The Royal Orientation Of The Psalms: “O Lord, Save The King!”

By Bruce K. Waltke and Fred G. Zaspel [1]

[Bruce K. Waltke (ThD, PhD) is Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Regent College, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. He has taught at various institutions and is the author of a wide variety of books and articles, especially in connection with Hebrew and Old Testament studies. The Evangelical Book Publishers awarded his Commentary on Genesis (Zondervan Academic, 2001) and his An Old Testament Theology (Zondervan Academic, 2007) their golden medallion as the best book of the year in which they were published. His The Psalms as Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2010) and The Psalms as Christian Lament: A Historical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2014), and The Psalms as Christian Praise: A Historical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2019) were co-authored with James M. Houston.

Fred G. Zaspel (PhD) is one of the pastors of Reformed Baptist Church in Franconia, Pennsylvania. He is also the executive editor of Books At a Glance and adjunct professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. He is the author of several books, chapters, and articles, including The Theology of B. B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary (Crossway, 2010).]

The Psalter’s Royal Orientation

One very important upshot of approaching the Psalter redemptive-historically is the royal orientation of the Psalter. By “royal orientation” we mean that the king is the central figure. Fundamentally, the Psalms are both by and about the king. The Psalter can be thought of as a royal hymnbook, and its individual psalms have the house of David as its subject matter and point of reference. Obviously, not all the psalms are about the king; many are about Israel without reference to the king. This is especially true in the fourth and fifth books (e.g., 90, 93, 113, 114, 115). But ideally, Israel is to be ruled by the king. According to D. M. Carr, “the education of scribes in the biblical world was designed to train in them royal values and national culture.”[2] But “it was the king, not the scribe, who embodied the fullest ideal of humanity.”[3] The royal orientation anticipates David’s greater Son promised to him in 2 Samuel 7:8–16 and finally realized in the Lord Jesus Christ. At this point we want to establish that this is indeed the orientation of the Psalter and just how it is so.[4]

The importance of this discussion is immediately evident: it determines how we ought to read and understand the Psalms. Is the Psalter in fact oriented to the king? Who is the “I,” the “me,” the “my,” and the “he” who speaks in the Psalms? If these refer to “everyman” or even “every pious man,” that is one thing. But if they refer to David or the Davidic king who represents the kingdom of God and the people of God, quite another understanding arises. For example, Psalm 4, “A Psalm of David,” is not about personal opposition and interpersonal conflict; opposition to the king is in view. The difference is important and determines how we are to understand the psalm. Or if Psalm 63 was in fact written by David during his flight from Absalom, then his reflections on the sanctuary (v. 2) take specific significance; the superscript provides this context, and without it we are left with no context.

In his study of the Psalter, Hermann Gunkel identified ten or eleven “royal” psalms—Psalms 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 72, 101, 110, 132, 144:1–11, and possibly 89 (cf. vv. 47–52). Gunkel’s determination was based on the specific mention of the “king,” God’s “anointed,” or David himself. And indeed, these psalms pertain to some specific aspect of the king’s career: his coronation (2, 110), his marriage (45), his leading the nation into battle (20) and his victorious return (21), the qualities of his person and rule (18, 72, 144), his zeal for the ark of God (132), God’s covenant with him (89), and his personal aspirations (101). But in most psalms the king serves the national interests, not his own, and in that sense they too are royal. According to the superscripts fully half of the Psalter is Davidic, and therefore royal. Moreover, on the one hand, the somewhat random scattering of these “royal” psalms suggests a royal orientation and, on the other hand, when we examine the final arrangement, shape, and message of the Psalter, these uniquely royal psalms were placed strategically to signal just this Davidic/royal perspective. In Psalm 2, the psalm of God’s anointed commanded to ask for the nations as his inheritance, is placed up front to help introduce the Psalter and establish its leading figure. In Psalm 3 we hear the king in prayer surrounded by his enemies. Similarly, the uniquely royal psalms are placed at the seams of the five “books” of Psalms to remind us of the same. The entire first book is Davidic (Pss 3–41), as is most of the second. The inspired editor(s) added more psalms of David in the other three books. The large number of psalms by David and the strategic placing of uniquely royal psalms in the Psalter’s editing seem to justify this understanding of its orientation.

John Eaton’s landmark work, Kingship and the Psalms scrutinizes many Psalms in detail and demonstrates that this royal orientation goes further and is, in fact, pervasive. His work begins with the most obvious clue, the superscripts’ explicit identification of David, and proceeds to display further evidence from the rest of the Psalter. Here we will summarize his primary lines of evidence.[5]

1. The heading “Of David” appears over seventy-three of the psalms (eighty-four in the Septuagint.
2. Strong biblical tradition (1 Chron 15–16; 25:1–8; 2 Chron 29:25–26; Neh 12:36; Amos 6:5, etc.) and later Jewish tradition also, including one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, unanimously attribute the Psalter to David.
3. Throughout the ancient Near East the king was responsible for the temple worship, and David took this initiative also (1 Chron 15–16; cf. Hezekiah, 2 Chron 29; Isa 38:20).
4. The only identifiable “situation” in the “psalms of the individual” (“I”) is that of the king.
5. “Coupled with the preceding point is the general homogeneity of the psalms ... There is a prevailing similarity which is in accord with an origin within a restricted royal and national cultus.”
6. The “enemies” in view in various psalms are frequently nations (e.g., 18:43; 20; 21; 28; 61; 63; 89; 144), indicating again that the king is in view. Psalm 21, for example, opens with the king’s rejoicing in victory.
7. In some of the psalms the “I” and “we” alternate (e.g., 9–10; 44; 60; 66; 75; 102). This interpretive problem is easily resolved by a recognition of the representative character of the king.
8. Royal references occur frequently throughout the “psalms of the individual.” Here Eaton cites Gunkel. “All nations attend to the psalmist’s thanksgiving (18:49; 57:9; 138:1, 4; 119:46). His deliverance has vast repercussions (22:27–31). He invokes a world-judgment to rectify his cause (7:7–8; 56:7; 59:5, 8; cf. 43:1). He depicts himself as victorious over the nations through God’s intervention (118:10). He confronts armies (3:6; 27:3; 56:2; 59; 109:3; 120:7; 140:2, 7–8). He is like a bull raising horns in triumph (92:10; 1 Sam. 2:1). He is God’s son (2:7).”
9. “In many cases the royal interpretation is especially to be preferred because it allows the psalm as it stands to be seen as a consistent and meaningful whole.”
10. “It is almost unthinkable that a collection of hymns stemming from the royal temple—one large court enclosed ... both the Lord’s Temple and the king’s palace—should not include the petitions and praises of the king.”

Each of Eaton’s ten points may be expanded at some length. Eaton comments further:

The speaker vows continual psalmody. He stands out before the vast festal congregation (22:33, 26; 40:10f.). His head is raised on high ... His glory receives special mention ... He is blessed with superabundant life ... His designations of God as his helper are often related to warfare ... Enemies, military and national in character, aim at him personally rather than at his country and people.[6]

All of this reflects a royal orientation. And we should keep in mind those that mention David and his house (18:50; 78:70; 89:3, 20, 35, 49; 132:1, 10–11, 17; 144:10; cf. 122:5). The psalmist’s concern for the fate of his people, as in Psalm 94, is best accounted for with reference to the king. Some of the Psalms are prayers of intercession for the king (cf. 28:8; 61:6–7; 63:11; 84:8–9; 72). Ethan’s lament in Psalm 89 is all about the king. In Psalm 84 the pilgrims make their way to Jerusalem for the festival, and when they arrive they sing of their king:

9 Behold our shield, O God;
look on the face of your anointed!

The “shield” is the king, God’s anointed, and the prayer is for him, and he represents to the covenant congregation who is in corporate solidarity with him—David and his kingdom and proleptically Christ the true King and his church. The covenant people participate in the king’s defeat and victories. If we read the psalms as pertaining to “everyman” we miss that the psalms speak of the king’s battle: “Behold our shield, O God!” It is not our battle—it is his. Our hope hangs on his success.

So also in Psalm 44 the sons of Korah sing of the king:

5 Through you we push down our foes;
through your name we tread down those who rise up against us.

6 For not in my bow do I trust,
nor can my sword save me.

7 But you have saved us from our foes
and have put to shame those who hate us.

8 In God we have boasted continually,
and we will give thanks to your name forever. Selah.

Is it not most likely that the king represents the defeated army of Israel in prayer before God? Who is a more likely candidate than the king as the speaker of the line, “I do not trust in my bow, my sword does not save me” (v. 6)? It is also instructive to note that in this psalm, as in many others, there is a fluid interchange between the plural pronoun “we” and the singular pronoun “I.” This psalm begins, for example, “We have heard with our ears ... our fathers have told us that you did in their days” followed by “You are my King and my God who decrees victories for Jacob” (v. 4). This change can best be explained on the assumption that the human subject is the king representing the people. In short, although the psalm is assigned to the sons of Korah, the human subject is a king. Does not this also suggest that other Psalms not assigned to David were composed for Israel’s king?[7]

James Hutchinson argues at length that the Psalter itself is intended by the editor(s) to be understood as an extended reflection on Psalm 2,[8] and John Woodhouse argues that “the reader of the Psalms is not allowed to forget” Psalm 2 and its promise of the reign of God’s Anointed. Even the exilic Psalm 137 is about David, he argues: “What else does ‘we remembered Zion’ (Ps. 137:1) mean? Psalm 137 is about the city of David, and the promises of God associated with it.”[9] Many expressions are found throughout the Psalms that are especially appropriate with reference to the king.

From you comes my praise in the great congregation;
my vows I will perform before those who fear him (22:25).

But you have exalted my horn like that of the wild ox;
you have poured over me fresh oil (92:10).

All nations surrounded me;
in the name of the Lord I cut them off (118:10).

I will also speak of your testimonies before kings
and shall not be put to shame (119:46).

The Davidic covenant, often in view in the Psalms, most prominently in Psalm 89, indicates that the royal sons remain in view also. Indeed, in light of this promise (2 Sam 7:12–16) “it would be most surprising if David did not intend his many and varied types of psalms to be used by and for the house of David at the house of the Lord. Almost certainly these royal psalms had a royal significance in Israel’s cultus.” Each next Davidic king inherited the covenant promise and thus, at least in his ideal, inherits the nations (2:8) and reigns in righteousness over the world, and also “suffers on behalf of the kingdom of God and wrestles with God in prayer” for that kingdom.[10]

It is surely significant also that this royal orientation of the Psalter parallels the literature and hymns of the contemporary ancient Near Eastern religions.

A legitimate conclusion from this is that all these themes and more indicate that pervasively it is the king who is in view throughout the Psalter. It is abundantly evident that the subject of the Psalms is not the common man or even the outstandingly pious man. And the many about Israel are about the kingdom of God over which the Lord set the house of David. More basic to an understanding of the Psalms than a recognition of the various psalm types is the recognition that the king is the subject in view throughout—not just in the praise psalms but in the laments and acknowledgment (traditionally, “thanksgiving”) psalms also. And after the fall of the house of David, the eschatological dimension of the royal psalms took even sharper focus.

Some (particularly older) commentators were so convinced of the specifically Davidic orientation that they would labor to reconstruct historical background to psalms where none is provided in the superscript. Such a task should be considered tentative at best. There are exceptions to the Davidic orientation, of course, but even in psalms written after the collapse of the Davidic kingship the Davidic orientation is not necessarily absent, as Psalm 137. The royal orientation of the Psalter is pervasive. It is essentially a Royal Hymnbook with all the people of God gathered around the king at the temple.

The Significance Of The Psalter’s Royal Orientation

The significance of this point is readily apparent. Apart from this royal orientation many of the psalms would lack unity and coherence, as have seen in Psalm 4. Without a recognition of the Davidic authorship of the psalms attributed to him this royal orientation would be less apparent, and the exposition of those psalms would go astray, as happened after historical criticism hit academics like a tsunami.

The significance of this goes further as we seek to understand the Psalms in canonical perspective. Although, this truth needs to be explored further, here we can note already that the Davidic king is prospective of David’s greater son. And often the Psalms present the king in his ideal, in which case Christ comes into view more directly. Moreover, the king represents the people, Israel—the two were inseparable. And just as the king is prospective of the greater King, so also Israel is prospective of the church. This royal orientation of the Psalter defines its place in the canon and gives us the right to sing the Psalms with reference to Christ. As we understand that the Psalms concern the king, and when we observe that David delivers his psalms “to the choirmaster” to sing about the king, he gives us warrant to sing of the King also. If we miss this, we will individualize the Psalms and read them as though they are talking about us—an interpretive mistake that would rob Christ of his glory and us of their original and canonical significance.

The Psalms are ultimately the prayers of Jesus Christ, Son of God. He alone is worthy to pray the ideal vision of a king suffering for righteousness and emerging victorious over the hosts of evil. As the corporate head of the church, he represents the believers in these prayers. Moreover, Christians, as sons of God and as royal priests, can rightly pray these prayers along with their representative Head. Dietrich Bonhoeffer also reached the conclusion that Jesus Christ is the one praying in the psalter. “The Psalter,” he wrote, “is the prayer book of Jesus Christ in the truest sense of the word.”[11]

Furthermore, with this royal understanding we lay a firm foundation for a Christological interpretation of the Psalms, a point that requires further development. But we are on solid ground since Jesus said that the Psalms speak of him, and here we see just how that is so—they speak of the king, and he, the son of David, is the King par excellence. The experiences and emotions of the king in the Psalms—his passions, his sufferings, his struggles, his heartaches—foreshadow the experiences and emotions of the Lord Jesus, the Messianic King, the Christ who in fact has taken on all of our sufferings and emotions. Even he, on the cross, felt abandoned by God. He was tempted. And yet he triumphed and in doing so both accomplished our redemption and showed us how we may triumph also. With this historical approach and royal orientation in mind we see our Savior more clearly in the Psalter.

Notes

1. This article is an excerpt from a forthcoming book by Bruce K. Waltke and Fred G. Zaspel, How to Read and Understand the Psalms (Crossway, forthcoming), a book designed to equip Christians, especially pastors, to read the Psalms profitably. It is used by permission.
2. Gordon J. Wenham, Psalms as Torah: Reading Biblical Song Ethically (Baker Academic, 2012), 45, citing David M. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart: Origin of Scripture and Literature (Oxford University Press, 2003).
3. Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart, 31.
4. See Bruce K. Waltke, “A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms” originally published in John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg (Chicago: Moody, 1981), 3–18; republished in Bruce K. Waltke, The Dance between God and Humanity: Reading the Bible Today as the People of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2013), 58–74.
5. Here we follow John Eaton’s landmark work, Kingship and the Psalms (1986), 20–26.
6. Eaton, Kingship, 23–24.
7. Waltke, “Canonical Process,” 13.
8. James Hely Hutchinson, “The Psalter as a Book,” in Andrew Shead, ed., Stirred by a Noble Theme: The Book of Psalms in the Life of The Church (Apollos, 2013), chapter 2.
9. John Woodhouse, “Reading the Psalms as Christian Scripture,” in Shead, Stirred, 54–55.
10. Waltke, “Canonical Process,” 13–14.
11. Ibid., 16.