The Davidic covenant promised great things for David’s son. The ascent of Solomon to Israel’s throne appeared to be the fulfillment of many covenant promises. In Solomon’s day the people of Israel had become as numerous as the sand of the sea (1 Kgs. 4:20; Gen. 22:17). The boundaries of Solomon’s rule matched those promised to Abraham (1 Kgs. 4:21; Gen. 15:18). Solomon was also a blessing to the nations; people from all the nations came to hear Solomon’s wisdom (1 Kgs 4:34; Gen. 22:18). Solomon embodied the goal that Israel would become a priest to the nations (1 Kgs 10:6-9; Deut. 4:6-8). First Kings 5 begins the account of the Temple construction. This immediately brings to mind the promises of the Davidic Covenant: “I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (2 Sam. 7:12-13). The benefits of his reign are even described in language that is used later to describe the Millennium (1 Kgs. 4:25; Mic. 4:4; Zech. 3:10).

A cursory look at Solomon might lead one to think that he was the promised king, but a careful examination reveals numerous unsettling failures. Though Solomon loved the Lord, he worshipped him at high places contrary to the Law (1 Kgs. 3:3; Deut. 12:5-6; cf. Provan, 45). He married Pharaoh’s daughter (1.3:1) contrary to Exodus 34:16 and Deuteronomy 7:3. He apparently placed more emphasis on building his own palace than on building God’s temple (1.7:1-12; cf. Provan, 70). He broke all three of the regulations for kings in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. He imported horses from Egypt (1 Kgs. 10:26; Deut. 17:16). He married many foreign women (1 Kgs. 11:1-3; Deut. 17:17; cf. Deut. 7:3-4). He acquired a great amount of gold (1 Kgs. 9:14; 10:11, 14-22). [Some tension exists between God’s promise to bless Solomon with riches (1 Kings 3:13) and Deuteronomy 17:17’s prohibition of gathering up wealth. This tension can be resolved by comparing 1 Kings 4:21-25 in which Solomon uses his great wealth to benefit his people (note the Millennial language in 4:25) and 1 Kings 10:14-22 in which he made himself a golden throne and filled his house with golden goblets and shields.] In the end, Solomon turned his heart from Yahweh to other gods. Instead of being the promised king, Solomon’s sin brought Israel under the covenant curses. The hope for the promised Davidic king was not extinguished, but the expectation was delayed (1.11:12, 32, 34-36, 39).

Soucres:
Provan, Iain W. 1 and 2 Kings. New International Biblical Commentary. Edited by Robert L. Hubbard Jr. and Robert K. Johnston. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.

As the narrative in Samuel continues, all eyes are turned to David. David is the humble man exalted to be the anointed king. He is not geboah (1.16:7); in fact, he is the youngest (and thus the lowest) in his family. But kingship—even David’s kingship—did not solve Israel’s sin problem. David too was a sinner. Satterthwaite reflects on the closing chapters of Samuel: “Rape and civil war were singled out by the last chapters of Judges as two of the greatest evils of the pre-monarchic period (Judg. 19 and 20), and attributed to the lack of a king (Judg. 17:6; 21:25); they now reappear in David’s kingdom and even in his own household” (“Samuel,” 181).

Nevertheless God still planned for a king to restore this fallen world. The summit of the Samuel narrative is this declaration of the Davidic covenant, for this is a covenant that picks up the promises of earlier covenants and carries them for­ward. David’s last words reflect on the promise of this covenant that his house will provide a ruler who fears God. This will result in the blessing of all the people (2.23:3-5).

The Psalms often elaborate on the Davidic covenant. In Psalm 2 David declares that the nations of the world (“kings of the earth”) are opposing the Lord and his Messiah. The Lord will respond by establishing the Messiah as the Davidic king (he will rule from Zion) over all the world (2:8-12). The decree “You are my Son; today I have begotten you” is a decree of coronation. It probably looks back to God’s declaration in 2 Samuel 7:14 that he would be the Davidic king’s father and the Davidic king would be his son.

Psalm 110 also predicts the enthronement of the Davidic Messianic king (110:1-2). In light of Psalm 2, the enthroned Lord of Psalm 110:1-2 must be the Messiah. Like the Messiah of Psalm 2, he is enthroned by Yahweh (1:1) on Zion (1:2) from where he will rule over the enemies who have opposed his rule (1:1-2, 5-6). Verse 4 indicates that the coming Messianic king will also be a priest. He, being of the tribe of Judah, could not be a Levitical priest. This passage declares that his order would be that of Melchizedek.

Works Cited
Satterthwaite, Philip E. “Samuel.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000.

Judges revealed that Israel’s sin problem was tied to the lack of a king (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). But when the Israelites asked for a king, the request was treated as a rejection of Yahweh (1.8:7; 10:19; 12:12, 17). This is at first difficult to account for given the previous revelation that God intended for Israel to have a king (Gen. 17:6, 16; 35:11; 49:8-12; Num. 24:7, 17; Deut. 17:14-20; also 1.2:10).

Part of the difficulty lay in the Israelites’ motive. The motive behind their request was a desire to be like the other nations. Though, the terminology “like all the nations” is found in the Deuteronomic legislation about the king (Deut. 17:14-20), Deuteronomy 17:14 should probably be interpreted as a prophecy of what Israel would say rather than instruction as to what the people should say (see Merrill, Deuteronomy, 265; Bergin, 1, 2 Samuel, 112f.). The regulations that follow were designed to distinguish the Israelite king from those of the surrounding nations. In other words, Deuteronomy predicts that Israel will want a king to be like the nations and counters with instructions that prohibit that kind of king. Samuel predicts Israel’s kings will disobey the Deuteronomic instructions and will be kings like those of the surrounding nations (1.8:11-18).

Furthermore, Israel wanted a king to defeat their enemies (1.8:20). This may sound innocent enough, but the invasions of Israel came as a result of Israel’s sins. Yahweh their king was able to defeat all their enemies. The book of Judges looked forward to a king that would prevent the Ca­naanization of Israel; the Israelites in Samuel’s day desired a king in order to be like the other nations. The book of Judges looked forward to a king to solve Israel’s sin problem; the Isra­elites in Samuel’s day desired a king to evade the consequences of their sin. Truly their request for a king was a rejection of Yahweh as their king (1.8:7; 10:19; 12:12).

In this world of sin, Hannah sang a song that proclaimed the transfor­mation that Yahweh intended (1.2:1-10). She sang of the exaltation of the humble and the humiliation of the mighty. The entire world as it existed would need to be transformed. Hannah realized that Yahweh alone could effect that kind of exaltation and humiliation (1.2:3-10). For this reason, Hannah closed her song with an appeal for Yahweh to “give strength to his king and exalt the power of his anointed [מָשִׁיחַ]” (1.2:10). Once again God reveals that setting the world right will involve a God-appointed king.

Works Cited
Merrill, Eugene. Deuteronomy. New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville, B&H, 1994.
Bergin, Robert D. 1, 2 Samuel. New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville, B&H, 1996.

Though God’s people were to look to the future for the prophesied deliver(s), Israel itself was part of God’s plan of redemption. The nation was to be a priest to the nations (Ex. 19:6). They could bless the families of the earth (Gen. 12:3) by leading them to the true God (Deut. 4:1-8). But Israel was also part of the world’s sin problem. God predicted that Israel would fail to keep his law and would therefore suffer the covenant curses (Deut. 30:1-8). Israel, even in Moses’ day, was comprised of people with uncircumcised hearts. They needed regeneration so they could turn and obey they Lord (Deut. 30:1-10). Though Israel successfully conquered the Promised Land (Josh. 10:40; 11:23; 21:43-45), Joshua told the people, “You are not able to serve the Lord” (24:19).

The book of Judges confirms Joshua’s prediction. The people quickly turn from beings priests to the nations to becoming like, or even worse than, the nations. By the end of the book, one judge offered human sacrifices. Another judge was more concerned with Philistine women and personal vendettas than with delivering God’s people. Israel’s judges were unable to restore God’s people to God’s law.

Not even the priestly class in Israel maintained the true worship of Yahweh (Jdgs. 17-18). The last account of the book includes an incident eerily reminiscent of the Sodom story. Amazingly, the story in Judges is darker than the one in Genesis. In Sodom, the angels blinded the men and no wicked deed was accomplished, but in Judges, the men of Gibeah “knew her and abused her all night until the morning” (19:25). They left her for dead, and the concubine’s master dismembered her and sent the pieces of her body throughout the land. Israel, the priest to the nations, had become worse than the worst of the nations (Sodom throughout Scripture is the illustration of human wickedness; Deut. 32:32; Isa. 1:10; 3:9; jer 23:14; Ezek. 16:46-56; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7; Rev. 11:8).

The nations needed a better priest, and their priest, Israel, needed better priests (The last two accounts in Judges feature wayward Levites, including a descendant of Moses himself; cf. Block, Judges, Ruth, 512). The text explicitly notes Israel needed a king. Four times it says, “In those days there was no king in Israel” (17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). The closing words of the book are, “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (21:25). These words recall the actions of Adam and Eve doing what was right in their eyes. Israel was acting in the same manner that led to the distortion of human dominion at the beginning, and God said they needed a king to fix this sin problem.

The storyline of Scripture moves forward into the book of Samuel. Stephen Dempster says, “It is hard to imagine a worse situation than the end of the narrative of Judges, but this is it” (Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty, 135). The opening chapters of Samuel reveal that sin permeated the priesthood. Eli’s sons insisted on taking whatever raw meat would come up when they stabbed it with a meat-fork (1.2:13-17) despite Torah prohibitions (Lev. 7:22-25, 31-36; Deut. 18:3-4). Furthermore, they corrupted the women who ministered at the tabernacle (1.2:22; cf. Ex. 38:26) in a way that may have mimicked the forbidden cult prostitution of the Canaanites (Deut. 23:17). In summary statements, these men are called “sons of Belial” and men who “did not know the Lord” (1.2:12; this contrasts with Exodus which repeatedly says that the purpose for God’s miraculous deliverance was so Israel would know that he is the Lord: Ex. 6:3, 7; 10:2; 16:6, 12; 29:46; 31:13). Their actions were said to be blasphemy (1.3:13). Eli was little better. Despite his strong words, his remonstrance with his sons was ineffectual (1.2:22-25). Priests like this could not mediate between God and man.

God intervened at this crisis point in Israel’s history by raising up a prophet: Samuel. The necessity of a prophet showed the failure of the priesthood. The priests could receive revelation from God through the Urim and Thumim. They were given the responsibility of teaching God’s word. These tasks mirror the prophetic tasks of receiving revelation from God and declaring his word to the people. Samuel was a faithful prophet (1.12:3-5), but he was not sufficient to turn the people to God. Furthermore his sons became known for their wickedness (1.8:1-3).

Israel was in need of a righteous king, priest, and prophet.

Works cited
Block, Daniel I. Judges, Ruth. New American Commentary. Edited by E. Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H, 1999.
Dempster,Stephen G.  Dominion and Dynasty: A Theology of the Hebrew Bible. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Edited by D. A. Carson. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003.

See Part One

The sin that disordered man’s blessing of dominion also disordered his relationship with God. God revealed that sacrifice is necessary for sinful man to approach God. Some see this in the killing of animals to provide clothing for Adam and Eve (cf. Waltke & Fredericks, Genesis, 95).  More clearly, the chapter directly following the account of the Fall reveals that humans now approached God in worship through sacrifices. The position of Leviticus in the Pentateuch further reinforces the necessity of sacrifices if sinful man is to approach God. Exodus closes with the erection of the tabernacle, which was a symbol of God’s presence (Exod. 29:46). This raised the question that existed since man’s sin drove him from the presence of God (Gen. 3:8, 23f.): how can God dwell with sinful man? This is the question that Leviticus exists to answer (Lev. 26:11-13), and it answers it with a detailed exposition of Israel’s sacrificial system (cf. Kiuchi, “Leviticus,” 152.).

Sacrifices imply priests. If Job reveals the state of true religion in patriarchal times, it may be that the father served as the priest for the family (Job 1:5; cf. Gen. 8:20; 12:7; 13:4; 35:1). Melchizedek, king of Salem, also served as a priest (Gen. 14:17), and this may indicate that for a time kings served as priests for their subjects. With the establishment of the nation Israel, God ordained a separate class of priests to mediate between God and man for the nation.

For mankind to receive revelation from God about his condition and about God’s expectations regarding worship, fallen man needed prophets. Abel (Matt. 23:34), Enoch (Jude 14), and Abraham (Gen 20:7) were all prophets, but among the covenant people, the office of the prophet originated when the people of Israel asked for someone to mediate between them and God (Ex. 20:18-21; Deut. 5:22-27; 18:15-16) (Robertson, The Christ of the Prophets, 25). Not only was Moses the first to fill this office, he was the greatest of Israel’s prophets (cf. Robertson 36-39).  As his ministry drew to a close God told the people to look for a future Prophet like Moses (Deut. 18:15-22; cf. Acts 3:22-23).

By the close of the Pentateuch, God’s people knew that sin had disordered mankind’s dominion over the world, and they knew that as part of God’s restoration they ought to look for a Judean king and a Mosaic prophet. There was no prediction at this point of a coming priest, but the Israelites probably already realized the insufficiency of their sacrificial system and thus the need for something more than they had in their current priestly system. [While many liberals have suggested a tension between the Pentateuch’s sacrificial system and the prophetic critique, Childs suggests the basis for the prophetic critique is found in Leviticus 26:14-45, which predicts the judgment of Israel for its sins in the exile. In the exile Israel is unable to offer sacrifices and they must simply cast themselves on the mercy of God (Childs, Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context, 160f.).]

Works Cited
Watke, Bruce and Cathi J. Fredericks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001.
Kiuchi, Nobuyoshi  “Leviticus.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000.
Robertson, O. Palmer.  The Christ of the Prophets. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004.
Childs, Brevard S.  Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

From the time of Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History 1.3), Christians have recognized that Christ held three offices: Prophet, Priest, and King. These three offices are not a later theological construct. All three play a major role in the history of redemption recounted in Scripture.

The seed for the Christological office of king lies in the dominion blessing of Genesis 1:28-30. As the climax of God’s creation, as the creature made in the image of his Creator, man was to rule the earth as God’s vice-regent. The text does not provide extensive information as to what the nature of this unfallen dominion would have been like. Some speculate that humans were to extend the conditions of Eden throughout the world (cf. G. K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 83f).

Before the original intent of mankind’s dominion could be realized, Adam and Eve sinned and the entire world fell under God’s judgment. The sin of the first couple affected more than their spirits. The blessing of dominion was distorted by sin. After the Fall, the very ground resisted mankind’s dominion (3:17-29). In some ways, the creation seemed to now have dominion over its ruler: “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (3:19).

Genesis 4:17-26 reveals that the creation blessing has not been annulled. Cain is fruitful and he multiplies. Some of his descendants are recorded, and the multiplication of descendents is implied by the building of a city. Lamech’s bigamy should also be viewed in the context of the multiplication of progeny. Nor was dominion aspect of the blessing removed. The cultural achievements of Genesis four are all instances of subduing the earth. Some men assert their control over the animal world by domesticating animals. Others learned how to manipulate creation to create musical instruments. Men also learned how to forge minerals from the earth into tools. These cultural achievements are recorded in the line of Cain to demonstrate that the creation blessing still retained force among fallen man.

God also reaffirmed man’s dominion over the earth after the Flood. He gave the animals and plants into man’s hand (9:2-4). But the disorder of sin is also apparent in this passage. Man may rule the beasts, but the beasts will eat him (9:2). Though God also lays down a basic law of social order (Murder is a capital offense; 9:5-6), when men once again organize themselves socially, they exercise their dominion in defiance of God (11:4). For sinful man, the blessing of dominion became a curse, and man’s dominion needed to be curtailed (11:6).

At this point in the story the dominion of man over the earth does not appear to be beneficial, but the closing chapters of Genesis raise the issue of kingship in a more hopeful manner. This time the king is the solution. Jacob prophesied a king from Judah would rule over a restored earth (49:8-12; This interpretation presumes the translation, “until he whose right it is comes” (HCSB; cf. T/NIV). This translation is based on (1) the reading שלה rather than שילה in thirty-nine Hebrew manuscripts, (2) the translations of the LXX, Syriac Peshitta, and Targum Onkelos, and (3) the probable allusion to this verse by Ezekiel 21:26-27. For a survey of the views and detailed augmentation for this interpretation see Smith, 206-23).

The promise of a Messianic king in this passage is commonly recognized, but his dominion over a restored world is often missed. The prediction of a restored world is found in verse 11 A world in which vines can be used for hitching posts is manifestly overflowing in agriculture. Likewise washing clothes in the juice of crushed grapes indicates the extravagance of this future age. Smith notes this creates quite a contrast with the present world of famine, thorns, and sweat (Smith, 215f.). This prophecy invests the promise to Abraham, “kings shall come from you,” with greater significance than would have been at first apparent.

Works Cited

Beale, G. K. The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God. New Studies in Biblical Theology. D. A. Carson. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.

Smith, Bryan.  “The Presentation of Judah in Genesis 37-50 and its Implications for the Narrative’s Structure and Thematic Unity.” Ph.D. diss., Bob Jones University, 2002.