David's view of himself as God on earth

[apostoli]

I was doing a quick study via the Septuagint (interlinear available here ('http://apostolicbible.com/')) on Psalm 2:7 prompted by a post by RBerman ('http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2721120&postcount=6') on another thread. Thought it might be useful to someone, so here are my observations (discussion welcomed)...

Psalms 2:7 "begotten". The Greek renders gennaō which corresponds to the original Hebrew = yalad. Basically, the words convey the idea of a bringing forth, not necessarily an actual birth or spermal begetal (in the KJV it is translated "birth" only twice (Ecc 7:1; Hosea 9:11) and there are multiple precedents for a metaphorical use of the term eg: Job 15:35; Proverbs 27:1; Isa 59:4; Micah 4:10 etc.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1080&t=KJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3205&t=KJV

Usage at Ps 2:7 plainly refers to an adoption as the text makes clear with David declaring "I will declare the decree: The LORD has said to Me".

In the OT, there is no prescription in the Law for adoption. So given what examples we have of adoption in the OT (Ex 2:10; 1 Kings 11:20 & Esther 2:7 all of which occur in foreign societies - Egyptian and Persian), I presume that the "declaration" was a common practice in the middle east. Imu, inheritance rights were dependent on either public recognition (declaration eg: Solomon or annointing eg: Jacob) or a written will.

We also find the YHWH adoption idea in respect to Solomon as decreed by the prophet Nathan to David at 2 Samuel 7:14.

Ps 2:7 is particularly interesting as David's declaration fails the Law - which requires at least two witnesses. David had no witnesses to what he purported YHWH had declared to him! His only witness on face value is himself! I can well imagine him setting a precedent to Jesus' words at John 8:10 and then apealing to his works as evidence and assert his unity of works and thus unity with the will of God in his rulership of the temporal kingdom.

Under inheritance Law David's declaration has huge ramifications, especially as David claims firstborn status (cp. Ps 89:27). In effect he is claiming equivalence rights = he is also o theos (God absolute - see Septuagint), superior to all the kings of the earth, which he declares himself at Psalms 45:6-7 & Psalm 89:27.

Discussion would be appreciated.

[RBerman]

1) Psalm 2 does not ascribe its authorship to David or any other particular person. Psalm 89 is by Ethan the Ezrahite. Psalm 46 is "Of the Sons of Korath."
2) Psalm 2 is not clearly in the voice of the king. It does switch back and forth referring to the king in 1st person and 3rd person.
3) Psalm 2:7 does not necessarily describe a private divine revelation to the king; it could as easily be a public declaration of the king's status as "God's son" simply based on his enthronement.
4) The Law's requirement for "two witnesses" does not apply to direct divine revelation. Almost all of the prophecies in the Old Testament would "fail" if the prophet had to prove, from witnesses, that he had really received a message from God. The standard of truth for divine revelation is that if the prophet is found false, he must be killed. This provided a disincentive against false prophecy.
5) Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=124528) is an excellent post summarizing the "son of..." language in the BIble.

[apostoli]

1) Psalm 2 does not ascribe its authorship to David or any other particular person. Psalm 89 is by Ethan the Ezrahite. Psalm 46 is "Of the Sons of Korath."
2) Psalm 2 is not clearly in the voice of the king. It does switch back and forth referring to the king in 1st person and 3rd person.
3) Psalm 2:7 does not necessarily describe a private divine revelation to the king; it could as easily be a public declaration of the king's status as "God's son" simply based on his enthronement.
4) The Law's requirement for "two witnesses" does not apply to direct divine revelation. Almost all of the prophecies in the Old Testament would "fail" if the prophet had to prove, from witnesses, that he had really received a message from God. The standard of truth for divine revelation is that if the prophet is found false, he must be killed. This provided a disincentive against false prophecy.
5) Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=124528) is an excellent post summarizing the "son of..." language in the BIble.An intentional error on my part. I've been investigating the cult of zion. Which you have admirably confirmed.

Peace

[apostoli]

ps. RBerman

4) The Law's requirement for "two witnesses" does not apply to direct divine revelation. Almost all of the prophecies in the Old Testament would "fail" if the prophet had to prove, from witnesses, that he had really received a message from God. The standard of truth for divine revelation is that if the prophet is found false, he must be killed. This provided a disincentive against false prophecy..Thats almost true. A prophets prophesy had to be seen to be ultimately believed.

There is a difficulty in your comment. Was David a prophet? Imu, the actual revelation to David was via the prophet Nathan. So, one wonders about the politics & propaganda at the time. It is provable, historically provable, that Nathan's prophesy of the perpetual earthly kingdom did not happen! Was nathan, therefore a false prophet in the context of David's understanding of a temporal kingdom.

I realise the implications concerning messianic expectations. Hence the various viewpoints of the early church. But at this stage I am only concerned with David's viewpoint of himself and his worshipers (the Moses to Aaron analogy) . Thus 1 Chron 29:20.

Peace

[RBerman]

There is a difficulty in your comment. Was David a prophet? Imu, the actual revelation to David was via the prophet Nathan. So, one wonders about the politics & propaganda at the time. It is provable, historically provable, that Nathan's prophesy of the perpetual earthly kingdom did not happen! Was nathan, therefore a false prophet in the context of David's understanding of a temporal kingdom.
Nathan's prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, whose rule is both spiritual and temporal. Thus Hebrews 1 quotes from this account and says that Christ is the "son" promised by God to David.

[apostoli]

Nathan's prophecy is fulfilled in Christ, whose rule is both spiritual and temporal. Thus Hebrews 1 quotes from this account and says that Christ is the "son" promised by God to David.No new info in your remarks, except you are inexact...

Jesus said his kingdom is no part of this world. So there is no physical temporal (secular) kingdom per se.

The facts are: Nathan later prophesied

1. YHWH put a curse on David's household, that it would be in constant strife,
2. YHWH fragmented David's kingdom, reserving only one tribe & Jerusalem for the sake of the promise as punishment for his lusting after Bethsheba, and
3. David's temporal kingdom ceased to exist over 2500 years ago. There has been no earthly continuity of the throne.

Be aware: I'm not attacking church tradition, I'm just examining the facts concerning David.

I feel you are directing the thread off topic, so please stick with David and his view of himself and his followers view of him.

[RBerman]

Stop talking about Nathan if you don't want to discuss him! Anyway, back to David. He considered himself "son of God" by virtue of his kingly office. His followers probably agreed.

[apostoli]

Stop talking about Nathan if you don't want to discuss him! I'm open on the matter. A fact that cannot be resisted is David's temporal kingdom did not perpetuate. And Jesus declared his kingdom is no part of this world. So, imo, we have to seek out the meaning of YHWH's promise to David. One theory is that David established worship in Jerusalem and transfered the ark there. Thus the throne that perpetuates is God himself. Aka the disputed texts: God is your throne vs thy throne o god.

Anyway, back to David. He considered himself "son of God" by virtue of his kingly office. His followers probably agreed.The question that arises in many commentaries is David's appropriation of Jebusite tradition (the rulers of Jerusalem whom David conquered). Thus becoming (replacing) the priest-king, and so, from his perspective, the mediator between God and man - God made manifest.

Whether such views are valid is the purpose of this thread. Imo, such views are at least plausable.

[RBerman]

A king is a sort of mediator between God in man, as is a prophet, as is a priest. As you say, David seems to have had thoughts of being not only the king but the priest. Saul had a similar notion, with dire results when he acted on it. David didn't act on his impulse, and he was gently rebuked by God before things got too far. God did not intend the offices of prophet, priest, and king to coincide for his people until Christ came. Thus Christ is a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," the only other king-priest in Scripture.

[apostoli]

A king is a sort of mediator between God in man, as is a prophet, as is a priest. As you say, David seems to have had thoughts of being not only the king but the priest. Saul had a similar notion, with dire results when he acted on it. David didn't act on his impulse, and he was gently rebuked by God before things got too far. God did not intend the offices of prophet, priest, and king to coincide for his people until Christ came. Thus Christ is a priest "after the order of Melchizedek," the only other king-priest in Scripture.Fair comment.

However, I regularly encounter evangelists making statements such as the following...

"While attending to the material well-being of his people, David imparted great meaning to its spiritual life. Often he headed religious holidays, bringing sacrifices to God for the Hebrew people and putting together his inspired religious hymns — psalms. Being a king and a prophet, and also to a certain extent a priest, King David became the prototype (a model), as a precursor of the greatest of Kings, Prophet and High Priest — Christ the Savior, the descendant of David."

It seems to some that David applied Ps110 to himself, considering himself as having been declared "a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." Albeit, such an understanding is dependant on an open interpretation of vs1.

[apostoli]

ps. RBerman

As you say, David seems to have had thoughts of being not only the king but the priest...David didn't act on his impulse, and he was gently rebuked by God before things got too far....I've spent all morning trying to substantiate your remark, but I can't find anything in scripture that supports your "gentle rebuke" idea. Would you give me your reference.

As far as I can tell there are two scriptures that indicate David in the role of priest (one assumed to be sanctioned and the other commanded by YHWH)...

1 Chron 16:1-2 (2 Sam 6:17-19)

"So they brought the ark of God, and set it in the midst of the tabernacle that David had erected for it. Then they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before God. And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD."

cp. 2 Sam 6:17-19

"So they brought the ark of the LORD, and set it in its place in the midst of the tabernacle that David had erected for it. Then David offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before the LORD. And when David had finished offering burnt offerings and peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD of hosts."


1 Chron 21:19-30 (2 Sam 24:17-25)

"Therefore, the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David that David should go and erect an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite...And David built there an altar to the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called on the LORD; and He answered him from heaven by fire on the altar of burnt offering...At that time, when David saw that the LORD had answered him on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, he sacrificed there. For the tabernacle of the LORD and the altar of the burnt offering, which Moses had made in the wilderness, [were] at that time at the high place in Gibeon."

cp. 2 Sam 24:17-25

"Then David spoke to the LORD when he saw the angel who was striking the people, and said, Surely I have sinned, and I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done? Let Your hand, I pray, be against me and against my father's house. And Gad came that day to David and said to him, Go up, erect an altar to the LORD on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite. So David, according to the word of Gad, went up as the LORD commanded....And David built there an altar to the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings. So the LORD heeded the prayers for the land, and the plague was withdrawn from Israel."

[RBerman]

David was gently rebuked through Nathan in 2 Samuel 7 when he declared his intention to build God a house (a temple) and God responded, "No, but I'm going to build you a house (a dynasty)."

[apostoli]

David was gently rebuked through Nathan in 2 Samuel 7 when he declared his intention to build God a house (a temple) and God responded, "No, but I'm going to build you a house (a dynasty)."That doesn't work for your argument. This rebuke applies to David's warrior status not his apparent priestly role.

1Chron 28:3 But God said to me, 'You shall not build a house for My name, because you [have been] a man of war and have shed blood.'

What is your explanation for the two occurances of David apparently acting in a priestly role that I quoted from scripture in my previous post?

[RBerman]

Good question. I'll study that!