteriological implications? If Yahweh is the Kingly owner over all creation and its inhabitants then there is no segment of creation that is beyond redemption – be they homosexuals, democrats, terrorists, or even that old codger in the back row of every church I’ve ever been to. And despite our lack of faith, let’s forget this nonsense of “giving up” on folks because they’re our enemies or b/c they don’t like our political agenda. “Giving up” on their redemption was never God’s ordained means of bring them to redemption!

And though it may not seem like it on the surface, vs. 2 exactly about that redemption, for the Psalmist substantiates the claim of Yahweh’s sovereignty – but in an odd sort of way…but we’re going to save that for next time.

Another argument from the Cessationist camp has to do with te,leion in vs. 10. The argument suggests that when perfection (te,leion) comes, all that is partial (me,rouj) will pass away. Because te,leion is most often employed in I Corinthians to refer to individual, spiritual maturity, it is suggested that this reference must be to the maturity of the church.[1] The maturity of the church, it is argued most often, has to do with the completion (te,leion) of the perfect, biblical canon. One can sympathize with this argument, to be sure, in that “much of the impetus for this position stems from a profound concern for the finality of biblical truth.”[2]

However, this argument is exegetically weak. First, to argue that te,leion means “maturity” in one passage does not mean it has to mean maturity in the same way in another text. This is a word study fallacy known as Illegitimate Totality Transfer. We cannot transfer the meaning of a word from one context and make it mean the same thing in another context without a direct connection, especially a word with the lexical range of te,leion.[3] A word’s meaning is solely determined by its context. And here te,leion simply has to do with the completion of something; that is, having reached its intended or final purpose. As Fee notes, “The meaning in the present instance is determined by its being the final goal of what is, ‘partial.’ Thus its root sense of ‘having attainted the end or purpose’, hence ‘complete,’ seems to be the nuance here.”[4]

Second, the Cessationist appeal to vs. 11 does not hold water. Paul’s concern is not about moving past these spiritual gifts, but viewing them in light of the eschatological reality that they will someday no longer be needed, for they are not the telos of the Christian life – love is.[5] In exalting tongues and knowledge as the supreme sign of spirituality and the “heavenly now,”[6] the Corinthians have “mistaken the part for the whole and the partial for the final and in particular have overlooked the fact that while love already has finality here and now, knowledge [and glossolalia are] only in part.”[7] Paul’s concern is not the cessation of these gifts, but a proper understanding of their place in the whole scheme of things; his argument “has nothing to do with ‘childlikeness’ and ‘growing up,’ but with the difference between the present and the future.”

That vs. 11 has nothing to do with the maturity of the church is also substantiated grammatically. The ga.r in vs. 12 ties the whole argument back to vs. 8 and the passing away of these gifts, not the immaturity of the Corinthians. Vs. 12, itself, also suggests that vs. 11 cannot refer to the maturity of the Corinthians precisely because the argument has to do with the eschaton. There’s no reason, then to assume Paul takes a reproachful tangent in vs. 11. [8]

Third, the argument is exegetically weak because it is eisegetical. If these Cessationist scholars read Paul as Paul intended, they cannot concluded te,leion refers to the closing of the Canon, for we have absolutely no indication in this text or any other that Paul was ever aware a canon was going to be formed! If 13:10 refers to the completion of the Canon, then neither Paul nor the Corinthians themselves, would have any clue as to what Paul was writing about. As an exegetical principle, if the reader concludes the passage means something that neither the author nor the recipients could have known was the meaning, it is likely the reader is doing eisegesis, which is always a reflection of the reader’s biases.[9]

Hays quite direct about this, “This interpretation is simply nonsense. There is nothing in the passage about ‘The New Testament’ or about a future revocation of revelatory gifts for the church. Paul had no inkling that Israel’s Scripture would be supplemented by a new collection of canonical writings.”[10]

And even Reformed theologian M. Lloyd Jones held a similar conviction, “It means that you and I, who have the Scriptures open before us, know much more than the apostle Paul of God’s truth…It means that we are altogether superior…even to the apostles themselves, including the apostle Paul! It means that we are now in a position which…’we know, even as also we are known’ by God…indeed, there is only one word to describe such a view, it is nonsense.”[11]

Many Cessationists, recognizing these things, have abandoned this argument.[12]

What most scholars have recognized, including Cessationist ones, is that te,leion refers to the parousia of Christ, when Christians will know fully and see Christ face to face.[13] It is “a state of affairs where my knowledge is in some ways comparable with God’s present knowledge of me.”[14] The context and structure of this pericope do not support these Cessationist conclusions. Thus, this passage “hardly addresses the debate between Reformed and neo-Pentecostal writers about ‘tongues will ceases’ after the close of the canon or at a given stage of individual or historical maturity…This issue must be determined on other grounds than exegetical discussion of [these verses].”[15]

Bitter polemics all too often fill the contemporary conversation concerning the place of miraculous, spiritual gifts in the church. One of the problems with this debate is that both sides of the discussion already have their theological agenda in place prior to approaching the text. By doing so they read their prefabricated theology onto the text. Neither side, then, is able to discern the voice of the text from their own voices. The Reformed[1] and Dispensational theologians have traditionally held to a Cessationist position – that is, that the gifts of tongues, prophecy and knowledge,[2] ceased sometime after the death of the apostles. On the other hand, the Pentecostals and neo-Pentecostals ardently believe that these gifts are for the church today and are normative for the contemporary church.

In the next few posts, most of my efforts will be spent on the Cessationist position as that is the side I am most interested in engaging.[3] I will examine their exegesis of both I Corinthians 13:8-11 and I Corinthians 14:1-25. I will begin with a brief examination of certain Cessationist arguments concerning 13:8-10 and conclude with a much longer examination of their arguments from I Corinthians 14. By the end, it will be demonstrated that, despite the exegetical prowess of so many Cessationist writers, their concerns often steer away from Paul’s and therefore they miss the point of these passages.

Contra Cessationism Post 1: Of Deponent Verbs and Rhetorical Effect

It has been successfully argued that the contemporary Cessationist position goes back at least to the Reformers polemics against the Roman Catholics in the 16^th and 17^th centuries regarding claims of miraculous events. Combine these fierce debates with an Enlightenment epistemology which denied the existence of miracles as well as the validity of experience as an adequate means of theological formulation and the way is paved for Cessationism to take a strong hold in the modern world.[4] For the contemporary discussion it was the 19^th century Protestant theologian Benjamin B. Warfield who, in response to Pentecostalism, shaped this discussion for years to come.[5] Warfield contended that the “extra ordinary charismata” were restricted, quite clearly, to the Apostles. These gifts served as an authentication[6] of Apostolic authority and, therefore, ceased upon the death of the apostles. His position has taken numerous paths in the Cessationist scholarship, especially in relationship to I Corinthians 13.

Cessationists often use I Corinthians 13:8-12 as a proof-text for undercutting the validity of tongues and other gifts for the contemporary church. Many assert that the verbal voice change in vs. 8 indicated the cessation of tongues. That is, in vs. 8-10 prophecy and knowledge are said to katarghqh,sontai,[7] that is, to be rendered powerless. The passive voice is significant here because with tongues Paul shifts to the middle voice, pau,sontai.[8] The middle voice, Cessationists argue, is reflexive, indicating tongues will have ceased in and of itself prior to the arrival of the perfect thing[9] of vs. 10. Tongues will cease on their own as opposed to prophecy and knowledge which will be stopped by an outside force.

There are two major problems with this reading, however. First, it does not acknowledge the likelihood that this word choice is merely a rhetorical tool employed by Paul for stylistic reasons. The structure of the verse quite clearly demonstrates this. The verse is set up in a chiastic fashion, whereby pau,sontai is given meaning in light of katarghqh,sontai :

A. ei;te profhtei/ai(katarghqh,sontai\

B. ei;te glw/ssai( pau,sontai\

A’. ei;te gnw/sij( katarghqh,setaiÅ

In other words, since the “A” envelopes, thus providing contextual meaning for “B”, there are clear structural reasons for concluding that Paul may merely intend a stylistic variation in the switch in verbal voice in vs. 8.

Second, the first critique of this Cessationist argument is reinforced by a much larger concern: the failure to understand the use of this verb in the middle voice throughout biblical literature.[10] The future tense of any verb is frequently accompanied by the middle voice. However, the middle voice quite frequently takes on active force. Known as deponent verbs; these verbs are middle in form, but active in force/meaning. To figure out whether we are dealing with a middle voice verb or a deponent verb we must observe how the middle voice form functions with a specific verb, for “one knows what force the middle voice has only by careful inspection of all occurrences of the verb being studied.”[11] Concerning pau,sontai, the evidence overwhelmingly points to deponent usage, as DA Carson has noted:

In the New Testament, this verb prefers the middle; but that does not mean the subject “stops” under its own power. For instance, when Jesus rebukes the wind and raging waters, the storm stops (same verb, middle voice in Luke 8:24) – and certainly not under its own power.[12]

In other words, that the verb, though in middle form, most often takes an active force as it is most often deponent.[13] This suggests the Cessationist reading of this text leaves much to be desired. The requirement lies with them to demonstrate that this verbal voice shift has any bearing on the argument at hand. They need to show why this occurrence of pau,sontai is not a deponent when the word prefers the deponent nearly everywhere else in the New Testament.