THE BUILDING OF THE “HOUSE OF DAVID” BY GOD

THE BUILDING OF THE “HOUSE OF DAVID” BY GOD,

AS A REWARD FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE

IS THE FORMAL ESTABLISHMENT OF MESSIANISM

IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The King in Israel, as exemplified in David, was a charismatic leader, ruling vicariously for Israel's true monarch: Yahweh. As God's vicar, David has divine strength and wisdom since he had received Yahweh's spirit at his anointing (1 Sam 16,19). As he was the intermediary between Yahweh and the people, national prosperity depended upon his promises to God (2 Sam 24,1-25). In him the covenant promises were recapitulated and with each successive king of the Davidic line a new symbol arose that Yahweh's favor still rested with his people. Kingship originated in Israel because the Philistine threat would no longer be met by such occasional leader but soon became by popular acclamations, the anointed king. After God's rejection of Saul and David's anointing, the monarchy became more closely connected with the Messianic hopes.

 

I.          Nathan's Prophecy

      The oracle of Nathan in 2 Sam 7,5-16 is the most important text concerning royal Messianism and it is the formal establishment of Messianism in the Old Testament. Its essential elements are:

1. Yahweh refuses David's preferred house (temple).

2. He reviews the benefits that he has showered upon David and his nation.

   3. He instead will build for David's a permanent 'house' (dynasty), which He will treat as His son and uphold with his covenant's loyalty forever. 2 Sam 7 is called the dynastic oracle of Nathan. By this oracle Yahweh promised an eternal reign for the dynasty of David. Inasmuch as he was the Lord of the world, the glories of worldly kingdoms would be used to suggest the destiny; it was thus, that the 'court style' was justified, hence, there developed in Israel what is called 'royal messianism'. The royal psalms (and also the prophets Is 7,11) record this vision of the reigning king; he reigns not so much in and for himself, but insofar as he is a member of a fated dynasty, the vehicle of God's plans. There could be no exaggeration of his glory and power for they were guaranteed by Yahweh. Yahweh had made an eternal covenant with the Davidic dynasty to which this king belonged; through him will come the realization of God's kingdom.

 

II.        The Term 'Messiah'

    A. Etymology

  

   The English word is from Aramaic 'mesiha’, reflecting Hebrew 'masiah', 'anointed'; the Greek is 'Christos' whence 'Christ'. There are two distinctions: Messiah (capitalized) and messiahs (or salvific figures). The Old Testament and late Judaism knew of a gallery of salvific figures who were expected to appear at the time of God's definitive intervention on behalf of Israel e.g., Elijah, the prophet like Moses, perhaps the Suffering Servant, the Son of Man, the Anointed Priest, etc. These figures can loosely be called messianic. - But the capitalized Messiah is best confined to a precisely delineated concept, namely the anointed king of the Davidic dynasty who would establish in the world the definite reign of Yahweh.

    B. Development of the Notion of Messiah

      The expectation of the Messiah appears in post-exilic Judaism (although in the OT Messiah is not used as a title in the sense we are using it). From the frequency and spontaneity with which the question of the Messiah appears in the NT (Mk 8,29; 14,61; Jn.1,20; 4,25) and also from the evidence of post biblical Jewish writings we are safe in assuming that the expectation of the Messiah was very common in late intertestamental Judaism and could perhaps be called a national hope. However, not all Jews expected the Messiah. In the first century A.D. many lost faith in the Davidic dynasty, which had not ruled for 500 years; and there are late Jewish books that treat of eschatological questions without ever mentioning the Messiah. Moreover, even those who did hope for the Messiah did not necessarily confine their hopes to the Messiah. Often the expectation of the Messiah was accompanied by some of the other expectations mentioned above; at Qumran the sectarians awaited the coming of the Prophet, of the Davidic Messiah, and of the anointed Priest.

      Indeed there may have been an amalgamation of the figure of the Messiah with other salvific figures, e.g., the Suffering Servant, or the Son of Man, into one composite figure. Certainly, this happened in the Christian description of Jesus, but the evidence is quite uncertain for determining whether this happened in pre-Christian Judaism. In particular, the Christian must be warned that, while the late Jewish hope of the Messiah was highly idealized almost to the point of making the Messiah a figure of superhuman abilities, there was no expectation of a Divine Messiah in the sense in which Jesus is professed as Son of God.

    C. Development of Royal Messianism

      That God sent saviors to deliver His people (Moses, the Judges, Nehemiah, Ezra) is a commonplace in Israel's theological understanding of its history. But Messianism is involved with the salvific role of men in the framework of an institution, the monarchy.

     

      1. The First Stage of Development

       In the first days of the Davidic monarchy in Judah every anointed king (messiah) was looked on as a savior sent by God to His people. There is no record in the OT of a similar sublimation of the kingship in northern Israel. It is altogether probable and generally agreed that the first literary record of the messianic character of the dynasty of David is found in the oracle of Nathan, preserved in three forms: 2 Sam 7; 1 Chr 17; Ps 89; Ps 132. The Royal Psalms (in particular Psalms 2; 72; 110; 35,15; 20,88) should be considered in the first stage of messianism. These psalms were compositions applicable to any Davidic monarch, and they have been recited on important occasions in the life of the monarch, like the coronation.

      2. The Second Stage of Development

       In the writings of the 8^th century, there is a development in royal messianism. Wicked and inept kings like Ahaz had dimmed the glory of the Davidic line and the optimistic hope that each king would be a savior of his people. Isaiah in particular, gives voice to a more nuance expectation: there would be an in break of the power of Yahweh that would revive the dynasty and insure its permanence. Yahweh would soon raise up a successor who would be worthy of the name of Davidic king; he would be an example of charismatic power, just as David had been when the royal line was instituted.

      3. The Third Stage of Development

       The post-exilic development of messianism is difficult to trace because of the lack of written evidence; in part, we must reconstruct its history from the end product, namely, the expectation of the Messiah in the latest pre-Christian period. The fact that the Davidic line no longer ruled after the exile made a profound difference in messianism. Before the exile, the ideal king who would restore the vigor of the Davidic line could always be thought of in terms of the next generation of a reigning dynasty. But now there could be no ideal king until the indefinite future when the Davidic throne would be restored. Thus, the expectations began to move toward the indefinite future; and rather than centering on one monarch in a continuing line of rulers, these expectations came to center on one supreme king who would represent Yahweh's definitive intervention to save his people. It is in this period that we may begin to speak of "the Messiah" in the strict sense.

      In summation, in the course of 1000 years Israelitic messianism developed to the point where the expectation of the Messiah embodied one of the principal hopes for Yahweh's intervention to save His people. While this king savior, almost by definition, would be a political savior, he would a savior in virtue of the charisma and power of Yahweh and so his saving acts would never be merely political. In his reign, the Messiah would bring to Israel the ideal rule of Yahweh, Himself. That the salvation mediated by the Messiah would have a scope outside Israel is less frequently mentioned and is often viewed chauvinistically. Yet granting that the origins of the concept of anointed king, we may be surprised that the wider view occurs as often as it does.

III.       2 Samuel 7:1l-16 (Exegesis)

The Birth of the nation Israel under Moses and the conquest of Canaan under Joshua did not assuage but increased Israel's expectations. As the kingdom of God on earth, whose king was God Himself, there was no limit to what Israel might expect. However, how she would become great is another question. In the late 11^th century, with the institution of the monarchy in Israel, it was thought that the answer was at hand - Israel would be great through her kings. God would rule Israel and extend his rule from Israel to the world through the kings. For 400 years and more (1000-587 B.C.), the theocratic nation experimented with the arrangement. The experiment failed and the failure was clear in 587, but out of the experiment, came something positive _ the assurance that someday God world raise up a successful king from the line of David and through Him, God would fulfill His plans for Israel and the world. The foundation for this belief is found already in Nathan's oracle to David.

The circumstances which the oracle was given are described in 2 Samuel 7. Considering it a disgrace that he should live in a place while the Ark of the Covenant is housed in a tent, David decides to build a temple and is encouraged by Nathan. Returning later and speaking under inspiration, Nathan tells David that he is not to build a temple (cf.1 Chr 22,7-8 for the reason). God, however, is not displeased with David. He has done much for David in the past and will do far more in the future.

The oracle that follows, God promises perpetuity to the house of David and adopts David as His son just as he has adopted Israel as His son at Sinai. In return for the material house David would have built for God, God promises to David a royal "house", i.e., a dynasty which will endure forever. That house and seed are to be taken in a collective sense including the successors of David is clear from the context: the emphasis on "forever" (vv 11d, 13b, 15-16, 19, 25, 29), and the contrast with the house of Saul (15-16). The full significance of the oracle, however, depends on the meaning of the term 'forever'. In Hebrew, "forever' (adh’olam) is ambiguous. It can mean a long time, indefinitely long but not forever (cf 1 Sam 1,23; 27,12) or forever in the full sense of without end. That the latter is the meaning of the oracle is clear from the emphasis on the term throughout from David's evident amazement and from the contrast expressed between the short-­lived dynasty of Saul and that to be David's, The same implication is present in the distinction between the conditional nature of the promise as applied to the individual kings and the absolute nature of the promise as applied to the dynasty.

It is now almost universally agreed among exegetes that the oracle of Nathan is the root and foundation of dynastic or royal messianism in Israel. The development of the expectations to which it gave rise can be seen in the Psalms 2, 44, 71, 88, 109, and in the royal messianism of the prophets especially Isaiah and Micah.