The majestic nature of the Arm of the LORD finds expression in at least four texts. Two psalms touch upon the theme (Pss. 44:4-8; 89:1-4,19-29), while Isaiah (40:10-11) and Ezekiel (20:33-38) also contribute to the discussion. The passages explore the logical consequence of the militaristic victories of the Arm of the LORD. If God’s Arm is the Conqueror of every existing power, He also must be King of the cosmos.
Psalm 44:4-8
Psalm 44:1-3, which recalls the nationalistic deliverance of Israel in Joshua’s time, sets the stage for Psalm 44:4-8. Whereas the first pericope focuses on the nation’s past, the second centers on Israel’s present. While verse 3 indicates that the LORD deployed His Arm to deliver the people, in verses 4-8 His founding of the nation of Israel demonstrates the legitimacy of His reign. Although the Arm of the LORD does not appear within the text of Psalm 44:4-8, its usage in verse 3 confirms that “it is through the power of God [i.e., His Arm] that the great exploits narrated in this section are wrought.”[1]
Confident that the Founder of Israel presently would respond as He had in the days of their forefathers, the sons of Korah entreated God’s kingship so that He might preserve Israel once more. Psalm 44 also possesses future implications,[2] for in verse 8 the psalmist asserted that “we will give thanks to [God’s] name forever.” This brief exaltation imparts several important details regarding the kingship which the Arm of the LORD instituted.
First, the reign of God is integral at all points in Israel’s history from the nation’s inception until its ultimate redemption in the future. Without the leadership of their Monarch, Israel could not survive. Therefore, the existence of Israel inextricably was yoked to God’s kingship.
The passage, second, acknowledges “God’s effective rule.”[3] This affirmation dominates the rest of the psalm (Ps. 44:9-26), which never criticizes God, but rather seeks to understand why His current actions seemingly contradict His previous conduct. At no time is the LORD’s rule reprehended, but recognized as absolute and unchangeable.
Third, the psalmists represent the might of the Arm of the LORD as unwavering, for God’s name would be praised forever. The present generation, therefore, along “with their fathers . . . believe[d] that strength and victory come only from the gift of God their King.”[4] Since God’s covenant with Israel underlies the pericope,[5] Psalm 44:4-8 consequently claims that the power behind God’s throne, His matchless Arm, enforces the LORD’s commitment to preserve His people.
Psalm 89:1-4,19-29
Psalm 89:1-4 and 19-29 are separated by three sections (vv. 5-10; vv. 11-13; vv. 14-18) in which Israel celebrates the mighty acts of God, but the two divisions are cut from the same bolt of cloth. Verses 3-4 make “mention of an eternal covenant with David . . . [which] anticipates a fuller discussion of this theme, but first the psalmist establishes [the LORD’s] power and special relationship with Israel.”[6] The purpose for the interruption is not an editorial inflation, for the passage exhibits a definite unity as evidenced by Konrad Schaefer’s analysis of the psalm’s concentric structure.[7] Rather, the recollection of the past accomplishments of the Arm of the LORD (vv. 5-13), as well as God’s majestic glory (vv. 14-18), affirm that the LORD is both willing and able to honor the Davidic covenant. After making this case, verses 19-29 return to the subject of kingship.
Psalm 89:1-4 certainly alludes to the historical King David, but messianic echoes also emerge, for in the Old Testament “the person of David and his dynasty are intimately bound up with the understanding of the king as [the LORD’s] messiah.”[8] Because of texts such as Psalm 89:4, the title “Son of David” became a common way in which to refer to the coming Messiah.[9] Moreover, the psalmist united the images of the messianic King (v. 4) and the Arm of the LORD (v. 10).
After God promises never to bring an end to David’s throne by emphasizing “the repetition of for ever (1,2,4),”[10] the text employs a homonym of arm (זְרוֹעַ). In verse 4 the זְרַע (“seed”) of David becomes the recipient of the Davidic covenant. The term is singular in number (“descendant” rather than “descendants”)–just as the seed promised to Abraham is singular (Gen. 12:7)–and refers exclusively to the Messiah (Gen. 3:15; Gal. 3:16). Since זְרוֹעַ appears three times in Psalm 89 (vv. 10,13,21) it is no coincidence that זְרַע is present as well. Both phrases (דָּוִד זְרַע and זְרוֹעַ יהוה) are in fact alternate epithets for the Messiah.
Psalm 89:19 begins a section which deserves its reputation as the “poetical counterpart to 2 Sam[uel] 7.”[11] When the LORD rejected David’s request to construct a house (i.e., Temple) in His honor (2 Sam. 7:5ff.), God instead purposed to build a house (i.e., dynasty)[12] for him (2 Sam. 7:16). The pledge applied to the perpetuation of the Davidic line on the Judaic throne, but also underscored David’s role “as the progenitor and type of the Messiah.”[13]
Psalm 2:7 also mirrors the text, for God declares to David “You are My Son,” while in Psalm 89:26 David cries to God “You are my Father.” In both instances “David” does not pertain to the earthly king who bore the name, but his descendant, the Anointed One. Accordingly, Psalm 2:7-9 records God’s communication with His Messiah,[14] while Psalm 89 offers the Messiah’s response. As a result of the Son’s proclamation, the LORD will “make him [His] firstborn,” “the highest of the kings of the earth” (Ps. 89:27), and provide Him with an everlasting throne (Ps. 89:29). Additionally, the Arm of the LORD will be the strength of the Davidic Messiah.
Isaiah 40:10-11
Isaiah 40:10-11 arguably is the climax of the entire chapter. After the LORD purposes to comfort His people (v. 1), He addresses a number of intriguing topics: “la double mission (v. 1-2 et 3-4); la gloire et la parole comme signe (v. 5); la contestation (v. 6-7ab); [et] l’éternité de la parole comme réassurance divine (v. 7c-8).”[15] These items are characterized as “good tidings” (Isa. 40:9), a theme to which the prophet returns later (Isa. 41:27; 52:7).[16] The “summation of the good news is [then] explicated in verses 10-11,”[17] which Oswald Loretz was correct to designate “als eschatologisches.”[18]
Two allusions to the Arm of the LORD appear in Isaiah 40:10-11. After confirming that God’s Arm will rule on His behalf (v. 10) the imagery shifts to shepherdry, because “with His arm [God] will gather the lambs” (v. 11).[19] Although typically treated as an “anthropomorphic picture”[20] of the LORD’s reign, the text clearly presents God’s Arm as a Person.[21] This understanding is verified by the structure of Isaiah 40:10, which states: וּזְרֹעֹ֖ו מֹ֣שְׁלָה לוֹ֑. In other words, the verse does not indicate that the LORD would rule, but that His Arm would reign on His behalf.
Also of interest is that fact that God’s arm, rather than His arms, gathers the lambs. If arm strictly was an anthropomorphism, one would expect the symbolism to consist of a pair of arms since a shepherd uses both his arms when carrying his lambs in his bosom. Arm, on the other hand, appears in its singular form in Isaiah 40:11 because the author wished to make the audience cognizant of the fact that the Arm of the LORD typified an actual Person.
The word king is not in Isaiah 40:10-11 or its immediate context, but royal imagery abounds. First, the Arm of the LORD rules over the people (v. 10), a verb consistently assigned to leaders. Second, the term “shepherd” (v. 11) is to be regarded as a royal title[22] because Israel, as well as the entire ancient Near East,[23] drew a connection between shepherdry and kingship.
As King, the Arm of the LORD is sovereign. Unlike human rulers or mythological chieftains, this status does not result from victory over the LORD’s enemies but is a consequence of His omnipotence. As a matter of fact, the Arm of the LORD confirms His kingship through His victories as Divine Warrior. Isaiah 40:10-11, however, does not center on just the militaristic aspects of God’s Arm, for the “twin images of warrior and shepherd”[24] are given equal attention. The mercy which the Arm of the LORD lavishes upon His subjects is as important to Isaiah 40 as the vengeance which He exacts upon His enemies.
The consoling qualities of the Arm of the LORD (v. 11) would remind the audience of their ancestors’ deliverance from Egypt because “the image of God as a Shepherd is fairly old and is often applied to the Exodus (e.g., Ps. 78:52-53). In v[erse] 11bA and Isa[iah] 49:10 the same verb נָהַל ‘to lead gently’ is employed as in Exod[us] 15:13.”[25] Israel therefore could expect their King, the Arm of the LORD, to author a future Exodus[26] that would outstrip His workings in Egypt.
Ezekiel 20:33-38
Only a few years[27] before the fall of Jerusalem, the LORD expressed His displeasure with the covenant people. Instead of honoring their Master, the Judeans were offering a “soothing aroma” and “drink offerings” to false deities (Ezek. 20:28). To make matters worse, the people had begun to sacrifice their own children during pagan rituals (v. 31). The detestable practice, summarized in verses 30-31,[28] serves as God’s motivation for exiling Judah.
Rüdiger Bartelmus astutely noticed that the situation of the covenant people in Ezekiel 20:32-44 parallels the plight of their ancestors, which is emphasized at the beginning of Ezekiel 20.[29] To put it another way, Israel’s past rebellions and God’s subsequent chastening mirrors the Judah of Ezekiel’s day. While the sons of Israel sojourned in the land of Egypt, soon Ezekiel’s generation would be expatriated. After crossing the Red Sea, Israel eventually arrived in the land of Canaan, but not before being forced to wander in the wilderness. Similarly, the LORD would restore the exiles to their land, but not before removing from their number the rebellious elements.
Verse 33 indicates that after the Exodus, God had not ceased deploying God’s Arm to execute His plans; the LORD would “exercise this same power in his future deliverance of Israel.”[30] The Arm of the LORD, however, would not rest after once more liberating the people. In Ezekiel 20:33 God proclaims: “with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm and with wrath poured out, I shall be king over you.”
The portrayal of the LORD as King appears only here in the Book of Ezekiel.[31] Because of this, Daniel I. Block asserted that “the absence of references to divine kingship elsewhere in Ezekiel renders [God’s] declaration [in verse 33] all the more significant.”[32] For the Arm of the LORD to surface alongside the only example of King is no accident. This intentional pairing suggests at least two things about God’s kingship.
First, if God reigned by means of His Arm in Ezekiel’s day, the Arm of the LORD must have functioned in the same manner during the Exodus. During every period in Israel’s history, therefore, God’s Arm directed the people to their rightful Ruler. In other words, much as a royal seal represents an earthly king’s authority, the Arm of the LORD served as the seal of God, the King.
The LORD’s kingship, second, was absolute and uninterrupted. The decision to act with His Arm prior to the Exile does not suggest that God previously had failed to govern. Rather, God as King, had invoked His right to rebuke His subjects as He saw fit in order to draw Judah back to her Master, and His course of action was definite (Ezek. 20:33). When the people turned to false gods the LORD’s reign was not suspended, and He intended to prove this.
Ezekiel 20:33-38 is noteworthy for another reason. The chapter, along with Ezekiel 23 “contain the clearest references in the book”[33] to the four components which both the original and the new Exodus have in common: 1) Sojourn; 2) Deliverance; 3) Wilderness; and 4) Conquest.[34] As God formerly drew Israel to Egypt, the future pattern[35] would be a “second forced exodus.”[36] The new Exodus would result in a “new beginning”[37] for the nation, which never would turn to false gods again.
Although scholars such as Ralph W. Klein saw the Babylonian Exile[38] as the fulfillment of Ezekiel 20:33-38, the scope of the pericope reaches past this event. True, verse 34 unambiguously predicts the return from Babylonian captivity, but verses 35-38 record a series of events that take place after the Exile. The text itself supports this interpretation, for at the beginning of verse 34 Israel already enjoys the regathering which God promised. It is not until after the close of the Exile that the developments of verses 35-38 come to pass.
At some point after Israel’s regathering the LORD would bring the nation “into the wilderness of peoples.” While the literal “Wüste . . . zwischen Babel und Israel, d.h. es ist die sogenannte syrisch-arabische,”[39] remains a viable option, the Qumran War Scroll reflected the probable meaning of verse 35:
The sons of Levi, Judah, and Benjamin, the exiles in the desert, shall battle against [the sons of darkness] . . . all their bands when the exiled sons of light return from the Desert of the Peoples to camp in the Desert of Jerusalem; and after the battle they shall go up from their (to Jerusalem?).[40]
The “desert” in which the tribes found themselves, according to the Qumran Community, was not a geological wasteland, but a figurative way in which to speak of the nations of the world. Here God would enter “into judgment” as He had judged their predecessors “in the wilderness of the land of Egypt” (Ezek. 20:36).
The word “shepherd” is absent from verse 37, but God once more acts as Israel’s Shepherd[41] by causing the people to “pass under the rod” so that they might be brought “into the bond of the covenant.” By employing “rod” imagery, Ezekiel 20 conveys both a cleansing and correction of Israel. Lamar Eugene Cooper Sr. provided one of the most insightful explanations of the symbolism:
References to those who “pass under my rod” was first an allusion to the tithe (Lev. 27:32). Every tenth animal that passed under a “rod” held over the sheep was separated and declared to be holy. The purification of the exile, likewise, would separate the righteous and the wicked. The “rod” also was an instrument of discipline, correction, and punishment.[42]
In other words, “one who passes under the [rod] is judged to be with or against God,”[43] and dealt with accordingly (Ezek. 20:38). Those whom God deemed holy would enter into a covenant with Him, which “in this context appears to be the new covenant (cf. Jer. 31:31-34).”[44]
Each part of the new Exodus outlined above is the express work of the Arm of the LORD. As both the power behind the LORD’s throne and the Architect of the original Exodus, the Arm of the LORD was the perfect means by which to orchestrate the Exile and ultimate restoration to the land of Israel. “There is no . . . pessimism about the future”[45] in Ezekiel 20 because the second Exodus, unlike the first, would be the harbinger of Zion (v. 40), the fully realized kingdom of the Messiah.
[1] Loren D. Crow, “The Rhetoric of Psalm 44,” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 104, no. 3 (1992): 396.
[2] J. H. Coetzee, “The Functioning of Elements of Tension in Psalm 44,” Theologia Evangelica 21, no. 1 (Mar. 1988): 3.
[3] H[erbert] C[arl] Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 347. Leupold understood God’s role as the soveriegn King to be the keynote theme of not only Ps. 44:4-8, but 44:1-3 as well. As the omnipotent warrior King, God drove out the nations and gave their land to His covenant people.
[4] J. H. Eaton, Psalms, in Torch Bible Commentaries, ed. John Marsh and Alan Richardson (London: SCM, 1972), 121.
[5] Ibid.
[7] Konrad Schaefer, Psalms, Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry, ed. David W. Cotter, Jerome T. Walsh, and Chris Franke (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2001), 218-19.
[9] Martin Jan Mulder and Harry Sysling, eds., Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 75.
[10] Derek Kidner, 73-150: A Commentary on Books III-V of the Psalms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1975), 320.
[11] Antti Laato, Who is Immanuel? The Rise and the Foundering of Isaiah’s Messianic Expectations (Åbo: Åbo University, 1988), 59.
[12] Dearman, Religion and Culture, 56.
[13] Joseph Addison Alexander, The Psalms: Translated and Explained (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 369.
[14] The King whom God establishes is referred to as His Messiah (Ps. 2:2) as well as His Son (Ps. 2:7). This evidence, coupled with the fact that the King is to rule “upon Zion, [God’s] holy mountain” rather than a temporal kingdom, demonstrates that the Figure in mind is the Messiah rather a “messiah” (e.g., Cyrus).
[16] In Isa. 52:7 “good tidings” is once more identified with the Arm of the LORD.
[17] Walter Brueggemann, Isaiah 40-66, Westminster Bible Companion, ed. Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 21.
[18] Oswald Loretz, “Die Gattung des Prologs zum Buche Deuterojesaja (Jes. 40:1-11),” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 96, no. 2 (1984): 211.
[19] This rendering of Isa. 40:11 is the author’s translation of the text.
[20] George A. F. Knight, Deutero-Isaiah: A Theological Commentary on Isaiah 40-55 (New York: Abingdon, 1963), 32. By “anthropomorphic,” Knight meant that the Book of Isaiah employs arm “symbolically” when applied to the LORD.
[21] R[oger] N[orman] Whybray, Isaiah 40-66, in The New Century Bible, ed. Ronald E. Clements and Matthew Black (Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1975), 52. Whybray described the usage of Arm as “partially personified,” but the Arm of the LORD is portrayed in Isa. 40:10-11 as three-dimensionally as God Himself.
[22] A[rthur] S[amuel] Herbert, The Book of the Prophet: Isaiah 40-66, in The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W. Packer (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1975), 21.
[23] The Epic of Gilgamesh, trans. N. K. Sandars (London: Penguin Books, 1972), 62. This classic Mesopotamian account of the mythological Gilgamesh’s exploits was composed around the eighteenth century B.C. In the text the people lament that Gilgamesh, king of Uruk, failed to shepherd his people in a manner that was befitting a ruler, but rather took advantage of them to suit his selfish purposes. The imagery of the king as “shepherd” and his subjects as a “flock” accurately portrays the Near Eastern peoples’ understanding of their orientation to their leaders.
[24] Brueggemann, Isaiah 40-66, 21.
[25] Marjo C. A. Korpel, “Second Isaiah’s Coping with the Religious Crisis: Reading Isaiah 40 and 55,” in The Crisis of Israelite Religion: Transformation of Religious Tradition in Exilic and Post-Exilic Times, ed. Bob Becking and Marjo C. A. Korpel, Oudtestamentische Studiën, vol. 42, ed. Johannes C. de Moor, Harry van Rooy, and Marc Vervenne (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 95-96.
[26] John J. Collins, The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 196.
[27] The “seventh year” (Ezek. 20:1) is a reference to 591 B.C.; Jerusalem fell in 585 B.C.
[28] Walther Eichrodt, Ezekiel: A Commentary, trans. Cosslett Quin, in The Old Testament Library, ed. G. Ernest Wright, et al. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970) 277. Eichrodt explained that vv. 30-31 provides the key for properly understanding Ezek. 20:32-44.
[29] Rüdiger Bartelmus, “Menschlicher Messerfolg und Jahwes Initiative: Beobachtungen zum Geschichtsbild des deuteronomistischen Rahmens in Richterbuch und zum geschichstheologischen Entwurf in Ez. 20,” Biblische Notizen 70 (1993): 44.
[30] Risa Levitt Kohn, A New Heart and a New Soul: Ezekiel, the Exile and the Torah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, vol. 358, ed. J. A. Clines and Philip R. Davies (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002), 94.
[31] Ka Leung Wong, The Idea of Retribution in the Book of Ezekiel, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 87, ed. H. M. Barstad, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 69. “the verb [king] is used once more in Ezekiel in 17:16 as a hiphil. In Ez[ek]. 34, [the LORD] is designated as a shepherd . . . which, according to Soggin (1997b:1248), ‘clearly represents a variant of the title melek “king.”’” These occurrences do not diminish the impact of [king] in Ezek. 20:33.
[32] Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24, in The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, ed. R. K. Harrison and Robert L. Hubbard Sr. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 650.
[33] Corrine L. Patton,“‘I Myself Gave Them Laws That were Not Good’: Ezekiel 20 and the Exodus Traditions,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 69 (Mar. 1996): 73.
[34] Ibid.
[35] 1) Soujourn (v. 34b); 2) Deliverance (v. 34a); 3) Wilderness (vv. 35-38); 4) Conquest (vv. 39-44). Whereas Joshua and his forces warred against the Canaanites, the Israelites in the future would not fight in order to reobtain their Promised Land. The implication of the passage is that instead God single-handedly would initiate the future Conquest.
[36] Katheryn Pfister Darr, “Ezekiel’s Justification of God: Teaching Troubling Texts,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 55 (Sept. 1992): 101.
[37] Thomas D. Renz, The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, vol. 76, ed. H. M. Barstad, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 173.
[38] Ralph W. Klein, Ezekiel: The Prophet and His Message, Studies on Personalities of the Old Testament, ed. James L. Crenshaw (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, 1988), 43.
[39] Alfred Bertholet, Das Buch Hesekiel, vol. 12 in Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament (Leipzig: Mohr, 1897), 109.
[40] Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, vol. 1, 163. This account considered portions of Israel still to be scattered amongst the world population during the days of the Qumran Community. The War Scroll insisted that Israel would not completely be regathered until the eschatological battle between the sons of light (i.e., Israel) and the sons of darkness.
[41] Keith W. Carley, The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, in The Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible, ed. P. R. Ackroyd, A. R. C. Leaney, and J. W. Packer (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1974), 136.
[42] Lamar Eugene Cooper Sr., Ezekiel, vol. 17 in The New American Commentary, ed. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 206-7.
[43] Ibid, 207.
[44] Ralph H. Alexander, Ezekiel, in Everyman’s Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1976), 68.
[45] Henry McKeating, Ezekiel, Old Testament Guides, ed. R. N. Whybray (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 80-81.
No comments:
Post a Comment