LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

was a garment worn by deity. We are also told later on that David’s sons serve as “priests” (8:18 NIV has “royal officials”).180 In 1 Kings 3:4, we are told that Solomon engaged in priestly sacrifice. This connects David with the role of priest and therefore also binds him to the other associations that we noted throughout the Old Testament between priestly mediation and the Angel of YHWH/kavod. As we will see, many texts in the Old Testament appear to connect the king to the presence of YHWH with Israel.

Royal psalms, like 110, appear to strongly connect the Davidic monarchy with priestly mediation. A figure, referred to as “my lord” possesses a heavenly throne and the role of priest-king much like the mysterious figure Melchizedek spoken of in Genesis 14.181 It would appear (as even some critical scholarship seems to suggest182) that this figure is associated with the Davidic king while at the same time possessing a heavenly throne and being an eternal priest.183 As we saw in the last section, these characteristics are highly suggestive of the Angel of YHWH and therefore this Psalm appears to connect the Davidic king with him.

In keeping with these parallels, Scott Hahn convincingly argues that David understood himself as a new Melchizedek. He did not choose Zion as the location of his capitol by accident. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, Jerusalem is identified with Salem (see Ps 76:1–2), where Melchizedek was the priest-king.184 We observed that David dressed in priestly garb when the ark (the seat of divine presence) was brought to Jerusalem.185 We are also told that David feeds his guests “a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins to each one” (2 Sam 6:19). Hahn argues that the second item, “a portion of meat” (frequently translated as “meats” based on how Vulgate understands the difficult Hebrew word,186 though NIV and other translations have “dates”) could better be translated as “wine.”187 If so, all this suggests that David meant to identify himself as a new Melchizedek, who also feeds the people bread and wine (Gen 14:18). The bread and wine also connects David to the promises given to the patriarchs. The giving of bread and wine also hearkens back to Isaac’s blessing to Jacob that God may give him “plenty of grain and wine” (Gen 27:28). This oracle is connected also to Isaac’s prophecy to Jacob that “nations [will] bow down to you” (v. 29), which seems to be echoed in Genesis 49:8:12 and in Psalms 2 and 110.188

There is also a more direct connection between David and the Abrahamic narratives. Mount Moriah (the location of the Solomon’s temple and David’s capitol) was the place of God’s confirmation of his promise to Abraham in the binding of Isaac (2 Chr 3:1).189 Just as God told Abraham he would make his name great (Gen 12:2), he tells David the same thing (2 Sam 7:9).190 Hahn notes here that we can observe a connection to and a preliminary fulfillment of the blessing of Shem, whose name means, “Name.”191 Shem is also told that Japheth (i.e., the Gentiles) will dwell in his tents (Gen 9:27). Solomon’s kingdom includes both Israelites and non-Israelites (1 Kgs 9:20–21) and builds the temple as a house for God’s Name. During the reign of Solomon, the Bible states that the “people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore” (1 Kgs 4:20), fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17. Indeed, this promise is itself made on Mount Moriah. This establishes David not only as heir of the Abrahamic testament, but also establishes the Abrahamic testament as a continuation of the blessing of Shem and the protevangelium. Just as the Abrahamic testament is meant for the blessing of the nations, so David exclaims after the oracle promising him an eternal house: “this is instruction for mankind” (7:19).192 Hence, David’s covenant fulfills the restoration of Adam’s dominion and accomplishes Abraham’s blessing of all nations.

Just as there is a connection between the promises given to David and Abraham, the narrative of 2 Samuel 24 connects David’s sacrifice and establishment of the locale of the temple with the binding of Isaac. Just as the Angel of YHWH appeared to Abraham on Mount Moriah, so too he appeared in the same location to David in 2 Samuel 24 in connection to the plague resulting from David’s census (2 Sam 24:16–17). Just as Abraham drew his knife to kill Isaac (Gen 22:10), so David sees the Angel of YHWH drawing his sword to strike down Jerusalem (24:16–17).193 In the same manner that God gave a substitute to the patriarch (22:13–14), so too David offers himself as a substitute for the people (2 Sam 24:17).194 Just as Abraham constructed an altar at that place (Gen 22:9), David did as well (24:18).

These connections are hardly coincidental. They clearly identify David and his descendants with the promises to Abraham sworn in this location. For this reason, the Davidic line also becomes the focus of God’s plan for the restoration of Edenic harmony present in his promises to Abraham. The temple is, as we have noted, the new Eden. David and his descendants will reign over all creation like Adam, the protological priest-king. Finally, neither is it an accident that Golgotha is a hillock in the same area as Mount Moriah. The New Testament tells us that Jesus fulfilled the Abrahamic and Davidic testaments by the testament of his own body and blood communicated through bread and wine.195

David’s preliminary fulfillments of the Abrahamic testament and the protevangelium find an even more sharp expression in the oracle of Nathan. David’s son is to “build a house for my Name” (1 Sam 7:13, emphasis added). As we have previously noted, the divine Name and the temple were the means by which the presence of God was mediated throughout the Old Testament.196 This becomes even clearer in the description of the descent of the divine kavod into the Solomonic temple (2 Kgs 8:10–14). Much like God’s presence in the tabernacle with a sign of his commitment and self-donation to Israel, God’s personal presence in the temple meant a promissory guarantee of the Davidic testament. The Levitical and Deuteronomic codes do not (contrary to the claims of Wellhausen) anticipate the building of a temple.197 Therefore the temple is specifically tied to the house of David. Just as David desired to build God a house, so God would make David a house (2 Sam 7).198 We will observe the ultimate fulfillment of this in John’s gospel when Jesus claims to be the true Temple (John 2:22). In this, God’s fulfillment of his promise of an eternal “house” for David, and David’s building of a house of the Lord coincide. God builds David’s house through his preservation of the holy seed. He thereby makes David and his line a house for the dwelling of the divine glory in the form of the incarnation.199

In that he represents the divine rule and presence, the kingly mediator represents YHWH before Israel. He is, as he is addressed by YHWH in the royal enthronement hymn of Psalm 2, “my Son” (v. 7). Hans-Joachim Kraus claims that sonship in this context has a connotation of designating the Israelite king as an heir of the property of YHWH’s creation.200 As the embodiment of YHWH’s universal reign, God states, “I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (v. 8). Of course, Kraus may indeed be correct about the original use of the psalm (there is no way to verify this). Nevertheless,

Скачать книгу