https://www.logos.com/product/5321/commentary-on-the-new-testament-use-of-the-old-testament
Why is this so heavily promoted? Is it that good? What am I missing?
A very brief explanation: Most people, when first introduced to the resource, think it's just a glorified cross reference. It digs deeper and expands on the context from the OT that the NT writer is drawing on to make a point. It answers the question "Why did the NT writer cite this OT passage." This isn't just helpful in the NT; if you're working in a passage it cites in the OT it gives you a ton of information on how the themes in that text are developed in the NT.
It's one of my most-used commentaries for both seminary papers and writing sermons.
Here is a sample from Revelation (there are also various introductory sections for each book):
The Prologue: Rev. 1:1–20
Chapter 1 introduces the book as a “revelation of Jesus Christ,” while the greeting from John to the churches marks it as a letter. It concludes with John on the island of Patmos, where he receives the inaugural vision of the glorious risen Christ.
1:1The word apokalypsis (“apocalypse”) is part of an allusion to Dan. 2, since the whole of 1:1 is patterned after the broad structure of Dan. 2:28–30, 45–47 (cf. Θ), where apokalyptō (“reveal”) appears five times (cf. also 2:19, 22), ha dei genesthai (“what must come to pass”) three times, and sēmainō (“signify”) twice (cf. also 2:23 LXX). The words en tachei (“quickly”) are a conscious substitution for Daniel’s “in the latter days” (e.g., Dan. 2:28) and connote the definite, imminent time of fulfillment. But whereas Daniel expected this fulfillment to occur in the distant future, the “latter days,” John expects it to begin in his own generation. Indeed, it has already started to happen, as the references to beginning fulfillment of OT prophecy in chapter 1 bear out (cf. 1:5, 7, 13, 16). p 1089 The use of sēmainō in Dan. 2:45 LXX indicates the symbolic nature of the Babylonian king’s dream (a statue symbolizing four world empires, somewhat like a political cartoon drawing). The appeal to this Daniel reference in the title and programmatic statement of the entire book indicates that symbolic vision is going to be part of the warp and woof of the means of communication throughout Revelation. Thus, rather than producing the expectation that the majority of the book will be “literal” in nature, this verse is asserting that the expectation is for most of the material to be understood symbolically (on which, see Beale 1999b: 295–99). This is one among a number of reasons that chapters 4–21 especially should be viewed predominantly as symbolic communication (particularly the visions of seals, trumpets, and bowls [on which, see Beale 1999a: 50–69]).
1:4aThe number “seven” is the favorite number of Revelation. In the OT the number was used to denote “fullness” (e.g., Lev. 4–16; 26:18–28). The idea of completeness originates from the account of creation in Gen. 1, where six days of creating are followed by the consummation. It is thus likely that the seven churches of Asia function representatively for the whole church.The description of God as “the one who is and was and is to come” is an interpretation of the name “YHWH,” based on reflection on Exod. 3:14 together with twofold and threefold temporal descriptions of God in Isaiah (cf. Isa. 41:4; 43:10; 44:6; 48:12), which themselves likely are reflections on the divine name in Exod. 3:14. The name in Exod. 3:14 was also expanded in a threefold manner by later Jewish tradition, most notably Tg. Ps.-J. Deut. 32:39, “I am he who is and who was, and I am he who will be.” The first element, “the one who is” (ho ōn), derives from Exod. 3:14 LXX (egō eimi ho ōn), and although the preposition apo calls for the genitive, John keeps ho ōn in the nominative in order to highlight it as an allusion to Exodus (for a full account of the phrase, see McDonough 1999). It is possible that John employs such kinds of constructions here and elsewhere as Hebraisms (in Hebrew the noun in the indirect cases is not inflected [see Charles 1920: 1:13]) in order to create a “biblical” effect upon the reader and so to show the solidarity of his work with that of God’s revelation in the OT (for further examples of such kinds of intended solecisms, see commentary on Rev. 1:5; 2:20; 3:12; 9:14 in Beale 1999a; see also Beale 1997b).
1:4bThis prophetic epistle is also from “the seven spirits who are before the throne.” The wording is likely a figurative designation of the Holy Spirit, expressing the diversity of God’s work in the church and the world. The expression “seven spirits” is part of a paraphrased allusion to Zech. 4:2–7 (as is evident from 4:5; 5:6), which identified the “seven lamps” as God’s one Spirit, whose role was to bring about God’s grace (cf. Zech. 4:7: “Grace, grace to it”) in Israel through the successful completion of the rebuilding of the temple (see commentary on Rev. 1:12; 4:5; 5:6 below). It is possible that Isa. 11:2–10 LXX is included along with Zechariah in the background of the “seven spirits,” since this text is alluded to in 5:5–6 (cf. the “root” of Isa. 11:1 in 5:5, and the mention of “the seven spirits of God” in 5:6 [see Farrer 1964: 61]; note also the use of Isa. 11:4 in 1:16 [for agreement about the presence of both OT influences, see Skrinjar 1935: 114–36]).
1:5Psalm 88:28, 38 LXX (89:27, 37 ET) is the basis for the statement that Christ is “faithful witness,” “firstborn,” and “ruler of the kings of the earth,” since all three of the phrases uniquely occur there (cf. Isa. 55:4). The immediate context of the psalm speaks of David as an “anointed” king who will reign over all his enemies and whose seed will be established on his throne forever (Ps. 88:20–38 LXX [89:19–37 ET]; Judaism understood Ps. 89:28 messianically [Midr. Rab. Exod. 19:7; perhaps Pesiq. Rab. 34:2]). Although the “faithful witness” in Ps. 88:38 LXX refers to the unending witness of the moon, this is by way of comparison to the unending reign of David’s seed on his throne, and accordingly it is applied here to Christ (on “faithful witness,” see also Isa. 43:10–13). John thus views Jesus as the ideal Davidic king, whose death and resurrection have resulted in his eternal kingship and in the kingship of his “beloved” children (cf. 5:5b). “The firstborn” refers to Christ’s privileged position as a result of the resurrection from the dead (Ps. 89:27–37, developing this idea from 2 Sam. 7:13–16; Ps. 2:7–8). p 1090 Also in 1:5 is an allusion to Christ’s priestly function (“loosed us from our sins by his blood”), since OT priests accomplished sanctification and atonement for Israel by sprinkling the blood of sacrificial animals (cf. Exod. 24:8; Lev. 16:14–19; see Loenertz 1947: 43). This may be a typological fulfillment of Israel’s redemption from Egypt by the blood of the Passover lamb, as is evident from the clear allusion to Exod. 19:6 in 1:6. Here, as in Hebrews, Christ is portrayed as both a priest and a sacrifice.
1:6The phrase “a kingdom, priests” is based on the similar phrase in Exod. 19:6 (basileion hierateuma [cf. MT]). There is some ambiguity about whether this phrase in Exodus is to be understood as a “royal priesthood” or as a “priestly kingdom,” but the difference is insignificant, since both can include reference to kingly and priestly elements (for discussion of alternative meanings in Exod. 19:6; Rev. 1:6, see Gelston 1959; Dumbrell 1985: 124–26, 159–60).The expression from Exodus is a summary of God’s purpose for Israel. This primarily meant that they were to be a kingly and priestly nation mediating Yahweh’s light of salvific revelation by witnessing to the Gentiles (e.g., Isa. 43:10–13), a purpose that the OT prophets repeatedly observed went unfulfilled by Israel (e.g., Isa. 40–55). The priestly nature of the whole nation of Israel was also shown by the fact that Moses consecrates them in precisely the same manner as Aaron and his sons, by the sprinkling of sacrificial blood (cf. Exod. 29:10–21 with Exod. 24:4–8). The appointing of all the saints to be priests in 1:6 probably draws from this background (so Düsterdieck 1980: 124). Like OT priests, the entire people of God now have unmediated access to God’s presence (I. T. Beckwith 1919: 430) because Christ has removed the obstacle of sin by his substitutionary blood (Vanhoye 1986: 289). Such unmediated access receives some qualifications elsewhere in the NT, particularly in the sense that Christ is the high-priestly mediator in the heavenly temple for all of God’s people (cf., e.g., Heb. 8–10; for further qualifications of this “unmediated access,” see Beale 2004 [the chapters on the temple in the NT]).
1:7This verse is composed of two OT citations. The first is from Dan. 7:13, which in its OT context refers to the enthronement of the “son of man” over all the nations (cf. Dan. 7:14) after God’s judgment of evil empires (Dan. 7:9–12). The following citation is from Zech. 12:10, which in its context pertains to the end-time period when God will defeat the enemy nations around Israel and when Israel will be redeemed after repenting of their sinful rejection of God and his messenger (i.e., “the one they have pierced”).The identical combination of Dan. 7 and Zech. 12 in Matt. 24:30 may have influenced John to do the same here (the same combination occurs also in Justin Martyr, Dial. 14.8; Matt. 24:30 may also refer to repentance, in light of 24:31). That the one “mourned” for is compared to a “firstborn son” in Zech. 12:10 is also not a coincidence, since the same word (prōtotokos) is used to describe the king in Ps. 88:28 LXX (89:27 ET) and Jesus in Rev. 1:5.The Zechariah text has been altered in two significant ways. The phrases “every eye” and “of the earth” (cf. Zech. 14:17) have been added to universalize its original meaning. This probably is a reference not to every person without exception, but rather to all among the nations who believe, as is indicated clearly by 5:9; 7:9 (cf. the plural “tribes” as a universal reference to unbelievers in 11:9; 13:7; 14:6). The word gē (“earth, land”) cannot be a limited reference to the land of Israel; rather, it is a universal denotation, since this is the only meaning that the phrase pasai hai phylai tēs gēs (“all the tribes of the earth”) has in the OT (LXX: Gen. 12:3; 28:14; Ps. 71:17; Zech. 14:17). The phrase “all the tribes of Israel” occurs repeatedly in the OT (approximately twenty-five times), which highlights the different wording of Rev. 1:7b. This implies an extension of the OT concept of Israel, since what applied to that nation in Zech. 12 is now transferred to the peoples of the earth, who assume the role of repentant Israel. Some believe that the Zechariah quotation is utilized contrary to its original intention to denote the grief of the nations over their impending judgment. However, John typically adheres to and consistently develops the contextual ideas of his OT references, and proposed exceptions to this rule must bear the burden of proof. The nations in 1:7b mourn p 1091 not over themselves, but over Jesus, which fits better into an understanding of repentance than judgment.That the “son of man” figure is applied to Jesus twice in the space of only seven verses (1:7, 13) is highly appropriate, since the “son of man” in Dan. 7 was a corporate representative for the saints with respect both to suffering trial and to ruling, and this title was used by Jesus in the Gospels to indicate his veiled, inaugurated kingship amidst suffering. In Midr. Ps. 2:9, Dan. 7:13–14 is interpreted as referring corporately to the nation of Israel, though other sectors of Judaism applied it to an individual messianic figure (e.g., 4 Ezra 13:1–39; 1 En. 37–71; 2 Bar. 36–40). Jesus in his present identification as “son of man” (1:13) and the progressive nature of the present tense in 1:7a (“he is coming”) suggest that here the Dan. 7:13 prophecy is seen as beginning in the first century, continuing throughout the church age, and culminating at the very end of history.
1:8The “Alpha and Omega” merism could well have been formulated through reflection on the similar clauses in Isa. 41–48, since “the First and the Last” in 1:17b is based on the same Isaianic wording (cf. Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12) and since the threefold phrase of 1:8b also has a link with Isaiah (see commentary on Rev. 1:4a above [“the one who is and the one who was and the one who is coming”]). God, who transcends time, guides the entire course of history because he stands as sovereign over its beginning and end. The phrase “says the Lord God Almighty” (pantokratōr), which is repeatedly used by the prophets (e.g., Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi), likewise here represents God’s sovereignty.
1:10–11The introduction of John’s commission is coined in the language of the prophet Ezekiel’s repeated rapture in the Spirit, thus identifying John’s revelation with that of the OT prophets (cf. Ezek. 2:2; 3:12, 14, 24; 11:1; 43:5). His prophetic authority is enforced by the description of the voice that he heard as “a great voice as a trumpet,” evoking the same voice that Moses heard when Yahweh revealed himself to him on Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:16, 19–20). This idea is emphasized further by the command to “write in a book,” which is reflective of the charge given by Yahweh to his prophetic servants to communicate to Israel the revelation that they had received (LXX: Exod. 17:14; Isa. 30:8; Jer. 37:2; 39:44; Tob. 12:20). Note that all such commissions in the prophets were commands to write testaments of judgment against Israel (LXX: Isa. 30:8; Jer. 37:2; 39:44; cf. also in the LXX: Exod. 34:27; Isa. 8:1; Jer. 43:2; Hab. 2:2).
1:12The first image that John sees in his initial vision is that of “seven golden lampstands” (1:12b), which has its general background in Exod. 25; 37; Num. 8, but which is drawn more specifically from Zech. 4:2, 10. This is borne out by three observations: (1) the mention of “seven spirits” in 1:4 (cf. Zech. 4:6); (2) the lampstand vision of 1:12b is interpreted in 1:20, which follows the same vision-interpretation pattern of Zech. 4:2, 10; (3) clear allusions to Zech. 4:2, 10 are found in 4:5; 5:6 in close association with allusions to Daniel.The “seven lampstands” represent the church (cf. 1:20). In Zech. 4:2–6 the lampstand with its seven lamps is a figurative synecdoche by which part of the temple furniture stands for the whole temple. This by extension also represents faithful Israel (cf. Zech. 4:6–9), which is required to live “ ‘not by [earthly] might nor by power, but by my Spirit’ says the LORD” (Zech. 4:6). The lampstand in the tabernacle and temple was placed directly in front of the holy of holies, which contained the glorious presence of God, and the light that emanated from it apparently represented the presence of God (see Num. 8:1–4; in Exod. 25:30–31 the lampstand is mentioned directly after the “bread of the Presence”; see also 40:4; 1 Kings 7:48–49). Likewise, the lamps on the lampstand in Zech. 4:2–5 are interpreted in 4:6 as representing God’s presence or Spirit, which was to empower Israel (= “the lampstand”) to finish rebuilding the temple, despite resistance (cf. Zech. 4:6–9). So the new Israel, the church, as a “lampstand” is a part of the temple and is to draw its power from the Spirit, the divine presence, before God’s throne in its drive to stand against the resistance of the world. This is highlighted by 1:4 and chapter 4.The unusual expression “see the voice” may be related to Exod. 20:18, where “all the people saw p 1092 the voice … and the voice of the trumpet” (cf. in the LXX: Ezek. 3:12–13; 43:5–6; Dan. 7:11).
1:13–16An analysis of OT allusions in 1:13–16 shows that the predominant features of the “son of man” are drawn from Dan. 7; 10, with other texts contributing to the depiction. Most commentators agree that the significance of this is that Christ is portrayed as a kingly and priestly figure, since the figure in the two Daniel texts has the same features. Although the clothing in 1:13 could also resemble kingly attire, its use here evokes the image of a priest because of the temple atmosphere of the lampstands in 1:12 and also because of the angels coming out of the heavenly temple, who wear the same clothing in 15:5–8. The ambiguity may be due to the possibility that both a king and a priest are in mind, which has precedent in the two figures of Zech. 4:3, 11–14 (see commentary on Rev. 11:4 below; cf. 1 Macc. 10:88–89; 14:30, 32–47).The transferal of the attributes from the judicial figure of the Ancient of Days (cf. Dan. 7:9–12) to Christ also evokes his role as latter-day divine judge, which is clear from 19:12. This is underscored further by the observation that Dan. 10 is also behind the “son of man” image: the primary purpose of the heavenly man in Dan. 10 is to reveal the divine decree that Israel’s persecutors would assuredly be judged (see 10:21–12:13). Daniel 10:6 even depicts the “son of man” as having “eyes … like flaming torches.” The application of the attributes from the Ancient of Days to Christ also points to the eternal life that he has together with his Father (so Sickenberger 1942: 49).The portrayal of the “son of man’s” head and hair (1:14a) is taken from that of the Ancient of Days in Dan. 7:9, while the description of his eyes and feet again follow Dan. 10:6 LXX. The mention of the “furnace” that follows (1:15b) echoes the description from Dan. 3:26 (3:93 Θ), although Ezek. 1:27 perhaps also is in view. The conclusion of 1:15 mentions the roar of the “son of man’s” voice, in the same way as Dan. 10:6, although the actual language describing the voice is taken from Ezek. 1:24; 43:2 MT, where God’s voice is compared to the roar of many waters, so that this enhances the portrait so far of Christ as a divine being.Like the seven lampstands, the number of “seven stars” may also have arisen in part from the “seven lamps” of Zech. 4. In later Judaism the Zech. 4:2 lampstand is said to symbolize the righteous in Israel and is equated with the wise who will shine like the stars in Dan. 12:3 (Midr. Rab. Lev. 30:2; Sipre Deut. Piska 10; Pesiq. Rab Kah. Piska 27:2; Pesiq. Rab. Piska 51:4). McNamara (1966: 197–99) sees the Palestinian Targum to Exod. 40:4 as the background for 1:20a, where the “seven lamps” of the tabernacle are viewed as “corresponding to the seven stars which resemble the just that shine unto eternity in their righteousness,” the latter phrase being a clear allusion to Dan. 12:3.The fact that the stars are explicitly identified with angels in 1:20a (cf. the apparent identification of stars and angels in, e.g., Judg. 5:20) does not preclude the influence of Daniel. The angels may be seen as representatives of the people of God, in keeping with texts such as Dan. 10:13; 12:1.The “sharp two-edged sword” proceeding from Jesus’ mouth is based on the prophecies of Isa. 11:4; 49:2, which add further to his depiction as the fulfillment of the eschatological judge. The last description of the “son of man” as having a face “like the sun shining in its strength” (1:16c) still follows the Dan. 10 outline, although the actual wording is derived from Judg. 5:31 LXX (B). The link with Judges may lie in the descriptions of the bright appearance of the victorious Israelite warrior in Judg. 5:31 and of the “son of man” in Dan. 10, and the immediately preceding portrayal of Jesus as a warrior with a sword.
1:17In 1:17 is exhibited the same fourfold pattern found in, for example, Dan. 10:8–20: (1) the prophet observes a vision, (2) falls on his face in fear, (3) subsequently is strengthened by a heavenly being, and (4) then receives further revelation from him, which is introduced by a form of laleō (“speak”). This is another clue identifying John and his message with OT prophetic authority (cf. 1:10).The “son of man” calls himself the “first and last,” a clear reference to the self-predications of Yahweh in Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12. These texts are linked by catchword phrases and common pictures: (1) the Isa. 41:4 context contains the picture of God’s servant defeating the enemy with a sword (41:2), p 1093 and the key phrase “do not fear” immediately followed by divine words of comfort that God will “strengthen” and “uphold” the righteous one with his right hand (41:10); (2) the Isa. 44:6 context also has the phrase “do not fear” (cf. 44:2); (3) Isa. 48:12 is directly followed by a picture like that of Isa. 41:10; Dan. 12:6–7; Rev. 1:17: “Surely, my hand founded the earth, and my right hand spread out the heavens” (48:13). These common elements provided the associative bridge leading from the Dan. 10 picture of prophetic comfort to that of the three Isaiah passages concerning Yahweh’s comfort of Israel. If, with some commentators, we link “the living one” (ho zōn [cf. the very similar ho ōn in 1:4]) in 1:18 with “the first and the last” in 1:17, we have a tripartite formula parallel to that used of God in 1:4. This would further underscore Christ’s divine status (note also the expression “the one living unto the ages of the ages” in 1:18, which is repeatedly used for God in the OT [Deut. 32:40; Dan. 4:34 Θ; 12:7; Sir. 18:1]).
Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A. (2007). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (pp. 1088–1093). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos.
https://www.logos.com/product/5321/commentary-on-the-new-testament-use-of-the-old-testament Why is this so heavily promoted? Is it that good? What am I missing?
This is one commentary I check early in sermon prep for EVERY NT text I preach.
I agree with what David said. It is a very helpful commentary.
I am going through it as daily reading, half-way done and still half-a-year to go.
I just wish Logos could improve the tagging, particularly to Talmud
I'm also working my way through it and finds that it provides some fascinating insights, drawing together ideas and concepts from across Scripture.
Totally agree. It is one of my most used commentaries.
G.K. Beale's "Handbook On the New Testament Use of the Old Testament" https://www.logos.com/product/37663/handbook-on-the-new-testament-use-of-the-old-testament-exegesis-and-interpretation is also a valuable read on the methodology that they used in writing the commentary.
That is a great idea that I think I just might incorporate into my daily reading. Thanks for sharing.
I refer to it every time I prepare a sermon, and have gained some great insights from doing so. It really helps in understanding the relationship of the NT to the Old, and picks up allusions, references and quotations that I would otherwise have missed.
All I can say is wow...this is moving up higher in my wish list for sure.
Well done everyone (special nod to Mr. Turner who was the most helpful).
Mr. Turner,
Many thanks for the long post showing the excellence of the book discussed here. It prompted me to buy it. Your discussion truly showed its merits.
Ergatees
Here is another snippet, this one from Mark 1:11 discussing the pronouncement of God the Father at Jesus' baptism, "You are my beloved son; with you I am well pleased."
For the sake of brevity, I only provide the discussion of Psalm 2:7 as the partial background for this pronouncement. There are other O.T. passages which the author discusses, namely Isaiah 42:1. But the discussion of Psalm 2 is very thorough and knowing that it is in the background at least in part provides the exegete with some rich eschatological implications to ponder in the context of Mark 1.
***************************
1:11A. NT Context: The Voice from Heaven. Climaxing Mark’s introduction, a voice—surely that of God—speaks from the rent heavens in divine approbation of Jesus. Although some commentators find the statement too allusive to indicate clear dependence on any particular OT text (Hooker 1959: 68–73; Suhl 1965: 97–104; Ruckstuhl 1983: 208–9), most see allusions to several OT passages. The primary contenders are (1) Ps. 2:7 (Vielhauer 1965: 205–6; Lindars 1961: 140n2; Gnilka 1978–1979: 1:53 [cf., e.g., the reading of Codex D in Luke 3:22; Justin, Dial. 88; 103; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 1.6.25]), (2) Isa. 42:1 (Jeremias 1971b: 53–55; Maurer 1953: 31–32; Fuller 1954: 55; Pesch 1976–1977: 1:92), (3) Gen. 22:2, 12, 16 (Best 1990: 169–72; Vermes 1961: 222–23; Daly 1977: 68–70; Wood 1968), (4) Exod. 4:22–23 (Bretscher 1968; Feuillet 1959), (5) a combination of the first three (I. H. Marshall 1968–1969; Guelich 1989: 33–34; Gundry 1993: 49; Schneck 1994: 55–68; R. E. Watts 2000: 108–18; Marcus 1999: 162; France 2002: 80–82).A combined approach is most likely correct. Granted that Mark’s emphatic first-person address reflects a more natural order (3:11; 8:29; 14:61; 15:2), sy ei ho huios mou almost certainly alludes to Ps. 2:7 (huios mou ei sy). For the second phrase, even though Mark’s en soi eudokēsa differs from prosedexato auton of Isa. 42:1 LXX, it is the natural and most common rendering of rṣh [b] in the LXX and is found in Theodotion and Symmachus (I. H. Marshall 1968–1969: 335, also citing Aquila; cf. Tg. Isa. 41:8–9; 44:1–2; 43:10; see Chilton 1984: 129–30). This, together with the descent of the Spirit and the present Isaianic new-exodus context, serves to make an allusion to Isa. 42:1 almost certain.More difficult is ho agapētos. Although occasionally it is attributed to an evocation of the sacrificial elements of Gen. 22, the absence of any explicit Jesus-Isaac typology or aqedah theology in Mark and the NT suggests otherwise (Davies and Chilton 1978). Similarly, seeing here an additional allusion to Isa. 42:1 (cf. Matt 12:18; “Jacob my servant” in Isa. 44:2; Tg. Isa. 42:1; see Gundry 1967: 30–31; Schneck 1994: 53–55) is problematic because agapētos is never used to render bāḥîr in the LXX, and the syntax suggests that it should be taken with huios to mean “beloved” (Turner 1926). The adjective “beloved” is used of Israel (LXX: Ps. 59:7 [60:5 ET]; 107:7 [108:6 ET]; 126:2 [127:2 ET]; 67:13?; 4Q522 9 II, 8; 4Q462 1, 11; m. ʾAbot 3:15), of Abraham (4Q252 II, 8), Levi (4Q379 1, 2), Benjamin (4Q174 8, 3), of the Teacher of Righteousness (CD-B XX, 1, 14), the righteous (4Q177 IV, 14), and David, significantly, in Targum Ps. 2:7. In two nearby “servant Israel” passages in the LXX (Isa. 41:8–9; 44:2) agapaō is used of Israel (Gundry 1967: 31).Although a clear-cut decision may not be possible or even desirable because Israel, the Davidic king, and presumably the servant are all Yahweh’s “beloved sons,” that agapētos seems syntactically connected with the Ps. 2 allusion suggests that the Psalms targumic tradition, of which Mark might well reflect an earlier form, is probably in view (but see Davies and Allison 1988–1997: 1:337, for whom ʾitrìʿì from Targum Isa. 42:1 is best rendered “beloved”). Jesus is Yahweh’s beloved messianic son.B. The Combined Citation/Allusion. 1. Ps. 2:7 in Context. Almost certainly reflecting 2 Sam. 7:14’s statement of God’s promise to David (cf. Ps. 89:26), Ps. 2 is commonly classified as an enthronement psalm written to celebrate the accession of the Davidic scion (Kraus 1986: 111–22). Such transitions, when the new king was relatively weak, often were ideal times for rebellion. On the other hand, rebellions were hardly confined to these occasions, and the Lord’s speech to the king seems to imply that the enthronement is a past event—“I will tell of the decree the LORD said to me” (2:7a)—as do the events that the psalm envisages (Willis 1990: 36). Perhaps it is wiser to take the opening stanza (2:1–3) at face value and see the psalm as a response to the nations gathered in revolt against the Lord’s universal kingship expressed on earth through his messianic regent, mĕšîḥô (Willis 1990: 44).Initially incredulous at their folly, the psalmist records the Lord’s mocking response, which soon turns to anger because God himself has set “my king on Zion, my holy mountain” (2:4–6). The divine commitment is then reiterated, but now by the Davidic scion, who recounts the prophetic word that the Lord decreed concerning David’s offspring: “You are my son; this day I have begotten you” (2:7 [cf. 2 Sam. 7:14]). “Sonship,” of course, is the language of covenantal relationship (e.g., Exod. 4:22; 2 Kings 11:12). That Pss. 1 and 2 were combined in some traditions (y. Ber. 4:3 [I.B]; y. Taʿan. 2:2 [II.C]; b. Ber. 9b–10b) suggests that as Yahweh’s son, in keeping with the wisdom tradition, the Davidic king must accept Yahweh’s instruction (Ps. 1:2; Deut. 17:18–20; cf. 2 Sam. 7:14b; see Brownlee 1971). Obviously, a “son” who delights in Yahweh’s instruction (torah [again Ps. 1:2]) will enjoy prosperity, while those who rebel perish (Ps. 1:4, 6b; 2:2, 9, 12a).The king continues with Yahweh’s promise that he will inherit the nations (2:8), ruling them with a rod of iron and shattering their idolatrous rebellion (2:9). Because the Lord’s decisive intervention is imminent (2:12 [see Kraus 1988–1989: 1:129]), the psalmist concludes with a warning: serve the Lord and give due homage to his anointed (2:11–12).2. Ps. 2:7 in Judaism. Although the Davidic kingship lapsed with the Babylonian exile, this and other royal psalms were retained in Israel’s Psalter probably because the Davidic covenant was eternal (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:16; 22:51; 23:5; cf. Isa. 55:3–5), thereby giving them an eschatological focus (H. Klein 1979: 68; A. A. Anderson 1972: 1:40; on the ongoing interest in a Davidic messiah during the exilic period, see Horbury 1998).Psalms of Solomon 17 is virtually a commentary on Ps. 2, beginning with the confident declaration that the “kingdom of our God is forever over the nations in judgment” (v. 3 [cf. Mark 1:15]), and continuing especially in vv. 21–25, 30–32. Hostile rulers are destroyed (17:22–25), and the nations are subjugated to the Messiah (17:29–31), whose reign, as in the psalm, is both subordinate to and an extension of Yahweh’s own kingship (17:1–4). However, because of Israel’s rebellion, the land and Jerusalem are presently under foreign oppression (17:5–20). The later poet anticipates the day when a messianic Davidic king will purify God’s city, and particularly the temple, (Embry 2002) of his enemies both inside and out (17:22, 30, 36). More generally, Psalms of Solomon combines the hope of Isa. 40’s new exodus (Pss. Sol. 11 [see §B.2 of commentary on Mark 1:2–3 above; also Isa. 52:1 in Pss. Sol. 17:27–29; Isa. 55:5 in 17:31; Isa. 40:5 in 17:35]) with that of a Davidic messiah who is to rule over “my servant Israel,” an expression largely confined to Isaiah’s new-exodus prophecies (e.g., Isa. 41:8; 44:1, 21; 45:4; 49:3).In 4Q174 1, I, 10–19, Ps. 2:1 relates to the “end of days.” Establishing the “branch of David,” to whom “I will be a father … and he will be a son” (1, I, 11, citing 2 Sam. 7:14 [cf. Ps. 2:7; Heb. 1:5]), the Lord through his Davidic agent will destroy the sons of Belial (1, I, 7–8; cf. Bons 1992, who links Ps. 2:2 and CD-A II, 7), raise up the fallen “hut of David” to restore Israel (1, I, 12–13, citing Amos 9:11), and establish his temple (1 I, 3–6 [cf. 2 Sam. 7:12–14]). 1Q28a II, 11–12 appropriately describes this future salvation as the time “when God begets the Messiah.” Although subject to debate, if 4Q246’s powerful “son of God” and “son of the Most High” who will rule nations (4Q246 II) is a messianic figure, then this too could be an echo of Ps. 2.1 Enoch 48:10 (cf. 46:4) also appears to allude to Ps. 2:2 when stating that the kings and the mighty who have “denied the Lord of the Spirits and his Messiah” will fall before “that [previously referred to] Son of Man,” the Elect One, the Messiah (VanderKam 1992: 171). For some, 4 Ezra 13’s account of “my son” who standing on a reconstituted Mount Zion destroys the nations assembled against him (13:32–38) amounts to an eschatological commentary on Ps. 2 (Knibb 1979: 169; Box 1912: lvi–vii).As we noted, in the later Targum the Davidic son is “beloved” of God (2:7). But Yahweh is also described as terrifying the rebels by speaking to them “in his strength” (2:5). In 2:6, “I have anointed by my king and set him over my sanctuary,” the Targum goes beyond Ps. 2 in making explicit the king’s responsibility to safeguard the sanctity of the temple (cf. 4Q174). The final warning now becomes an admonition to the rebels “to accept instruction” (cf. the later Midr. Ps. 2:9, where the Messiah’s victory is because he occupies himself with Torah, reflecting the close link between Pss. 1 and 2).Similar themes emerge in the frequent citation of Ps. 2:1–4 in rabbinic literature, most often in the Messiah’s eschatological defeat of Gog and Magog (cf. Mek. Exod. 15:9–10; Lev. Rab. 27:11; Midr. Ps. 2:3, 9, 10; Pirqe R. El. 18; 28; Tanḥ. Gen. 2:24; Tanḥ. Lev. 8:18; b. Sukkah 52a; see Signer 1983: 274) and Israel’s victory over idolaters (e.g., b. Ber. 7b). Several texts relate this victory to the Yahweh-Warrior of Isa. 42:13 (Exod. Rab. 1:1; Midr. Ps. 2:2, 4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:11). In Pesiq. Rab Kah. S 2:2, Ps. 2:2 warns Israel to expect future conflict prior to final victory, and in S. Eli. Rab. 18 the nations are given to the Sages because they studied Torah (Ps. 2:7–8; cf. the Torah-studying Messiah in Midr. Ps. 2:9).Of particular interest is Midr. Ps. 2:9 (on Ps. 2:7), where the decree to David prompts a threefold recitation of Yahweh’s decreed sonship of Israel, citing first Exod. 4:22 (the Law), then the exaltation of Isaiah’s servant in Isa. 42:1; 52:13 (the Prophets), and finally Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13–14 (the Writings). Apparently, David’s sonship is inseparable from Israel’s, perhaps because he is seen as Israel’s representative head. At the very least it indicates that in this tradition these five texts are central to Israel’s identity.
G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos, 2007), 122–124.
All I can say is wow...this is moving up higher in my wish list for sure. Well done everyone (special nod to Mr. Turner who was the most helpful).
Mr. Turner, Many thanks for the long post showing the excellence of the book discussed here. It prompted me to buy it. Your discussion truly showed its merits. Ergatees
No problem! It is a great resource as the others have stated. I just figured I would let the resource speak for itself.
