means by which the presence of God was mediated throughout the Old Testament.196 This becomes even clearer in the description of the descent of the divine kavod into the Solomonic temple (2 Kgs 8:10–14). Much like God’s presence in the tabernacle with a sign of his commitment and self-donation to Israel, God’s personal presence in the temple meant a promissory guarantee of the Davidic testament. The Levitical and Deuteronomic codes do not (contrary to the claims of Wellhausen) anticipate the building of a temple.197 Therefore the temple is specifically tied to the house of David. Just as David desired to build God a house, so God would make David a house (2 Sam 7).198 We will observe the ultimate fulfillment of this in John’s gospel when Jesus claims to be the true Temple (John 2:22). In this, God’s fulfillment of his promise of an eternal “house” for David, and David’s building of a house of the Lord coincide. God builds David’s house through his preservation of the holy seed. He thereby makes David and his line a house for the dwelling of the divine glory in the form of the incarnation.199
In that he represents the divine rule and presence, the kingly mediator represents YHWH before Israel. He is, as he is addressed by YHWH in the royal enthronement hymn of Psalm 2, “my Son” (v. 7). Hans-Joachim Kraus claims that sonship in this context has a connotation of designating the Israelite king as an heir of the property of YHWH’s creation.200 As the embodiment of YHWH’s universal reign, God states, “I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (v. 8). Of course, Kraus may indeed be correct about the original use of the psalm (there is no way to verify this). Nevertheless, he has no explanation as to why the Israelite king should be promised the nations if in fact no Davidic king ever actually ruled all the nations or attempted to do so. In fact, what we must conclude is that these verses in their ultimate sense point ahead to an eschatological fulfillment in the Messiah.201 The Messiah would be divine and therefore reign over all creation in an unrestricted way, not just Israel and the surrounding nations, as did the kingly mediators of the Old Testament.202 This being said, we should not forget that an anticipation of this universal rule can be found in Solomon’s reign. The Chronicler tells us that Solomon sat “on the throne of the Lord” (1 Chr 29:23, emphasis added). Peter Leithart also notes that he rides on a mule (1 Kgs 1:38), which being a beast of mixed stock is a “cherubic” animal similar to those that pull the chariot thrown of the divine kavod (see Ezek 1).203 Lastly, both Solomon (1 Kgs 1:39) and David (1 Sam 16:13) are anointed with oil. In a similar manner to the priestly anointing that was discussed earlier, this suggests the glow of the divine glory.
Solomon not only embodies divine rule over all creation, but also divine creative activity. Much like Moses embodied the divine kavod when he spoke forth the tabernacle in seven divinely given speeches, so too Solomon is the builder of the temple, the cosmic microcosm. What is even more remarkable about this is how it creates a parallel between Solomon as the embodiment of divine wisdom (1 Kgs 3:7–13) and God’s hypostatized Wisdom as it is described in Proverbs 8. This scripture describes holy Wisdom as an offspring of the deity (Prov 8:22–29). Solomon/Israelite king is described as God’s Son (2 Sam 7:14, Ps 2:7) and as one that has also been begotten of God (Ps 2:7). Solomon is the builder of the temple (1 Kgs 6–8), the cosmic microcosm. God’s hypostatized Wisdom is described as a “craftsman at his [God’s] side” (Prov 8:30) in creation. Therefore, as the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic testament, it is not for arbitrary reasons that the Apostle Paul identifies Christ as the hypostatized Wisdom of God (1 Cor 1:29, Col 1:16). It was therefore fitting that Christ was a carpenter (Mark 6:3) in that both Solomon and holy Wisdom are builders, and the Messiah is promised as one who will build God’s house (2 Sam 7:13). Just as Christ in his preincarnate state as God’s hypostatized Wisdom brought about creation, so he brings forth new creation through his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection (2 Cor 5:17). Solomon, as a type of Christ, prefigures his coming incarnation and divine creativity as the wise builder of the cosmic microcosm.
Beyond these connotations of divinity, there is (as has previously been mentioned) a prevalent use of the language of sonship in monarchic and messianic texts throughout the Old Testament: “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son” (2 Sam 7:12–14).204 Traditions describing the king as divine are by no means unprecedented within the environment of the Ancient Near East. Kraus has noted Egyptian and Mesopotamian parallels.205 Eichrodt has pointed to Urgaritic examples.206 This prevalence of divine kingship language should not surprise us in the least. In light of the protevangelium’s promise of a divine Messiah that would renew creation, it would appear that many ancient peoples understood their divine kings as fulfilling this role.
Nevertheless, although the Israelite king embodies God’s rule, he is not divine himself. Gerhard von Rad and Sigmund Mowickel emphasize that the Hebrew Scriptures do not designate the king as divine, but rather the king embodies the divine to the extent that he is a representative of YHWH’s rule.207 The king is, as Walter Brueggemann notes, an Israelite among Israelites, standing under the authority of the law.208 Kraus also observes that the formula of the public pronunciation of someone as one’s own “Son” (such as in Psalm 2) was a common way of designating them as an heir by adoption in ancient law codes (he mentions the code of Hammurabi).209
Beyond its divine connotations, it should also be noted that the language of divine sonship meant the Israelite king represented the restoration of Adamic humanity. Israel is also referred to in Exodus as “my firstborn Son” (Exod 4:22). We also have seen that Genesis views Israel as a type of the ultimate fulfillment and restoration of human freedom and dominion. For this reason, the kingly mediators also stand as representatives of Israel before God and Israel.
Through the historical record of the Old Testament, this representative quality becomes clearer in that the nation fares as well as the behavior of its king allows. According to the accounts of the so-called Deuteronomistic history, Israel prospers during the righteous reigns of David, the younger Solomon, and Hezekiah (even if in this last case “prosper” means a last minute reprieve from destruction (see 2 Kgs 18–22). In the same manner, David’s sins result in the punishment of the nation (2 Sam 24), just as the nation is punished because of the wickedness of the reign of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21:1–17).
This relationship is a two-way street, in that some kings also suffer for the sins of the nation. At the end of 2 Kings, during the reign of Josiah, though righteous, he was still cursed by God because of the previous sins of Manasseh and the people of Judah in general (2 Kgs 23:26–27). Although 2 Chronicles connects his death with disobedience to God (2 Chr 35:22), this is not incompatible with the account in 2 Kings. His death could represent both punishment for Manasseh and his own disobedience. In any case, Josiah is killed at Megiddo and the exile follows not far behind (2 Kgs 23:29–30). Therefore Josiah bears the nation’s sin and thereby represents them before God and the nation. The king then stands as a sin bearer, much as we observed both Moses and the high priest doing earlier. This role of the Israelite king was also prefigured earlier in the history of Genesis, where Judah (David’s forefather and the inheritor of an eternal kingship) offers himself as a substitute for his brother Benjamin (Gen 44:33).
For the Old Testament, God’s promises to David (2 Sam 7) would find fulfillment in spite of human failings.
