not necessarily mean that God rejects the entire notion of kingship, as has frequently been asserted by liberal biblical scholars.178 Deuteronomy, as we have previously seen, assumes that the Israelites will eventually have a king. It would appear then that God does not like the idea simply because the occasion for kingship shows their lack of trust in his gracious rule. Such rejection has come about not only because of Israel’s apostasy, but also the failure of previous mediators to fulfill the law on Israel’s behalf. Eli the high priest, who does not curb the corruption of his sons, is a prime example of this (2:12–36). Similarly, Samuel the prophet does not curb his sons’ corrupt actions (8:1–2).179 From 1 Samuel it is therefore clear that both priestly and prophetic forms of mediation have failed. Such failure has resulted in Israel’s continuing apostasy.
Despite God’s initial hostility to the idea of kingship, the author of 1 and 2 Samuel shows that God uses kingship in Israel as a means of mediating both his presence and will to Israel. In fulfilling this vocation, the kingly mediators of Israel are described as uniting and representing God and Israel, much like the prophetic and priestly mediators. David fights the battles of YHWH throughout 1 and 2 Samuel, and thereby disestablishes idolatry and establishes the true cult of YHWH. In this, David becomes a temporal embodiment of the Angel of YHWH, who is as we have seen, the primary agent of Israel’s conquest (Exod 23, 33; Josh 5). In fact, on a number of occasions he is compared to an angel of God (1 Sam 29:9; 2 Sam 14:17, 19:27), although it is not entirely clear from the context whether or not the Angel of YHWH is meant. Nevertheless, such language is highly suggestive.
There are other parallels as well. David is also represented as wearing an ephod as he engages in a cultic dance before the ark of the covenant (2 Sam 6:14). This occurs as the ark is being brought to Jerusalem to be established as the basis for a unified royally led cult. As we previously noted, the ephod was a garment worn by deity. We are also told later on that David’s sons serve as “priests” (8:18 NIV has “royal officials”).180 In 1 Kings 3:4, we are told that Solomon engaged in priestly sacrifice. This connects David with the role of priest and therefore also binds him to the other associations that we noted throughout the Old Testament between priestly mediation and the Angel of YHWH/kavod. As we will see, many texts in the Old Testament appear to connect the king to the presence of YHWH with Israel.
Royal psalms, like 110, appear to strongly connect the Davidic monarchy with priestly mediation. A figure, referred to as “my lord” possesses a heavenly throne and the role of priest-king much like the mysterious figure Melchizedek spoken of in Genesis 14.181 It would appear (as even some critical scholarship seems to suggest182) that this figure is associated with the Davidic king while at the same time possessing a heavenly throne and being an eternal priest.183 As we saw in the last section, these characteristics are highly suggestive of the Angel of YHWH and therefore this Psalm appears to connect the Davidic king with him.
In keeping with these parallels, Scott Hahn convincingly argues that David understood himself as a new Melchizedek. He did not choose Zion as the location of his capitol by accident. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, Jerusalem is identified with Salem (see Ps 76:1–2), where Melchizedek was the priest-king.184 We observed that David dressed in priestly garb when the ark (the seat of divine presence) was brought to Jerusalem.185 We are also told that David feeds his guests “a cake of bread, a portion of meat, and a cake of raisins to each one” (2 Sam 6:19). Hahn argues that the second item, “a portion of meat” (frequently translated as “meats” based on how Vulgate understands the difficult Hebrew word,186 though NIV and other translations have “dates”) could better be translated as “wine.”187 If so, all this suggests that David meant to identify himself as a new Melchizedek, who also feeds the people bread and wine (Gen 14:18). The bread and wine also connects David to the promises given to the patriarchs. The giving of bread and wine also hearkens back to Isaac’s blessing to Jacob that God may give him “plenty of grain and wine” (Gen 27:28). This oracle is connected also to Isaac’s prophecy to Jacob that “nations [will] bow down to you” (v. 29), which seems to be echoed in Genesis 49:8:12 and in Psalms 2 and 110.188
There is also a more direct connection between David and the Abrahamic narratives. Mount Moriah (the location of the Solomon’s temple and David’s capitol) was the place of God’s confirmation of his promise to Abraham in the binding of Isaac (2 Chr 3:1).189 Just as God told Abraham he would make his name great (Gen 12:2), he tells David the same thing (2 Sam 7:9).190 Hahn notes here that we can observe a connection to and a preliminary fulfillment of the blessing of Shem, whose name means, “Name.”191 Shem is also told that Japheth (i.e., the Gentiles) will dwell in his tents (Gen 9:27). Solomon’s kingdom includes both Israelites and non-Israelites (1 Kgs 9:20–21) and builds the temple as a house for God’s Name. During the reign of Solomon, the Bible states that the “people of Judah and Israel were as numerous as the sand on the seashore” (1 Kgs 4:20), fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 22:17. Indeed, this promise is itself made on Mount Moriah. This establishes David not only as heir of the Abrahamic testament, but also establishes the Abrahamic testament as a continuation of the blessing of Shem and the protevangelium. Just as the Abrahamic testament is meant for the blessing of the nations, so David exclaims after the oracle promising him an eternal house: “this is instruction for mankind” (7:19).192 Hence, David’s covenant fulfills the restoration of Adam’s dominion and accomplishes Abraham’s blessing of all nations.
Just as there is a connection between the promises given to David and Abraham, the narrative of 2 Samuel 24 connects David’s sacrifice and establishment of the locale of the temple with the binding of Isaac. Just as the Angel of YHWH appeared to Abraham on Mount Moriah, so too he appeared in the same location to David in 2 Samuel 24 in connection to the plague resulting from David’s census (2 Sam 24:16–17). Just as Abraham drew his knife to kill Isaac (Gen 22:10), so David sees the Angel of YHWH drawing his sword to strike down Jerusalem (24:16–17).193 In the same manner that God gave a substitute to the patriarch (22:13–14), so too David offers himself as a substitute for the people (2 Sam 24:17).194 Just as Abraham constructed an altar at that place (Gen 22:9), David did as well (24:18).
These connections are hardly coincidental. They clearly identify David and his descendants with the promises to Abraham sworn in this location. For this reason, the Davidic line also becomes the focus of God’s plan for the restoration of Edenic harmony present in his promises to Abraham. The temple is, as we have noted, the new Eden. David and his descendants will reign over all creation like Adam, the protological priest-king. Finally, neither is it an accident that Golgotha is a hillock in the same area as Mount Moriah. The New Testament tells us that Jesus fulfilled the Abrahamic and Davidic testaments by the testament of his own body and blood communicated through bread and wine.195
David’s preliminary fulfillments of the Abrahamic testament and the protevangelium find an even more sharp expression in the oracle of Nathan. David’s son is to “build a house for my
