Total Depravity in Genesis 6:5?

*Before I jump in here, I want to make clear it is not my intention to deny the doctrine of Total Depravity. Rather, I want to show that this verse (Genesis 6:5) does not, itself, touch of on the subject of Total Depravity.*

Genesis 6:5:

The LORD saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

From John Wesley to John Calvin to John Stott, Genesis 6:5 has been used to argue for the doctrine of Total Depravity. Total Depravity affirms human persons are, because of the Fall, totally corrupt in our entire nature. Sin has touched every one of our faculties – spiritual, emotional, psychological, and physical – and because we are totally corrupted in our sin, we cannot, in our own will, make a decision for God without his prior actions of grace toward us.

It’s easy to see how this doctrine can be derived from Genesis 6:5. It’s easy.

But easy doesn’t make it right. 

The larger context of Genesis 6:5 demonstrates why utilizing Genesis 6:5 out to prove the doctrine of Total Depravity is a mis-use of the text.

Genesis 6:5 is concerned with a special, extensive, particular form of wickedness directly tied to the Nephalim (6:4) – offspring of the Son’s of God (evil angelic beings?) having sexual relations with the daughters of men (human women).

In other words, according to Genesis 6, itself, we’re not talking about normal, run-of-the-mill human sin(fulness). We’re talking about an extreme (and odd!)  form of sin(fulness).

Indeed, the passage claims that humanity’s wickedness had become great, not that it always was great. And then later the passage describes God’s grief for having created humanity because of how wicked they had become.

Furthermore, the Nephalim wickedness was so extreme in form that Genesis 6:5 posits it is the direct, causal factor for the subsequent flood narrative. In other words, we have an extreme form of judgment (the flood) because of an extreme form of sin (Nephalim wickedness). And if this wickedness is extreme, then we’re not talking about normative, universal human nature existing in all times, all places, and within every human heart.

In fact, if the words of Genesis 6:5 were universal to humanity, and therefore relevant to the doctrine of Total Depravity, then God would have destroyed the world long before Genesis 6.

But since God doesn’t, this leads me to the conclude that Genesis 6:5 is an irrelevant text in the Total Depravity discussion, except insofar as it illustrates how far human sinfulness can go. But let’s be clear that it cannot prove the Total Depravity of non-Nephalim peoples.

Again, I am not challenging the doctrine of Total Depravity here. That’s another discussion altogether. But I want to argue that we shouldn’t be using this passage.

What do you think? Have I completely missed the boat? Have any of you ever wondered about the use of this passage to prove Total Depravity?

This is How it Should Be Done

I’m preparing to take over the Wed. night pastor’s Bible Study at my church.

I’m going to be teaching through the book of Jonah, but my emphasis will mostly be on developing good Bible reading skills (hermeneutics).

Someone from my church sent me this video. I think it’s a prime example of great engagement with the book of Jonah and great oral delivery of the book’s story…and all that from a little kid. This is how it should be done, friends.

Jesus and Women

The Role of Women in the Church

Here’s a brief (4 min.) discussion by NT Wright on the role of women in the church. He discusses, among other things, those passages that ‘seem’ to prevent women from being ministers in the church like I Timothy 2, and provides a good biblical case for women in ministry. I hope you find it enjoyable.

Psalm 110:1-3: Sit at My Right Hand

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.

Why the NT Doesn’t Teach Male “Authority” in Marriage

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).

Psalm 110: Structure

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

Psalm 110: Introduction

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. .

Psalm 24:1-2: Creation, Chaos, and Sovereignty

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.

Psalm 24: Introduction and Structure

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.