Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif

By Eugene H. Merrill

[Eugene H. Merrill is Professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

New Testament scholarship has long recognized the threefold character of the messianic office and ministry—prophet, priest, and king—and has seen in Jesus Christ the full embodiment of these roles. Whether actualized in the course of His historical sojourn or anticipated in His postresurrection glory and eschatological triumph, attributing to Jesus these principal Old Testament theocratic ministries is a matter of little doubt.[1]

From a theological standpoint it is equally clear that these institutions, originated and developed in the Old Testament, served not only practical but also typological purposes. That is, they provided a framework within which ancient Israel could organize and conduct itself as the elect people of God, but they also pointed toward the eternal kingdom purposes of Yahweh, purposes that focus on and find realization and expression in Jesus Christ.

Jesus as Prophet, King, and Priest

Traditionally the type of Jesus as Prophet is seen in the entire order of Old Testament prophets, but most particularly in Moses. The great law-giver himself said, “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen; you shall listen to him” (Deut 18:15). Then follows the divine affirmation, “I will raise up for them a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (v. 18).

There is virtual consensus that the prophet alluded to here is the prophet par excellence whom the early Christian community identified as Jesus.[2]

The kingship of Christ is anticipated by David, as the Davidic Covenant declares. Through the prophet Nathan, Yahweh promised the king, “When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sam 7:12–13). Again, the fact that David, like Moses, serves as a prototype of Jesus Christ in a significant Old Testament institution is readily accepted by the great majority of biblical scholarship.[3]

The anticipatory model of the third office—that of priest—is, however, not so universally recognized, at least not in all its ramifications. The Gospels are virtually silent with respect to any priestly aspect of Jesus’ messianic office, and Paul likewise gave scant attention to Jesus as priest.[4] To the author of Hebrews, however, the matter is not only of interest but may be seen as a dominant concern in his theology.[5] Beginning with the affirmation of the necessity of Jesus’ incarnational identification with His people so that He might atone for and mediate on behalf of them (Heb 2:17), the writer goes on to speak of Christ as the “great high priest who has passed through the heavens” (4:14) and “who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin” (v. 15).

The Melchizedekian Priesthood

The Old Testament prototype of the messianic high priest is, however, not Aaron, founder of the priestly institution of Israel, but, rather, an individual who stood completely outside the narrow compass of the theocratic cultic community, namely, Melchizedek. Thus the author of Hebrews specifically identified the high priest of whom he had spoken already as “a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek” (5:6; cf. v. 10; 6:20), the “king of Salem [and] priest of the Most High God” (7:1) whom Abraham honored by paying him tribute and from whom the patriarch received a blessing (v. 6). So exalted was that priest that it could be said that Levi himself (and hence Aaron, a descendant of Levi) offered homage to Melchizedek inasmuch as Abraham was the ancestor of Levi and of all Levitical priests (vv. 4–10).

It is unnecessary here to discuss the question of the historical reality and identity of Melchizedek.6 The Old Testament account of Abraham’s encounter with Melchizedek is true to the historical and cultural environment of those ancient patriarchal times as best they can be understood. And clearly the author of Hebrews presupposes the factual reality of Melchizedek every bit as much as he does that of Levi and Aaron, since his a fortiori argument links these persons inextricably together. In any case the argument of Hebrews concerning Melchizedek as the type of Jesus as high priest does not rest fundamentally on the Genesis narrative of the Abraham-Melchizedek episode but on the use of that episode by David in Psalm 110.[7] Five times the author of Hebrews cited Psalm 110:4 in defense of the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus to that of the Old Testament order of priests represented by Aaron and his descendants (Heb 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17, 21).

Melchizedek is first adduced in Hebrews 5:1–10, a passage whose purpose is to make the point that the office of priest is not self-appointed or even hereditary, but elective. The high priest is selected “from among men” (v. 1), and cannot take this honor on himself. He must be “called by God” (v. 4), and in fact even Jesus “was designated by God as a high priest” (v. 10). The appeal is to the election of Jesus as “a priest forever” (v. 6).

The next use of Psalm 110:4 is in Hebrews 6:13–20, which argues for the fidelity of the promises of God. The guarantee of the fulfillment of those promises, specifically those with reference to descendants of Abraham, rests on the oath of God which, with the promise itself, constitutes a pair of witnesses. Both provide the grounds for an unshakable hope, one that takes hold of the intercessory work of Jesus, the believers’ High Priest. The durability of the hope, in turn, is assured by virtue of the eternality of Jesus as Priest in the order of Melchizedek. Once more, then, the author sidestepped the temporal, conditional priesthood of Aaron in favor of one whose essential elements are spelled out in Psalm 110, only a catch line of which is cited here.

The further appropriation of the psalm takes the form of an interpretation of the Abraham-Melchizedek narrative of Genesis 14. In this lengthy discourse (Heb 7:1–28) the reference to Melchizedek in the previous section (6:13–20) is elaborated by a summary of the Genesis story (Heb 7:1–3) and its syllogistic conclusion that Melchizedek is greater than Aaron precisely because Aaron, in the person of Abraham, gave a tithe of the plunder of war to Melchizedek (vv. 4–16). Next follows the claim that Jesus, since He is of the order of Melchizedek, is also superior in His priesthood to Aaron and the whole order of Levitical priests (vv. 11–17). Moreover, Jesus was made a Priest by an oath, something not true of the Levitical priests inasmuch as their tenure was not permanent but one that lasted only as long as they themselves did (vv. 18–28). Jesus, like Melchizedek, is a Priest forever (Heb 7:21), a point made by quoting Psalm 110:4 once more.

In this last instance, however, the name Melchizedek is omitted, perhaps in order to draw attention to the psalmist rather than to Melchizedek.[8] Be that as it may, it is apparent throughout the argument of Hebrews with regard to the priesthood of Jesus that it is based on the promise of Psalm 110 rather than on the narrative of Genesis 14. Therefore, though the prototype of the messianic priesthood may indeed originate in the rather enigmatic person of Melchizedek, the linkage between Melchizedek and Jesus is clearly none other than the individual who is the subject of Psalm 110. It is he whose priesthood was modeled after that of Melchizedek and who himself became the precursor of a line of priests that finds its fullest and perfect expression in Jesus Christ. A hint of this linkage appears in Hebrews 7:11–17:

Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests. And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of Him, “Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.”

Most instructive is the reference to the descent of Jesus from Judah, the messianic tribe of which David was the most notable Old Testament representative. Jesus, despite his non-Aaronic lineage, was appointed a priest, but so was David, as several narratives at least indirectly attest. But before these are examined it will be helpful to look more closely at Psalm 110, a text that provides the linchpin to the theology of royal priesthood.

Psalm 110 and Royal Priesthood

This psalm is attributed to David, an attribution that enjoys the favor of longstanding Jewish and Christian tradition.[9] But the subject of the psalm is a matter of intense debate. So bold is the epithet of the individual involved—אֲדֹנִי (“my lord”)—that many scholars favor the view that the psalm is strictly messianic, the אֲדֹנִי being none other than the Lord Himself.[10] Thus David was saying, “Yahweh says to Messiah, sit at my right hand,” etc.

While this understanding has much to commend it inasmuch as this is the most messianic of all psalms as far as New Testament usage is concerned, it suffers from the lack of a clear historical occasion, a Sitz im Leben that either called forth the psalm or at least gave it the relevance to its own times that a proper view of the nature and function of Scripture requires.[11] These difficulties have caused modern scholars to seek other identifications for the אֲדֹנִי including David himself. If the psalm title לְדָוִיד describes the subject matter or the addressee (“for David”), or refers to an aspect other than authorship, then David as אֲדֹנִי is most appropriate.[12] The honorific “my lord” was a common way of addressing royalty or even socially superior individuals who were less than royal.[13] But even if Davidic authorship is maintained, as it ought to be, אֲדֹנִי is still appropriate, for the term no doubt became so formulaic that a king could use it even of himself. That is, “my lord” came to mean nothing more than “I” or “me” when employed by the royal speaker.

Since this assertion is so crucial to the argument that David is both the author of Psalm 110 and its addressee, it is mandatory that it find evidentiary support. As pointed out already, אֲדֹנִי as an epithet employed by an inferior to refer to a king or other person of exalted social status was common (1 Sam 22:12; 24:9 [Eng. 24:10 ]; 25:24; 26:17; 2 Sam 1:10; 3:21; 9:11; etc.). Apart from Psalm 110:1, however, the text in dispute, there is no other clear reference in the Old Testament to an individual addressing himself in this manner. This alone does not disqualify this meaning for the psalm, especially given its highly messianic tone and thrust, but it does smack of begging the question and therefore calls for evidence of a different kind.

Of particular importance is the use of אָדוֹן as a divine epithet (“Lord”), especially in the plural and with the first person suffix, אֲדֹנָי (literally, “my Lords”).[14] By the time this form entered Old Testament usage the significance of the plural (probably a so-called “honorific plural”)[15] was largely lost and the resulting title was simply “Lord.” Thus the suffix also no longer had semantic value, the epithet having been reduced from “my Lord” to only “Lord.”[16] The very fact that God employs the epithet to speak of Himself (Job 28:28; Ezek 13:9; 23:49) provides support for the formulaic meaning “Lord,” for He would hardly describe Himself as “my Lord” (to say nothing of “my Lords”).

Similar reductions are attested elsewhere from ancient to modern times. For example the well-known title of Jewish teachers in early Judaism, namely, “Rabbi” (רַבִּי), derives from Aramaic רַב (“lord”) plus the first person suffix, the complete form being reduced to “teacher” or “guide.” When one referred to himself as “rabbi” he would not have in mind “my teacher.”[17]

Such modern titles of respect as “monsieur” or “madame” are to be understood also not as “my lord,” “my lady,” or the like, but as “mister” or “lady.” At some point the pronominal element dropped its lexical force and the resulting form came to be translated as though it did not exist. Thus there are parallels to אֲדֹנִי meaning not “my lord” but simply “lord.” David may have been saying, if this is the case, “Yahweh said to (the) lord,” referring to himself as king under that honorific title.

Related to this discussion are the abundant attestations of bēlūtu plus first person singular suffixes in the Assyro-Babylonian inscriptions as a circumlocution or even epithetical formula whereby kings referred to themselves. A perusal of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary provides a number of striking examples of this construction, the literal meaning of which is “my lordship” or the like.[18] While one could wish for examples of bēli or bēliya, a form semantically closer to Hebrew אֲדֹנִי, the cuneiform comparisons are nonetheless striking. Indeed it is even possible that אֲדֹנִי could have been understood as “lordship” as well as “lord,” but at present there is no way to demonstrate this.

To return now to Psalm 110, all but verse 4 speaks of the אֲדֹנִי in royal, militaristic terms. In this respect it is similar to Psalm 2 and in fact the writer of Hebrews juxtaposed Psalm 2:7 with his first use of Psalm 110:4 in referring to the legitimacy of the priesthood of Jesus (Heb 5:5–6).[19] Jesus can be a Priest after the order of Melchizedek precisely because He is the royal Son of God. David likewise and in a unique sense in the Old Testament is the son of God.[20] As the author of Psalm 2 (so Acts 4:25), he so described himself: “He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have become your Father’“ (Ps 2:7, NIV). Moreover, David was not hesitant to see himself in the psalm as God’s “anointed one” (v. 2, NIV), the king (v. 6) who would inherit all the nations (v. 8), and who, as the “son” of God, would become God’s instrument of judgment (v. 12). In Psalms 2 and 110, David appears as a royal messianic figure, one who prefigures Jesus Christ in that respect, especially in eschatological contexts. In Psalm 2, in fact, he is no less than the son of God with all that means in his role as theocratic ruler. And according to the terms of the Davidic Covenant that sonship was dynastic, transmitted through every generation of his descendants until it found perfect expression in the Son of David known in New Testament revelation as Jesus Christ.

David as a Royal Priest

All this is generally understood and accepted but, as was suggested near the beginning of this article, it is not the royal antecedent of the ministry of Jesus that is in question, but His priestly function. It is therefore appropriate to articulate and defend the thesis that the priesthood of Christ is typified by that of David who in turn was a priest of a non-Aaronic order, that of Melchizedek. Such an understanding will allow David to function as a messianic type not only with respect to kingship but also in terms of priesthood.

On the basis of the identification of David as both the author and the subject of Psalm 110 there can be no question that he was not only a ruler who sat on Yahweh’s right hand but was also a priest who by divine appointment is of the order of Melchizedek.[21] That is, he fills both roles and discharges both responsibilities simultaneously. Melchizedek himself was, of course, both king of Salem and priest of God Most High (El Elyon, Gen 14:18).

The notion of royal priesthood is pervasive in the ancient Near East.[22] From Egypt to lower Mesopotamia the rulers of the various states were very active in their respective cults, functioning sometimes as the clergy and at other times alongside an order of priests. This was inevitable in that there was no bifurcation of life between the secular and sacred. In Egypt the king, in fact, was believed to be divine, and so it followed that he not only functioned cultically but was himself an object of reverence. The rulers of other nations were not accorded deity per se, but because their realms were regarded as feudal estates of the high gods, it was only logical that the kings as representatives of the people should mediate between them and the gods. Hence the metaphor of sheep and shepherd emerged, a figure that clearly conveys the kind of intercessory ministry inherent in priesthood.[23] The same notion exists in the Old Testament and in fact persists on into the New Testament church, where church leaders are called “pastors,” that is, “shepherds.”

Old Testament scholars of the so-called patternism and myth and ritual schools have, of course, made note of the cultic function of ancient Near Eastern kings and have suggested that much if not all the religious ideology associated with royal priesthood there can be detected as well in the Old Testament view of kingship.[24] It is not possible to review the arguments for and against these approaches here, but the suggestion that the Israelite kings were central to the cultus, even to the extent of representing Yahweh at autumn enthronement festivals and other occasions, has been repudiated by most modern scholars. That repudiation has, however, tended to result in the rejection of any role whatsoever for the king in Israelite cultic life, a disavowal that has both disregarded the full-orbed ministry of the Davidic dynasty and undercut the importance of that dynasty as a type of the royal priesthood of Jesus Christ.[25]

This leads to the question, What does it mean for David (and obviously his dynastic descendants) to be designated as a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek? Is this honorific only or did it have practical implications for David’s role of kingship? The answer lies in careful attention to the historical narratives, for Psalm 110 is otherwise alone in its affirmation of David’s role as royal priest.

The priesthood as an institution in general was, of course, limited to the tribe of Levi and specifically to the descendants of Aaron. David’s commission in the psalm, then, is to a priesthood that operated outside the parameters of the normal cultic sphere, one that is said to be of a totally different order.

It is clear from both the Genesis 14 account of the ministry of Melchizedek and the inspired commentary on it in Hebrews 7 that it stood outside the boundaries of the Sinaitic Covenant, the purpose of which was to validate the selection of Israel as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:4–6) and to regulate the behavior of the nation as it undertook this redemptive mission. Included in the arrangement was an apparatus of cult and clergy that spelled out and actualized the nature of the peculiar relationship between Yahweh and His people. The chronological and canonical location of the Genesis 14 pericope places the priesthood there in a pre-Mosaic setting, and of course the Book of Hebrews establishes a linkage between that priesthood and that of Jesus which completely bypasses the Aaronic priesthood except to make mention of its inferiority. That is, Hebrews implicitly regards the Aaronic priesthood as not only different from that of Melchizedek but also as distinctly subsidiary to it. This argument is buttressed by constant attention to Psalm 110:4, the passage which, as repeatedly noted, singles out David as both heir of the Melchizedekian priesthood and its transmitter to the dynasty that would succeed him.

What this means, among other things, is a direct connection between the Abrahamic and the Davidic covenants, a connection recognized for some time now on both theological and form-critical grounds.[26] Thus the functional role of Israel and the Sinaitic Covenant takes on heightened clarification. The Melchizedek-David-Jesus priesthood is a straight-line extension that operates outside of and superior to that of Aaron and the nation Israel.

The Function of Old Testament Royal Priesthood

Unfortunately, precisely how the royal priesthood operated within the context of historical Israel and its cultus is not clear. It may be hinted at negatively-and with a view to its illegitimacy—in the priestly activities of Saul who, because he was not the “man after God’s own heart” (i.e., the elect dynastic founder),[27] was condemned for his improprieties (cf. 1 Sam 10:8; 11:15; 13:9, 12–13). But Saul’s very undertaking of cultic function may suggest at least that the notion of royal priesthood was not foreign to Israel’s ideology. More positively, one should note the reference to David’s sons as “priests” (כֹּהֲנִים) in the list of his principal officials (2 Sam 8:18). Though the chronicler described them merely as “chief ones” (רִאשֹׁנִים, 1 Chron 18:17, NIV), the intent no doubt was to suggest their important function without specifying its nature. Despite various efforts to explain כֹּהֲנִים as something other than priests,[28] it seems best to view these sons as priests in the same sense in which David was, namely, a spiritual descendant of Melchizedek.[29]

The strongest suggestion of Davidic royal priesthood occurs in 2 Samuel 6 (cf. 1 Chron 15), which recounts the procession of the ark into Jerusalem from Kiriath-jearim, where it had been housed for a century or more.[30] The entire enterprise was at the initiative of David and though the regular Aaronic order of priests and Levites was involved, David himself was in charge, leading the entourage and, clothed in priestly attire, offering sacrifice and issuing priestly benedictions. To maintain that David merely supervised the occasion and did not actually participate as priest goes against the clear intention of the text.

A similar exercise of priestly prerogative is evident at the inauguration of the reign of Solomon who went to Gibeon, the site of the Mosaic tabernacle, to offer sacrifice (1 Kings 3:1–9; cf. 2 Chron 1:1–6). Though he obviously did not slay and present the enormous numbers of animals unaided, the narrative is clear in its insistence that he, the king, functioned as a priest. The same thing is implied on the occasion of the transport of the ark into the temple (1 Kings 8:5) and the subsequent dedication of that holy building (vv. 55, 62, 63). On both occasions Solomon presided over the cultic festivities and personally participated in them.[31]

The priestly role of the kings of Israel and Judah is not well documented following Solomon’s early years, but that it continued and was tacitly recognized as appropriate may be seen in one example at least, that of Uzziah (2 Chron 26:16–23). This king of Judah, the historian recounts, “was unfaithful (“acted treacherously” וַיִּמְעַל) to the Lord his God, and entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense” (v. 16, NIV). While it might appear at first glance that Uzziah’s sin was that of arrogating priestly privilege, that is not the case at all for the rebuke of the Aaronic priest Azariah centered on Uzziah’s having overstepped the bounds of priestly ministry to which he was limited and to have infringed on that of the Levitical priests.[32] Azariah said, “It is not right for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord. That is for the priests, the descendants of Aaron, who have been consecrated to burn incense” (v. 18, NIV). The infraction was not that of a king functioning cultically, but of a king undertaking a cultic ministry limited to another order of priests. This is specified in Numbers 16:40: “No one except a descendant of Aaron should come to burn incense before the Lord” (NIV). Despite the punishment of Uzziah for his indiscretion, there is not a hint of chastisement for his having assumed a priestly role in general. In fact in stating that the burning of incense was limited to “the priests, the descendants of Aaron,” the high priest presupposed other kinds of priests, namely, the royal priesthood itself.

Conclusion

The royal priesthood of Jesus Christ, while ultimately traced back to Melchizedek, is most immediately modeled after that of David who himself was declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek and who exercised that priesthood from time to time as did his dynastic successors. Thus David’s role as prototypical founder of a line of kings that finds ultimate and perfect expression in Jesus, his Greater Son, takes on enhanced meaning and the relationship of the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants becomes more understandable. Israel was the kingdom of priests called to mediate Yahweh’s saving grace to the world, and David was the priestly king whose task was to lead them to the full accomplishment of its high and holy calling.

Notes

1. Jaroslav Pelikan, Jesus through the Centuries (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985), 21–28.
2. Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life, vol. 2 of Systematic Theology (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 286–90.
3. Joseph Coppens, Le Messianisme et Sa Relve Prophétique (Leuven: University Press, 1989), 219–22.
4. The notion of a priestly Messiah was promulgated in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and in Qumranic literature. See Joachim Gnilka, “Die Erwartung des messianischen Hohenpriesters in den Schriften von Qumran und im Neuen Testament,” Revue Qumran 22 (1960): 395-426; and Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Further Light on Melchizedek from Qumran Cave 11, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 25-41.
5. John Macquarrie, Jesus Christ in Modern Thought (London: SCM, 1990), 128.
6. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 , Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 319; cf. Robert H. Smith, “Abram and Melchizedek,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 77 (1965): 129-53.
7. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989), 145; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The New International Greek New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), lii; George W. Buchanon, To the Hebrews, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1972), xxvii; and B. F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews (London: Macmillan, 1892), 199–203.
8. Attridge suggests that Melchizedek is not mentioned because he does not figure in the argument at this point (The Epistle to the Hebrews, 206).
9. The New Testament clearly attributes the psalm to David as its author and not as its subject or object alone (Matt 22:43–44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42; Acts 2:34). See Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 337.
10. So Gerard Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 397; and M. J. Paul, “The Order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:3),” Westminster Theological Journal 49 (1987): 202.
11. Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 , Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1983), 84–85.
12. Ibid., 79.
13. Mitchell Dahood, Psalms 101–150 , The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970), 113.
14. See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, s.v. אָדוֹן, by Otto Eissfeldt 1:59–72.
15. Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 7.4.3d, e.
16. E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (Oxford: Clarendon, 1910), 135 q, n. 2.
17. Cf. E. Y. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Leiden: Brill, 1982), 112–13; and James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of the Bible (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902), 4:190.
18. A. Leo Oppenheim, Erica Reiner, and Robert D. Biggs, eds., The Assyrian Dictionary (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1965), 2:204–5. The following examples are sufficient to make the intended point: 1. ana idi En-tiya-”upon the hand of my lordship” = “upon my hand” (AKA 84 vi 60). 2. ana multa'ît En-tiya-”for the pleasure of my lordship” = “for my pleasure” (AKA 186 r. 20). 3. zumur En-tiya is̆puktas̆þmta-”they filled my lordship [i.e., “me”] with wisdom” (KAH 2 84:7). 4. eps̆ēt bēlūtiya-”the deeds of my lordship” = “my deeds” (TCL 3 192). 5. ana mēteq bēlūtiya-”for the passage of my lordship” = “for my passage” (OIP 2 102:90). 6. Nusku…mus̆āpū En-ūti-”Nusku…who makes my lordship (= “me”) famous” (Streck, Asb. 78 ix 86). 7. lā pālih bēlūtiya-”not obedient to my lordship (= “to me”)” (Borger, Esarh. 48ii 66). 8. s̆a ina qitrab En-tis̆u-”who by the coming of his lordship (= “by my coming”)” (AKA 219:14). For more examples of bēlu, bēlūtu, and cognate forms as divine and royal titulary, see M.-J. Seux, Épithtes Royales Akkadiennes et Sumériennes (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1967), 55–59; Knut L. Tallqvist, Akkadische Götterepitheta (Hildesheim: Olms, 1974), 39–66.
19. Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament, 392.
20. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews, 53.
21. David’s “sitting” must, of course, be viewed metaphorically. That is, his role as a messianic king is tantamount to his sitting on a heavenly throne. See Leopold Sabourin, The Psalms: Their Origin and Meaning (New York: Alba, 1974), 358.
22. Helmer Ringgren, Religions of the Ancient Near East (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), 36–38, 79, 105–7.
23. Seux, Épithtes Royales, 244-50, 441–46; cf. C. J. Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East (London: Oxford University Press, 1948), 38.
24. Aubrey R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1955).
25. Van Groningen, Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament, 394.
26. M. Weinfeld, “The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 90 (1970): 185; cf. Thomas E. McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 11, 21–25.
27. This seems to be the best understanding of this phrase. See P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., 1 Samuel, The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 229.
28. So C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, n.d.), 368–69.
29. C. E. Armerding, “Were David’s Sons Really Priests?” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation, ed. G. F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 85–86.
30. For the chronology see Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 238–42.
31. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, 2 vols. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961), 1:113–14.
32. Ibid., 1:114.