Bathsheba: A Feminist Approach

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to provide a literary interpretation based on the foundations of Feminist Criticism towards the Bathsheba narratives, found in 2 Samuel 11-12 as well as 1 Kings 1-2. The objectification, victimization, and passiveness of Bathsheba and her role as an agent in the narrative of 2 Samuel will be investigated, as well as the perhaps more positive portrayal of her and her role as an active character complete with traits of cunning, jealousy, and loyalty as seen in 1 Kings.

Feminist Possibilities

Throughout history, Bathsheba has been portrayed in many different ways. Most of these ways appear to shed a rather negative light on the character of Bathsheba in one way or another. Art and cinema have portrayed her as both a harlot and a rape victim, objectifying her to the extreme.[1] She has been labeled as one of the “bad girls of the Bible.” While some might argue that this title suits her actions, others may point out that titles and portrayals such as these further objectify this woman and bring about an even greater injustice. The latter would perhaps say that objectification of a woman such as Bathsheba throughout the history of art and cinema is the result of male oppression in these systems and in society as a whole. Bathsheba is often portrayed as a lewd whore leading David astray. In Henry King’s 1951 movie David and Bathsheba she is portrayed as one who despised her husband for his lack of love and conspired to entice David. [2] One might call the Bathsheba of this movie David’s stalker, a wicked temptress. She has been portrayed little better in other films.[3]

While media has tended to portray Bathsheba on rather negative terms, Bathsheba may be viewed on many numbers of levels. Winkelman argues that Bathsheba should not be viewed as a seductive temptress and that her bath was purely innocent. He points out that traditionally Bathsheba’s washing has often been interpreted as a menstrual purification ritual. However, he states that washing was not required for a woman after her period during this time, and was only a part of later rabbinic tradition.[4] Quoting Tikva Frymer-Kensky, he says “that bathing and purification are two separate events, not necessarily pertaining to each other or even Bathsheba's menstrual cycle,”[5] and that “’…in the Bible—women do not seem to wash after menstruation', clarifying that time, not water, brings an end to menstruation.”[6] Her bath as menstrual cleansing has often been interpreted to show that she was not pregnant before David had sexual relations with her, but Winkelman argues that her washing was a different act of self-sanctifying that showed her identification with the Israelite deity.[7] He compares her washing with the washing of other women in the Bible, who bathed for the sake of bathing and not for menstrual purification. He compares Bathsheba with Pharaoh’s daughter and Ruth. Both of these women became the mothers, so to speak, of the great leaders of Israel, Moses and David after having washed themselves. In the same way, Bathsheba is shown to have washed herself prior to becoming the mother of one of the great leaders of Israel, Solomon.[8] All three of these women are non-Israelites, but are shown to be worthy of mothering the great leaders of Israel, in part through the way they wash themselves. He writes, “Bathsheba's ethnicity is addressed later, but note Bathsheba washes and becomes a mother of Israel, exactly like Pharaoh's daughter and Ruth.”[9] In this way, Bathsheba should not be viewed in a negative light, but ought to be seen as one who is prepared or sanctified and ready to be used by God as the mother of a great leader of Israel. [10]Her sanctification and identification with the Israelite deity is evident even in the midst of the sexual abuse suffered upon her by David.[11]

Bathsheba may be viewed on many numbers of levels. This is especially true when it comes to the literary theory of Feminism, which recognizes both the negative and the positive views of Bathsheba. Feminism seeks in a way to liberate the female from her bondage to male-dominated thought in literature, society, work, the home, and other places.[12] Literarily, Feminism may be applied to the Bathsheba narratives in the Bible, bringing about a number of different views and interpretations of both the character of the figure Bathsheba herself, as well critiques on the male characters in the narratives, such as David, as well as different analytical interpretation, critiques, and suggestions about the writer or writer of the narratives themselves.

Feminism may be approached in a number of different ways. One may apply feminist interpretation to the story of David and Bathsheba in order to portray Bathsheba as a helpless victim of David, pointing to this as an example of the oppression of women throughout history by men in order to say that women must at last be liberated from male domination. One may use Feminism to portray Bathsheba as a very clever woman who positioned herself in just the right place at the right time in order to gain political influence. One may seek to use Feminism in the hope of showing that while Bathsheba was a helpless victim, at first she overcame these difficulties and rose to become the most prominent woman in all of Israel, eventually causing her own son to be placed on the throne.

Analysis of the Text

Charles Bressler provides a list of questions for one to consider when reading a text through the lens of Feminist Criticism. The first of these questions is “Is the author male or female?”[13] To answer this question in regard to the Bathsheba narratives, one must make an investigation into the authorship of the Deuteronomistic History. It would appear that the Deuteronomist is the one who compiled these stories into his greater history as well as the one who wrote many parts of this history. While it is unclear who the exact author is, we may attribute these stories to the Deuteronomist.

Another question to ask oneself when engaging in a Feminist interpretation of the text is “Is the text narrated by a male or female?”[14] Traditionally, it would seem that the Deuteronomist is the male narrator for these accounts. However, it is difficult to say this with absolute certainty. Some would argue that this story is really the voice of a woman showing how women were mistreated. However, it makes more sense to say that the narrator is male because the society in which these stories were written was a male dominated society. Also, while the text involves women, the narrator never gives the reader insight into what is going on in the minds of the women characters. The narrator does give quite a bit of insight, though, into the minds of the male characters.

Another question to ask in this Feminist investigation of the text is “What types of roles do women haven in the text?”[15] Bathsheba herself is really the only woman within the initial narrative involving her. However, David’s other wives are also briefly mentioned by Nathan. The role of Bathsheba in this first story seems to be of a passive nature. Bathsheba is seen bathing by David who lusts over her and has her brought to his palace in order to sleep with him. After this encounter with the king she is sent home and soon realizes she is pregnant. She then speaks her only words in this story and sends a messenger to David saying, “I’m pregnant.” After this Bathsheba has no role in the story until after her husband is led to his death by David, and David takes her to be his wife after she mourns for her husband. She gives birth to David’s son, but Yahweh puts the child to death as a sort of punishment for David’s sin. She is then seen being comforted by David for the loss of her child. Eventually she gives birth to another son, Solomon, or Jedidiah. Bathsheba is not the focus of this story, but rather David. This story is about David’s sin and its consequences for David, and not about how Bathsheba herself was wronged and what this did to her.[16] She is not much of a character in this story, but only fulfills the role required of her in order to make the story worth reading.

In the story involving Bathsheba in 1 Kings 1, she is seen as a much more dynamic character. She is not a passive object, but a person with intellect who uses her wisdom to insure that her son’s right to the throne is maintained. In contrast to the first story in which David used his royal position to manipulate a helpless Bathsheba, Bathsheba uses her royal position to manipulate a helpless David. Another female character in this story is Abishag, a beautiful young woman who is used by David’s attendants in order to provide him with warmth. In a way, she is treated as an object by her male superiors. Adonijah even tries to use her to gain access to the throne. Adonijah also attempts to use Bathsheba in this attempt, but his plan backfires due to the cleverness of Bathsheba. Adonijah wishes to marry Abishag in order to be able to claim rights to the throne, but he must submit his request to Bathsheba. Bathsheba then uses this opportunity to provide Solomon with an excuse for getting rid of his rival half-brother. Robert Vasholz writes, “Bathsheba's request, then, on Adonijah's behalf,exposed him as still being a serious threat to Solomon and one that needed to be dealt with.” He continues, “Here was a very wise woman (and mother) whose acumen not only helped her son to secure his reign, but who also demonstrates wisdom as a virtue of God's kingdom.”[17] Some, however, would argue that it was really the intelligence of Nathan that secured Solomon’s inheritance of the throne and that Nathan was using Bathsheba in order to save his own life. However, it would seem that while Nathan suggests the plot to Bathsheba, there is evidence that she was fully capable of coming up with various elements of it on her own. No longer is she the passive and silent woman seen in 1 Samuel 11. She is a woman with an agenda, conspiring with Nathan get from David what they want, perhaps even “taking advantage of David’s feebleness to ‘plant’ a memory so that he will act in the manner that they wish.”[18] This interpretation is possible due to the fact that David is never before recorded as having said that Solomon would take over for him as king.

Another question which ties into the previous one is “Are the female characters the protagonists or secondary and minor characters?”[19] In 1 Samuel 11, Bathsheba is definitely a secondary or minor character. She is only there as an agent of plot, and not as a character herself. She barely speaks, and she has no significant role other than being used by David. Adele Berlin writes, “All this leads us to view Bathsheba as a complete non-person. She is not even a minor character, but simply part of the plot. This is why she is not considered guilty of adultery. She is not an equal party to the adultery, but only the means whereby it was achieved.”[20] He goes on to say that she should not even be considered as a type in the story, but merely an agent. He says, “The plot in 2 Sam. 11 calls for adultery, and adultery requires a married woman. Bathsheba fills that function. Nothing about her which does not pertain to that function is allowed to intrude into the story.”[21] In 1 Kings 1, however, Bathsheba would appear to be a main character, alongside Nathan, Solomon, and Adonijah. David takes on a lesser role at this point. Berlin writes, “Bathsheba's function as an agent in 2 Sam. 11-12 is in marked contrast to Bathsheba as a character in 1 Kings 1-2. Here she is a "real" person, a mother concerned with securing the throne for her son. She emerges in these episodes as one of the central characters, important in affairs of state as well as in family matters…”[22] However, Berlin does recognize that while Bathsheba is not an agent anymore, there is a woman portrayed in the same way in this story that Bathsheba was portrayed in 2 Samuel. This woman is Abishag, who does not speak, but is only used by the other characters as a means to get what they want.[23]

Another question to ask when applying a Feminist hermeneutic to the text is “Do any stereotypical characterizations of women appear?”[24] In 1 Samuel 11 it could be argued that the first sight of Bathsheba is a stereotypical one. It portrays her as a beautiful woman bathing and becoming the object of lust for David. One may argue that she fills the stereotypical role of female as sex object in her introduction. It could also be argued that both Bathsheba and Abishag fulfill the stereotypical roles of women to a certain extent in 1 Kings 1. Both of them seem to a part of what one might refer to as David’s royal herem, a stereotypical position for some women in ancient near eastern stories.[25] Bathsheba could be seen as the head of the royal herem as David’s favorite wife, a position sometimes referred to as “gebirah.”[26] Bathsheba is also very rarely referred to by name early on in the narrative. She is identified as “Uriah’s wife,” thus indicating that her social status is based upon her husband. She is not necessarily considered her own person apart from her husband. She belongs to him, and often when she is referred to in the story she is referred to only as his wife, or the daughter of Eliam. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible indicates that “Bathsheba is among five women included in the Gospel of Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus, all of whom are listed by their own names, except for Bathsheba, who is identified as ‘the wife of Uriah’.”[27] This refers back to the way to which she is referred in 2 Samuel. It continues, “By using the language of 2 Sam 11:3, 26; 12:10 and 15, the genealogy indirectly recalls the story of David’s abuse of power and Bathsheba’s vulnerability.”[28]

Another question to ask oneself is “What are the attitudes toward women held by the male characters?”[29] In the first story, David’s attitude towards Bathsheba is evident. He sees her bathing, wants to have sex with her, and uses his power to get what he wants. After their sexual encounter, she is sent back to her home. He appears to be done with her. When he finds out she is pregnant he makes various attempts to cover up what he has done. He tries to get Uriah to have relations with his wife, but Uriah refuses, perhaps suspecting David’s scheme.[30] David’s servants do nothing to protect Bathsheba from David, except for mentioning to him that she is a married woman. Later, after David has caused Uriah’s death, he waits until Bathsheba’s period of mourning for her husband is over before taking her to be his wife. Later, when the child of their iniquity dies, David is seen tending to Bathsheba and comforting his grieving wife. This attitude seems to be an improvement over the lust originally seen in David. Psalm 51 is attributed to David after he had sinned with Bathsheba. Within this psalm is seen great remorse for what has taken place. The psalmist, speaking for David, writes, “Have mercy on me, O God…” and “Against you, and you only have I sinned.” This would seem to indicate that David sees his sin as something not committed against Bathsheba or Uriah or even Joab, but as only against God. Garland and Richmond say that “David still seemed not to understand the enormity of what he had done to others. What about Bathsheba? What about Uriah? But his sin against them was his sin against God, and God offers forgiveness to the repentant and humbled David.”[31] This appears to be a distorted view of his sin, as if he does not realize that his sin is not just between him and God, but one that affected the lives of other people as well, including Bathsheba. Another interpretation of these words attributed to David in this psalm would say that in saying that He has sinned against God alone, he is saying that the root of all sins against other people is sin against God. [32]One may also argue that in equating is sin against Bathsheba with sin against God he is elevating Bathsheba to the position of God, or at least identifying her with God. The 1 Samuel 11 story says that “What David had done greatly displeased the Lord.” God took David’s actions against Bathsheba as actions against himself. In this way, God is seen identifying with the woman of Bathsheba. God is seen suffering alongside a woman who was abused by a man. At the same time, however, God causes Bathsheba’s child to die, causing her even more suffering, although this causes David to also suffer greatly, since he “loved the child.”

In 1 Kings 1, the attitudes towards female characters by male characters may also be seen. Abishag is used as an object by which David is warmed. Adonijah views her as a way of gaining control of the kingdom, and it is unclear whether or not he actually loves her. Nathan’s opinion of the female characters is also unclear. He goes to Bathsheba in order to warn her of the danger she and Solomon are in, but it is unclear whether this is out of compassion or if he realized that his own life was also in danger. Bowen writes, “In this episode she is not the one to initiate the approach to David. She is coaxed (or manipulated?) by Nathan, who counsels that she must do this in order to save her own life.”[33]

David appears to be non-responsive to the beautiful Abishag warming him in his bed, but this seems to be because David is too old to be sexually aroused. David receives his wife Bathsheba, however, warmly, and confirms that Solomon will be king after him. Solomon appears to regard his mother with the utmost respect, showing her the proper royal courtesies upon her entry into his presence. However, Solomon also appears angry when she presents Adonijah’s request to him. It is unclear whether he thought his mother was stupid for making this request on Adonijah’s behalf, or whether his anger was towards Adonijah himself. Either way, he uses this new knowledge provided by Bathsheba to deal with his half-brother and rival. It may also be that Solomon was merely putting on a show of anger in response to this request and that he had been looking for an excuse to do away with Adonijah and recognized the cleverness of his mother in bringing Adonijah’s request to his attention. In this way, Solomon may have viewed his mother as an intelligent woman and a loyal mother.

Another question to ask oneself when applying Feminist criticism to the Biblical text is, “Is feminine imagery used? If so, what is the significance of such imagery?”[34] In the Bathsheba narratives, there does not seem to be much feminine imagery used. However, 2 Samuel 11 does go so far as to point out the great beauty of Bathsheba and how her great beauty is what attracts David to her. A person’s beauty is only sometimes referred to in the Bible to describe a character. Bathsheba is describes as beautiful, but David appears to be as well elsewhere. Saul was also describes as a good-looker, as well as David’s son Absalom, among others, such as Rachel who was compared her sister Leah, who “had weak eyes,” or was not beautiful. Beauty at times seems to convey that a character has admirable traits. However, while a beautiful character may have admirable traits, sometimes they may also have negative traits. Bathsheba’s beauty does not seem to indicate anything of her character, but only a physical feature taken in by David in his objectification of her. However, Michael Avioz writes that “Nonetheless, the description of Bathsheba’s beauty is part of the positive casting of her character. Here beauty is not used as temptation as described in Proverbs. This is in contradistinction to the claims of several researchers that Bathsheba seduced David.”[35] In 1 Kings 1 Abishag is also described as beautiful, but nothing is mentioned of her character. In comparison with David’s other wives, Bathsheba stands in contrast with Michal. Michal is often seen taking initiative and sometimes takes on roles that men traditionally take – she announces her love for David, she rescues David from his enemies, etc. She is not described as beautiful, but is seen to be somewhat masculine.[36] Bathsheba on the other hand is portrayed in a very feminine way, and for the biblical writer her femininity seems to be portrayed in her silence, her passivity, and her physical beauty.[36]

Conclusion

In conclusion, the story of Bathsheba has been interpreted in a number of different ways throughout the centuries. Many of these interpretations have portrayed the character of Bathsheba in a negative light. This Feminist interpretation of the text shows that Bathsheba was not necessarily a woman seeking to take advantage of David, but rather David’s victim. While some say that Bathsheba exposed herself to David in order to somehow gain a royal position, this interpretation seems to be weak. Bathsheba does not even appear to be a character with a personality in the 2 Samuel story, but only a type, or an agent for the narrator to use in his overall picture of David. However, in 1 Kings, Bathsheba does take on the role of a more full-fledged character. In that story, she is shown to be intelligent and having a will of her own, despite Nathan’s promptings. While she is still shown to be subject to other men, she uses her influence to get what she desires from David, just as he had originally used his influence to get what he desired from her. In this way, one may come to the conclusion that although women may be oppressed Bathsheba is one who eventually overcomes.





_____________________________________________________________________________





[1] E. Winkelman, et al. "The sanctified 'adulteress' and her circumstantial clause: Bathsheba's bath and self-consecration in 2 Samuel 11." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32, no. 3 (March 1, 2008): 339-352.
[2] Garland, David E., and Diana S Richmond Garland. "Bathsheba's story: surviving abuse and loss." Family and community ministries 21, no. 3 (December 1, 2008): 22-33.
[3] Even in children’s films which are careful to not portray excessive amounts of promiscuity, she is still often seen as an object. Veggietales’ King George and the Ducky, seeking to avoid adult subjects portrays David as an anthropomorphic cucumber and Bathsheba as a rubber duck, an object.
[4] Winkelman., Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Christian tradition even place Bathsheba, along with Ruth and other foreign women, in the genealogy of Jesus.
[11] Winkelman., Ibid.
[12] Charles E. Bressler, Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall).
[13] Bressler., Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Berger, Yitzhak. "Ruth and the David-Bathsheba story: allusions and contrasts." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33, no. 4 (June 1, 2009): 433-452.
[17] Vasholz, Robert I. "The wisdom of Bathsheba in 1 Kings 2:13-25." Presbyterion 33, no. 1 (March 1, 2007): 49.
[18] (eds.) Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler. The Jewish Study Bible. (Oxford: Jewish Publication Society, TANAKH Translation): 672
[19] Bressler., Ibid.
[20] Berlin, Adele. "Characterization in biblical narrative: David's wives." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament no. 23 (July 1, 1982): 69-85.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Bressler., Ibid.
[25] Cushman, Beverly W. "The politics of the royal harem and the case of Bat-Sheba." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 30, no. 3 (March 1, 2006): 327-343.
[26] Bowen, Nancy R. "The quest for the historical gĕbîrâ." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 63, no. 4 (October 1, 2001): 597-618.
[27] (gen. ed.) Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible A-C, Volume 1 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press):2006.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Bressler., Ibid.
[30] Berger., Ibid.
[31] Garland and Richmond Garland., Ibid.
[32] (ed.) Michael E. Lawrence. The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume IV. “The Book of Psalms: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections” by J. Clinton McCann, Jr. (Abingdon Press: Nashville, TN): 1996.
[33] Bowen., Ibid.
[34] Bressler., Ibid.
[35] Avioz, Michael. "The motif of beauty in the books of Samuel and Kings." Vetus testamentum 59, no. 3 (January 1, 2009): 341-359.
[36] Ibid. (a) He also notes that Michal’s brother Jonathan also possesses some physical beauty and that although he is a warrior his sister is at times portrayed as even more masculine than he.
[37] Ibid.

The Covenants and the Role of the King in Psalm 72

Within Psalm 72 are seen references to at least two different Old Testament covenants. The most obvious Old Testament covenant present in Psalm 72 is the Davidic Covenant. Within this covenant, God makes a promise to King David that he will always have a descendant on the throne. God promises that the royal line of David will never end. The first possible reference to the Davidic Covenant in Psalm 72 is in verse 1, which says, “Endow the king with your justice, O God, the royal son with your righteousness.” Within this verse is seen a reference to both the “king” and the “royal son.” These two references may also be translated as the “king” and the “king’s son.” The psalmist is asking God to provide the king with the ability to act justly as well as to grant righteousness to the king’s son. [1] In other words, the psalmist desires that certain godly attributes, such as justice and righteousness be associated with the royal family – both the king and the descendants of the king.

The role of the king and his descendants as people who will act with justice and righteousness in the eyes of God is a concept that is not foreign to the texts of the Davidic Covenant. When God establishes his covenant with David, God expects David and his descendants to act in faithfulness to him and to reign over the people of God with justice and righteousness. [2] When this covenant is renewed at the dedication of the Temple by Solomon, God says to Solomon, “…if you walk before me faithfully as David your father did, and do all I command, and observe my decrees and laws, I will establish your royal throne, as I covenanted with David your father when I said, ‘You shall never fail to have a successor to rule over Israel.’” (2 Chr. 7:17-18). God also warns Solomon that if he and his descendants fail to remain faithful then Israel will be torn from the land. (2 Chr. 7:19-22). This renewal of the covenant sounds somewhat different than the initial covenant given to David in 2 Samuel 7. David Jobling says, “The classic formulation of 2 Sam 7:14-15 unambiguously states that the unfaithfulness of one of David's successors to Yahweh will not mean the end of the covenant.” [3] In that version, God says of Solomon, “When he does wrong, I will punish him […] But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’” (v. 14-16). Both versions say that the descendant of David will be punished if they are unfaithful, but as a post-exilic text, 2 Chronicles gives a much harsher punishment than that of 2 Samuel. [4] Both, however, seem to indicate the great importance of the faithfulness to God of the Davidic ruler. The writer of Psalm 72 asks God to help the Davidic ruler be faithful.

Verse 2 of the psalm continues to carry this idea forward, asking that God grant the king the ability to “judge your people in righteousness, your afflicted ones with justice.” Verse four also says, “May he defend the afflicted among the people and save the children of the needy…” Within the Davidic Covenant, God promises blessings to David and to his descendants, but God also expects that David and his descendants will walk before him in righteousness, and that they will defend the people. Verses 12-14 also speak of how the king is to defend and look out for the helpless and the needy. This psalm is showing that the true Davidic king is the one who acts on behalf of the people, and not simply one who inherits the throne by birth. Walter Houston writes, “A king who is not just, who does not care for the poor, who does not allow the prayer for God's righteousness to be fulfilled in himself, is not in reality God's king.” [5]

In verse 5, the psalmist asks that the king may “endure as long as the sun.” This could be interpreted as perhaps granting the eternal preservation of the king – as the sun lasts forever, so may the king last forever. This is not indicating that the king will never die, but it does indicate the long-lasting and perhaps eternal nature of the position of the king. The king will endure forever through his offspring, who will carry on the royal lineage through the generations. This is seen again in verse 17, which says, “May his name endure forever; may it continue as long as the sun.” The name of the king will endure forever through his offspring as indicated in the Davidic Covenant. David’s lineage will endure, even long after David’s death. Again, the everlasting nature of the Davidic line is likened to the everlasting nature of the sun.

While the Davidic Covenant is the most obvious covenant at work within Psalm 72, this psalm is unique in that it also directly references the Abrahamic Covenant. Christopher Wright says, “These echoes of the Abraham tradition are greatly amplified in the poetic materials concerning the link between the throne of David and God’s purpose for the nations beyond Israel.” [6] The second half of verse 17 reads, “Then all nations will be blessed through him, and they will call him blessed.” Within the Abrahamic Covenant God uses these same words to describe the nature of the covenant they are making. God promises Abraham that he will provide him with a son and that his descendants will be as numerous as the stars (Gen 15:5). God also says that through Abraham all nations will be blessed (Gen. 18:18; 22:18). As in the Davidic Covenant later, God requires of Abraham to walk before him “faithfully and be blameless” (Gen. 17:1) Both David and Abraham are to be righteous in the sight of God, and God promises to both of them that he will make their names great and will give them descendants.

The way the writer of Psalm 72 associates the Abrahamic Covenant directly to the Davidic Covenant indicates that the idea had developed that the Davidic Dynasty was not only a fulfillment of God’s promise to David and to Israel, but that the Davidic king was also a fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham and to the whole world. James Luther Mays writes, “The prayer envisions and prays for a king who will make it possible for the people of God and the nations of the world to live in the kingdom of God.” [7] The Davidic King then would not only fulfill his proper place in Israel, but would also be a blessing to all peoples on earth. Mays also writes, “His name should endure forever, and the nations bless themselves by that name as God's promise to Abraham is kept through him…” [8]

The Davidic and Abrahamic Covenants are not the only covenants found in the Old Testament; however, evidence of references to other covenants within Psalm 72 seems limited at best. Though, other psalms within Book II of the larger work of Psalms provide references to other Old Testament covenants of God. It would seem, however, that because of the nature of Psalm 72, only references to Abraham and David were needed to make the point that the Davidic ruler was to be a blessing to the people of Israel as well as the rest of the world.

Some of the language of Psalm 72, however, may indicate more subtle references to some of the ideas presented in other Old Testament Covenants or words of promise from the mouth of God. Some of the language used within Psalm 72 may be referred to as “serpent language,” in that some of the expressions used are the same ones used to describe the serpent imagery of Genesis 3. In Genesis 3, God says that the descendant of the woman will crush the head of the serpent. [9] This type of imagery is seen in other places in the Old Testament, where the enemy of God who is described as having serpent-like qualities receives a crushing head wound. One example would be Goliath, whose armor is described as having the appearance of “scales.” David defeats Goliath with a blow to the head. [10] Another example would be the story of Jael, who drives a tent peg through the head, or temple, of General Sisera, who is a serpent-type. [11] This kind of language is not uncommon throughout the Old Testament, and it appears to be used at least somewhat in Psalm 72. Verse 4 says of the king, “may he crush the oppressor.” One may think back to image of the serpent’s head being crushed. Verse 9 also says, “May the desert tribes bow before him and his enemies lick the dust.” This may be referring back to the curse of God upon the serpent in Genesis 3, where the serpent is doomed to crawl on his belly and eat, or lick, the dust. So just as the enemy of Genesis 3 is cursed to lick dust and to be crushed, so the Davidic king will be God’s agent in carrying out this punishment against the enemies of God and his people, causing them to “lick the dust” and to “be crushed.” While this kind of language might not be associated with a covenant agreement between God and his servant/servants necessarily, it is still associated with a promise of God regarding the descendants of the recipient of the promise. [12]

Some of the language of Psalm 72 may also reflect some of the language in God’s covenant with Noah. Within the Noahic Covenant is seen a promise that the seasons of the earth will be set indefinitely.[13] God promises in Genesis 8:22, “As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.” This promise indicates the eternal nature of the established patterns of the earth – that the seasons and the days and the times will continue to rotate forever, or at least as long as the earth is around. [14] Psalm 72 uses this same kind of language, referencing the perceived eternal nature of nature itself and of the created order to describe the righteous reign of the Davidic king. Verse 5 says, “May he endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations.” The sun and the moon are the means by which people measured the passage of time. The psalmist says that just like the sun and the moon’s eternal mark on the passage of time, so also the Davidic rule shall be an eternal marker of the passage of time, because the Davidic king will always endure. Also, language of the different seasons is used in Psalm 72, similarly to the Noahic Covenant. Verse 6 says, “May he be like rain falling on a mown field, like showers watering the earth.” Just as the rainy season always comes to bless the people year after year, so may the Davidic king also bless the people year after year. However, this type of language is also used in 2 Samuel to describe the effects of the Davidic king who reigns in righteousness, [15] so it would seem that this would be the more likely source for this language than the Noahic Covenant.

Besides addressing the significance of the Davidic and Abrahamic Covenants (and possibly some others) of the Old Testament in regard to the Davidic ruler and placing him in that context, Psalm 72 also speaks to the specific role of the Davidic king and describes what the psalmist believes to be the calling of the king. The role of the king is made clear in Psalm 72. Psalm 72 is interesting in that it appears to be attributed to more than one specific person. At the beginning of the psalm, it reads, “Of Solomon,” however, at the very end of the psalm one finds the words in verse 20, “This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.” Psalm 72 is located within a section of Psalms attributed to David, yet Psalm 72 itself is attributed to Solomon in some way. Houston writes, “The speaker is anonymous, in fact invisible. There is no use of the first person anywhere in the text. The speaker is as faceless as the omniscient narrator of Hebrew narrative. It therefore becomes a delicate question to decide whom the speaker represents.” [16]

If Psalm 72 is to be interpreted as actually being written by David then one must ask about whom is David speaking. Verse 1 calls upon God to work in the life of not only the king, but also the king’s son. If David is seen as the author of this psalm, then perhaps David is asking not only for God’s blessing upon his own reign, but also upon the reign of his son Solomon, who would succeed him. [17] One might interpret this as David’s personal blessing upon Solomon, indicating that Solomon would be the one to carry on the Davidic dynasty. [18]

However, if David did not personally write Psalm 72 and it was written by someone else, it would seem that whoever wrote it was interested in showing how David was an honorable king who protected the people and provided for the needy. Throughout the Deuteronomistic History David is portrayed as the ideal king, especially when compared with his predecessor, Saul. Saul is portrayed as a “bungler from the beginning,” and the narrative purposely contrasts Saul’s demise with David’s rise. [19] Psalm 72 may be an attempt to show the good quality of David as king. While this psalm shows in a way David’s faithfulness, it does not seem to be limited to just David himself. Kaiser writes, “[I]t is, nevertheless, the whole royal house of David that is the concern of the psalmist.” [20] So while David is a part of the house of David and may serve as the representative of the whole, the psalm is not specifically about him, though it is attributed to him.

Psalm 72 is also attributed to Solomon, and one may see more obvious connections to Solomon than perhaps to David. It would seem then that David did not write Psalm 72, but that it was merely written in remembrance of him. [21] Aspects of the life of Solomon are clearly present within the psalm itself. Solomon fulfills the expectations of Psalm 72. He seems to be the epitome of the perfect Davidic king. Solomon’s wisdom is described as being greater than the wisdom of all who came before him and after him (1 Kgs 3:12), and many kings and rulers from around the world are reported to have traveled to see him and to hear his wisdom (1 Kgs 4:34). Psalm 72:10-11 says, “May the kings of Tarshish and of distant shores bring tribute to him. May the kings of Sheba and Seba present him gifts. May all kings bow down to him and all nations serve him.” Solomon fulfills this aspect of the psalm. Even the reference to Sheba by the psalm seems to indicate that the writer is indeed referring to Solomon. In 1 Kings 10, the Queen of Sheba is reported to have traveled to see Solomon and to hear his wisdom. She is said to have brought gifts to him as well, just as the psalm says the king of Sheba does. Psalm 72:15 also says, “May gold from Sheba be given him.” One of the gifts Solomon received from the Queen of Sheba was gold. Solomon fits well into the role of the Davidic monarch in Psalm 72.

However, immediately following the passage about the Queen of Sheba’s visit the text records that Solomon received 666 talents of gold annually in addition to further amounts of gold (1 Kgs. 10:14-15). The text uses the number 666 intentionally to portray Solomon negatively. [22] Verses 18-20 go on to describe the gold throne Solomon made for himself, describing it as having six steps with six gold lions on the left and six on the right. Again, a set of three sixes is used here to suggest that Solomon’s intentions are far from righteous. [23]

If Solomon wrote Psalm 72, then it would seem that he was drawing from his own life experience and speaking of himself. [24] However, Solomon is recorded in Kings as not having asked for gold or riches of God, but only wisdom. So it would seem that if Solomon did write this psalm, he has lost his former humility as portrayed in Kings and desires the world to pay tribute to him. It seems unlikely then that Solomon is the author of this psalm, but rather someone who was familiar with the reign of Solomon. [25] If that is the case, then the writer of the psalm may also be familiar with Solomon’s failures.

While Solomon is portrayed as the ideal Davidic king in both Kings and seemingly Psalm 72, Solomon is also portrayed in a rather negative light. Kings records that he married seven hundred wives and had three hundred concubines, and that his wives led him astray into worshiping other gods (1 Kgs. 11:1-8). Deuteronomy speaks of the role of the king, and specifically states that the king is not to have many wives, many horses, and much gold (Deut. 17:16-17). 1 Kings says Solomon had many wives (11:1-4), many horses (10:26-29), and much gold (10:14-21). Solomon also built places of worship to foreign gods in addition to building the Temple of Yahweh (11:7-8). Solomon also forced the people into what seems to have been slave labor (1 Kgs 5:13-18). According to 1 Kings 9 however, Solomon did not make slaves out of any of the Israelites, but only those Canaanites who still lived in the land (9:20-23). Yet in chapter 12, after the death of Solomon the people go to his son Rehoboam and plead with him to lighten the heavy load that his father Solomon had placed upon them (12:1-4). Rehoboam responds by saying, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions.” (12:14). Both the people and Solomon’s own son believe Solomon to have been a very harsh ruler over Israel. At this point Solomon sounds more like Pharaoh than the righteous Davidic king. Psalm 72 affirms Solomon’s recognition of the poor and needy, but it also seems to imply that Solomon did not follow through with his responsibility completely. The Davidic king is clearly called to look out for the needs of the poor and to defend the people from harm. Kaiser writes:

While a king like Solomon, who during his prosperous rule of peace and prosperity, may have carried out some of this, it is clear that, at least by the end of his reign, the ten northern tribes felt that Solomon had badly failed them, for they had been overtaxed and treated unfairly in comparison with how Judah had been favored. [26]

So it would seem that while Solomon may have been the perfect example of the righteous Davidic king for a time, he was not always this way. Kaiser again says that “the kings of Israel rarely exercised their office in accordance with the Torah of God as provided for in the kingship law in Deut 17:14-20 in particular.” [27] He goes on to say that “when the Royal Psalms are read in their contextual settings in the Psalter, the Psalter tended to direct our attention beyond the contemporary expression of kingship in Israel to a future king who would exceed the best examples, even of those in the Davidic line.” [28]

With this information in mind, perhaps the writer of Psalm 72 is recalling all of the good things about Solomon, but hoping that someone will arise from David’s line that would be righteous in the ways that Solomon was righteous but not fail in the ways that Solomon failed. John Durham writes, “When a given Davidic king fell short of the ideal posed by the concept of an anointed one of Yahweh—and all of them did, of course, even David himself, […] — the nation's hopes were redirected towards a Davidic king yet to come.” [29] Psalm 72 falls at the end of the section of Psalms attributed to David, yet this psalm is also attributed to Solomon, so this may mean that the writer is recalling the Davidic covenant and how Solomon started out faithful to the covenant but ended up being unfaithful. If this is the case, then the writer of the Psalm may in fact be hoping for a future anointed one to rise up from David’s line in order to completely fulfill the requirements of the Davidic promise, which would include the link to the Abrahamic promise in which the Davidic ruler is understood as being the one from the line of Abraham who would cause all nations on earth to be blessed. This desire for the ideal king who would come and reign as portrayed in the psalms is a significant contributor to the messianism that would later develop in Judaism. This desire arose from a consistent lack of faithful leadership by the Davidic rulers over time. [30] Mowinckel writes, “It is affliction, the need for help, and a hope of change in the situation, which makes the royal ideology relevant because of its reference to the future, and presents to the imagination the picture of an ideal king either in the immediate future or as already present.” [31] The psalmist recognizes Solomon’s contribution to the fulfillment of this promise in how he was a sort of blessing upon the whole world, to the point that rulers from across the earth came to him to hear his wisdom, however, the psalmist also recognizes that Solomon fell short in that he did not remain faithful to God and turned away to false gods and idolatry and did not follow the other commands of God to the point of becoming a curse to his own people by forcing them to pay heavy taxes and making many of them his slaves to work in the mines and elsewhere. To summarize this final point, the author of Psalm 72 remembers the Davidic Covenant and the faithfulness of David, recognizes Solomon’s good start and ultimate failure, and hopes for the coming of the future faithful Davidic ruler, the one who will fulfill both the Davidic and the Abrahamic Covenants and cause all people on earth to be blessed.






________________________________________________________



[1] Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The One Who Is to Come. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2007.
[2] Wright, Christopher J. H. Knowing Jesus Through the Old Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1992.
[3] Jobling, David. "Deconstruction and the Political Analysis of Biblical Texts: A Jamesonian Reading of Psalm 72." Semeia no. 59 (January 1, 1992): 95-127.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Houston, Walter J. "The King's Preferential Option for the Poor: Rhetoric, Ideology and Ethics in Psalm 72." Biblical Interpretation 7, no. 4 (October 1, 1999): 341-367.
[6] Wright.
[7] Mays, James Luther. "In a vision": the portrayal of the messiah in the Psalms." Ex Auditu 7, (Jan. 1, 1991): 1-8.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Wright.
[10] Dr. Ray Vander Laan. “Focus Institute Lecture Series: The Blood Path.” (lecture presented at Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, Colorado, March 2009).
[11] Ibid.
[12] Wright.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Kaiser, Walter C, Jr. "Psalm 72: an historical and messianic current example of Antiochene hermeneutical theoria." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 2 (June 1, 2009): 257-270.
[16] Houston.
[17] Wilson, Gerald H. "The use of royal psalms at the "seams" of the Hebrew Psalter." Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament no. 35 (June 1, 1986): 85-94.
[18] Houston.
[19] Kenneth I. Cohen. “King Saul—A Bungler from the Beginning.” Biblical Archaeology Society Archive. 10:05 (Oct 1994).
[20] Kaiser.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Vander Laan.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Kaiser.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Ibid.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Durham, John I. "The king as "messiah" in the Psalms." Review & Expositor 81, no. 3 (June 1, 1984): 425-435.
[30] Mowinckel, Sigmund. He that Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2005.
[31] Ibid.