lords house and davids lord

7/31/2019 Lords House and Davids Lord

1/17

BiblicalInterpretation

BiblicalInterpretation 15 (2007) 307-322 www.brill.nl/bi

The Lord's House and David's Lord:

The Psalms and Mark's Perspective onJesus and

the Temple

RikkE. Watts

Regent College

Abstract

Four Davidic Psalms (2, 118, 110, and 22), each cited or alluded to at least twice, in

this order, and at critical junctures in Marks narrative, play a key role in his Gospel.

In contemporary understanding Psalm 2 was associated with the future messianic

purging of Jerusalem and especially the temple (e.g. 4QFlor, Pss Sol 17). Psalm 118,

concluding the Egyptian Hallel, spoke of Israels future deliverance under a Davidic

king with the restored temple as the goal of Israels return from exile. Psalm 110 s

surprisingly elevated royal designation, uniquely expressed in Melchizedekian priest-

king terms, contributed to several portraits of exalted heavenly deliverers, some mes

sianic, who would preside over Israels restoration (e.g. HQMelch, 1 Enoch) while

Psalm 22 s Davidic suffering and vindication described the deliverance of righteous

Zion (e.g. 4QPs). Drawing from the dual perspective of their original contexts and

contemporary interpretations, this paper proposes that Marks careful arrangement of

his psalm citations presents Jesus as both Israels Davidic Messiah (Pss. 2, 118) and

the temples Lord (Ps. 110) who, coming to purge Jerusalem but rejected by the tem

ple authorities, announces the present structures destruction and, through his death

and vindication (Ps. 22), its replacement with a new people-temple centered on him

self.

Keywords

Jesus, Psalms, David, temple, Mark

Introduction

m'ti*

B R I L L
http://www.brill.nl/bihttp://www.brill.nl/bi


2/17

308 RR Watts I BiblicalInterpretation 15 (2007) 307-322

actions in the temple.1 This is already implicit in Mark's opening com

bined citation, two of which textsIsa. 40:3 and Mai. 3:1are

primarily concerned with Yahweh's return to Jerusalem and in the lat

ter to a rebuilt but currently defiled temple.2 The other concerns

Mark's use of the Psalms. Second only to his interest in Isaiah, Mark

particularly focuses on four psalms (2, 22, 110, 118).3 Ps. 2:7 appears

at the baptism (1:11) and the transfiguration (9:7), Ps. 118 during the

"triumphal" entry (w. 25-26 in 11:9-10) and at the culmination of

the parable of the tenants (w. 22-23 in 12:10-11), Ps. 110:1 in Jesus'

question concerning the Christ and David's son (12:36) and his pro

vocative response to Caiaphas (14:62), and finally elements of Psalm

22 are invoked at the division of Jesus' garments (v. 19 in 15:24), the

cry of dereliction (v. 2 in 15:34), and the mockery of the passing

crowds (v. 8 in 15:29).

Several important features emerge. The references to a given psalm

are grouped togetherthe first three in "pairs"and follow a trajec

tory beginning with Psalm 2 through 118, 110, and finally 22. Each

appears at a key point in Mark's narrative. Psalm 2 is central to the two

divine attestations, both of which set the tone for the sections they

introduce, respectively, Jesus' proclamation of the kingdom's powerful

presence and his "cruciform" journey to Jerusalem. The two citations

of Psalm 118 form an explanatory inclusio around his temple demon

stration. In concluding Jesus' two final confrontations with his

enemies, including perhaps the christological highpoint during his

pre-trial examination (Mark 14:62), Psalm 110 provides core material

for his self-understanding. Psalm 22 then constitutes the major inter

pretative grid for Jesus' death.

This paper proposes that Mark's careful arrangement of all his

psalms, when read from the dual perspective of their original larger

1)E.g. D. Juel, Messiah and Temple (SBLDS, 31; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press,

1973).2)

R. Watts, Isaiahs New Exodus in Mark (WUNT, 2; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,

1997).3)

R. Watts, "The Psalms in Mark's Gospel," in Steve Moyise and Maarten J.J. Men


3/17

RE. Watts I BiblicalInterpretation 15 (2007) 307-322 309

contexts and of their contemporary interpretations, not only speak to

Jesus' identity as Israel's Davidic messiah but are particularly con

cerned with his relationship to the temple, and especially his unique

role in its eschatological purification and restoration.

Psalm 2

1. The Baptism

At the pinnacle of the prologue the heavenly voice alludes in part toPs. 2:7 and attests to Jesus' identity as David's messianic son (1:11),

preparing the reader for his announcement of the coming kingdom

(1:14-15) and his mission and message overall. Psalm 2 recalls God's

promise to his Davidic agent through whom he exercises his cosmic

rule. Confronted with the conspiratorial nations (w. 1-3), the royal

psalmist is confident of God's overwhelming support (v. 5). Recalling

Yahweh's word that the nations are his inheritance and his shattering

"rod of iron" rule will extend to the ends of the earth (w. 7-9), heurges the rebels to be wise and submit lest they perish (w. 10-1 lb).

Happy, he concludes, are those who take refiige in Yahweh (v. lie).

Foundational to all this is Zion theology: Yahweh himself declares that

it is he who has installed his "son" on "my holy hill," his cosmic moun

tain upon which he dwells and from which he reigns (w. 6-7). In the

later Targ. Ps. 2:6-7 God's "beloved" son (v. 7; cf. Mark 1:11) is explic

itly "set over my sanctuary" (v. 6).

This well-recognized link between Zion and the Davidic king is alsoreflected in several contemporary Jewish interpretative traditions which

invoke the language of this psalm. The larger problem for them, how

ever, is not that Jerusalem is under threat from external enemies but

that the city and its temple are already defiled from within. The rem

edy is the return of the Davidic king.4

4)The Messiahs task of rebuilding/restoring the temple is not a common theme. See


4/17

310 RE. WattsIBiblicalInterpretation 15(2007) 307-322

Based on an eschatological reading of 2 Samuel 7 (particularly w.

10-14 in lines 1, 7-11) the fragmentary and notoriously difficult

4Q174 is primarily concerned with a renewed temple and the deliver

ance ofGod's people which it links with the appearance ofthe Davidic

Messiah.5

Thus 2 Sam. 7:10's promise to plant Israel in peace (line 1)

leads direcdy to Exod. 15:17-18 (line 3), which celebrates the Exodus'

raison d'etre-, God's planting of his people on his holy mountain, th

establishment of his sanctuary among them, and his eternal kingship

(cf. Jesus' vineyard parable in Mark 12:1-12 with its concluding Ps.

110 citation). This eschatological temple will no longer be defiled by

the presence, among others, of foreigners and proselytes (whereas for

Jesus Isa. 56:7 is central to the temple's role, Mark 11:17). The righ

teous will enjoy the rest Yahweh promised David (line 7 citing 2 Sam.

7:11) as he destroys the conspiratorial sons of Belial (lines 8-9) and

restores David's "branch" (lines 10-11 citing 2 Sam. 7:12-14) and his

fallen hut (lines 12-13 citing Amos 9:11).

Keyhere, in the most extended scriptural citation in the document,

2 Sam. 7:12-14, are the phrases "establishing the throne of his king

dom for ever" and "I will be a father to him and he will be a son to

me" (lines 10-11)verymuch the language of Psalm 2 and not sur

prisingly since the former surely informed the latter.6

That this

connection is in the author's mind is evident in his subsequent appli

cation of Ps. 2:1-2 s promise to the community (lines 18-19). For

4Q174 the ultimate fulfillment of the Exodus promisethe purging

of Jerusalem resulting in a reconstituted holy dwelling of a holy God

among his holy peopleis inseparable from Davidic messianism.

Likewise Psalms ofSolomon 17 is also heavily influenced by Psalm

2/ It begins with a confident declaration again of Yahweh's eternal

5)G.J. Brooke, "Miqdash Adam, Eden and the Qumran Community," in E. Beate,

. Lange, and P. Pilhofer (eds.), Gemeinde ohne Tempel( WUNT, 118; Tbingen:Mohr-Siebeck, 1999), p. 287, argues that in keeping with I Q P 29:9-10 4Q174somission of 2 Sam. 7:13a signifies a repudiation of human involvement. But Exod.15:17s "your hands [i.e., Gods] have established" hardly means this.6) E.g. J.H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms (SBT 2/32; London: SCM Press, 1976),p. I l l ; cf. H.-J. Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (trans. K. Crim; Minneapolis: Augs


5/17


kingship "in judgment" over the nations expressed uniquely through

his Davidic king (w. 1-4; cf. Mark 1:15). Only on this basis, andindeed to legitimate God's righteousness which after all is the only

ground for the psalmist's hope, does he then recite Israel's sins and the

land's subsequent despoliation (w. 5-20). It is because of God's righ

teousness and already celebrated compassion (2:33-36; 4:25; 5:2-5,

14-15; 6:6; 7:8; etc.) that the psalmist requests the Lord to raise up a

royal son of David who will rule the nations.

But as Brad Embry argues, the author has a larger concern:8

the very

point of the Psalms of Solomons messianic hope is the restoration of

the purity of the people, especially as focused on the city, and above all

the temple, (cf. Ezek. 36, esp. w. 22-33, where the return means the

restoration of the Davidic kingship culminating in that of Yahweh's

sanctuary as per 37:24-28 and the subsequent chapters). Thus the

Davidic Messiah's primary task is to exercise the rule of God (w. 1, 46

which theme begins and ends the entire chapter) in order to purify

Jerusalem (w. 22, 27, 30b, 32, 36, 45; cf. 1:8; 2:2-3, 19; 7:2; 8:11-13;

11:7; 18:5).9

He will expose corrupt officials by the strength of his

word (v. 36) and expel defiling sinners whether Jew or Gentile (w. 22-

25, 27-28). To this end, he will be taught by God (v. 31) and, sinless,

empowered by the Holy Spirit, and mighty in deed (w. 36, 37-38,

40b), he will instruct Israel in righteousness (w. 10, 15, 18, 32), faith

fully shepherding them in holiness and freedom from oppression (w.

40-41) while showing compassion to all nations who honor him (v.

34b).

The Markan parallels are obvious. Empowered by the Spirit (1:10;3:29) and mighty in deed (esp. 1:27), Jesus gathers a holy people(1:16-20; 3:13-35; 8:34-38), teaches (esp. e.g., 1:22; 11:18b),

10and

shepherds Israel (6:34), while having compassion on Gentiles who

reverence him (7:24-30). Much ofJesus' ministry concerns the purifi

cation of God's people.11

His debates with the authorities, particularly

8)B. Embry, "The Psalms ofSolomon and the New Testament: Intertextuality and the

Need for a Re-Evaluation," JSP 13 (2002), pp. 99-136.9)

Embry, "Psalms," p. 113.


6/17

312 RE. Watts I BiblicalInterpretation 15 (2007) 307-322

from Jerusalem, frequently concern purity (e.g., 2:7, 16; 3:30; 7:2,

14), and he expels "unclean spirits" (1:23, 26, 27; 3:11, 5:2, 8, 13;

7:25; 9:25; cf. 6:7), heals defiling illnesses (1:41; 5:25-34), and teaches

Torah. Jerusalem is also central, where in the climax of his gospel

replete with allusions to Davidic psalmsJesus addresses the temple s

abuses (11:13-18) and exposes, by his strong word, corrupt officials

(11:27-12:40). His death and resurrection constitute the beginning of

a new purified temple (see below).

For 4Q174 and the Psalms ofSolomon God's raising up of Psalm 2 s

Davidic son was fundamentally about the purification of Israel, Jerusalem, and above all the temple.12 So also apparently for Mark.

2. The Transfiguration

Within Mark's symbolic new exodus world, the unmistakable even if

inexact parallels with Exodus 24 and 34 cast the transfiguration as a

new Sinai.13

That the first Psalm 2 allusion occurred in the context of

water and desert and this second on a mountainall iconic features of

Israel's exodus storysuggests they are linked in Mark's mind: if Jesus

is designated God's son at the baptism then at the mountain we hear

what this entails. The presence of Malachi's two witnesses (Mai. 4:4-

5)Elijah representing the new-exodus-awaiting post-exilic genera

tion and Moses the ancestral exodus tradition of the fathers to whom

they must be reconciled14imply that the glorified Jesus is the com

ing Lord whose way they must prepare (Mai. 3:1; cf. Mark 1:1-3).

Thus on this new Sinai, Ps. 2:7 undergirds the summons to accept notTorah perse (Mal. 4:4) but Jesus' words, and in particular the imme

diately preceding passion prediction and the call to cross-bearing

discipleship (8:34-9:1).

pp. 91-128; J.E. Phelan Jr., "The Function of Mark's Miracles," Covenant Quarterly

48 (1990), pp. 3-14; cf. A. Stettler, "Sanctification in the Jesus Tradition," Bib 85

(2004), pp. 153-78.12)

On new temple expectation in general, see e.g., R.J. McKelvey, The New Temple


7/17


If Psalm 2 at the baptism puts Jesus at the center of Israels hopes

for the temple and Jerusalem, its reappearance at the Shekinah-bathed

and tabernacle-laden Transfiguration introduces two crucial deviations

from contemporary understandings. In Marks new exodus the funda

mental messianic task of purifying Jerusalem, the temple, and God s

people is achieved through suffering, death, and subsequent resurrec

tion. For Psalms of Solomon 17 and 4Q174, although apostate Jews are

part of the problem, the real enemy is the idolatrous nations. In Mark

the foe is entirely from within: the Jerusalem aristocracy of elders, chief

priests, and scribes (8:31).

Psalm 118

1. The "Triumphal Entry"

Mark's first citation of a Psalm and of any OT text in the setting of

Jerusalem occurs at the point of Jesus' approach. Since Jesus' funda

mental task is to purify the city and its temple, it is not surprising thatPsalm 118 is intimately connected with the eschatological new exodus

restoration of the temple.

Although the main speaker is unidentified, if we take verses 10-16

as straightforwardly describing the defeat of Israel's national foes (cf.

Ps. 2:1-3), Psalm 118 is "royal song of thanksgiving for military vic

tory" written as part of a processional liturgy for the Davidic kings (cf.

Targ. Ps. 118:22-28).15 Attended by the congregation and celebrating

God's exodus-like intervention on his behalf (w. 14-17; cf. Exod.15:2, 6),

16the king approaches the temple (w. 19-20; in the Targ. Ps.

118 the gates of the city, v. 19, and those of the sanctuary, v. 20, are

conjoined). Once inside the rejoicing crowds (w. 22-24) call for the

priestly blessing (v. 25) who, responding "from within the house of the

Lord," blesses the one who comes in the name of the Lord (v. 26; cf.

Ps. 2:8). If Psalm 2 affirms the divine promise of Davidic authority

over the threatening nations, Psalm 118 celebrates its realization.


8/17

314 RE. WattsIBiblical Interpretation 15(2007) 307-322

That Psalm 118 concludes the Hallel (Pss. 113-118), also known as

the "Egyptian Hallet' because of the thorough-going exodus theology

(b. Ber. 56a; cf. Mek. Exod. 13:1-4), suggests that it was already associ

ated with the eschatological new exodus restoration of the temple.17

It

was traditionally connected with Passover and subsequently other

feasts, and in later literature, as was Psalm 2, with messianic salvation

and the restoration of Jerusalem and the temple.18

Although we lack

explicit evidence from the first century, the early new exodus configu

ration ofthe Hattel, the combination of Davidic and temple restoration

themes in some prophetic texts (notably e.g., Ezekiel 37; cf. Jer. 17:25-26; 22:4-5; 33:14-18; Ezek. 34:23-31), even the retention of these

royal psalms in the Psalter long after the demise of the Davidic house,

and Mark's unselfconscious messianic application within his new exo

dus schema, suggest that Psalm 118 was already understood along

these lines.

Although Mark has repeatedly recounted Jesus' purifying authority

over unclean spirits and defiling illnesses, he withholds any public

messianic confession until just prior to his approach to the city therebyreinforcing the link between the two. In short order Bartimaeus con

fesses him "son of David" (10:47) and in a significant alteration to Ps.

118:26b the crowds enthusiastically acclaim: "blessed is the coming

kingdom of our ancestor David" (Mark 11:10a). If contemporary

interpretations of Psalm 2 anticipated the restoration of the temple,

then the use ofPsalm 118 in the context ofthe celebratory introitus of

Jesus and the attendant crowds points to its fulfillment. For Mark,

Jesus is indeed the coming Davidic king, fresh from his decisive victo

ries over the demonic, the one through whom many hoped corrupt

officials would be driven out and the temple purified and restored.

Mark's subsequent almost terse comment in 11:11a that after entering

Jerusalem Jesus went into the templementioned here for the first

timeand looked around at everything not only accords with the

17 )E. Zenger, "The Composition and Theology of the Fifth Book of Psalms, Psalms


9/17

RE. WattsIBiblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 307-322 315

practice of ancient formal entries19

but makes good sense as a precur

sor to his action there.The nature of this action is already hinted at in the textual altera

tion in 11:10 which omits the priests' "we bless you (LXX: have

blessed you) from the house of the Lord." Unlike Psalm 118 and in

keeping with Mark's emphasis on the enemy within, Jesus receives no

such greeting from the temple authoritiesan act of insurrection if

traditional entries are anything to go by (cf. Jer. 7:1 Is in Mark

11:17)20

and Israel's unwelcome king remains outside the city

(11:11b). Not dissimilar to the Essene critique, the temple itself, seatof those who have rejected Jesus' understanding of holiness, has

become the centre ofopposition.

2. The RejectedStone

The second citation of Psalm 118 (w. 22-23 in Mark 12:10-11) takes

up this theme. Consonant with the contemporary implications of

Psalm 2, Jesus has driven out those who defile the temple (Mark

11:15-19; Pss. Sol. 17:22-25, 27-28) and exposed corrupt officials

(Mark 11:27-33; Pss. Sol. 17:36). Continuing his response to their

question as to his authority and presumably while still in the temple,

he tells the story ofthe wicked tenants (Mark12:1-12) which although

employing traditional Jewish metaphors (e.g., Sifre Deut. 312; Tank.

Lev 7.6; Pes. K. 16.9; Gen R. 42.3; ExodR. 30.17; Midr. Prov. 19.21)'21

draws especially on Isa. 5:l-7's juridical parable.22

The focus is again the temple with the fenced vineyard, vat, and

tower representing Zion, its altar, and sanctuary (cf. 4Q500:3-7; t.

Me'il. 1.16 and t. Suk. 3.15 citing Isa. 5:1-2; Targ. Isa. 5:1-7; 1 En.

19 )E.g. D.R. Catchpole, "The Triumphal' Entry," in E. Bammel, and CED. Moule

(eds.), Jesus and the Politicsof His Day (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1984), pp. 319-34; P.B. Duff, "The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of

the Greco-Roman King: Marks Account of Jesus' Entry into Jerusalem," JBL 111

(1992), pp. 55-71.20 )

CA. Evans, Mark 8:27-16:20(WBC, 34B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001), p.

139.


10/17

316 RE WattsIBiblicalInterpretation 15(2007) 307-322

89:56, 67, 72-73). "Beloved," only here and in the divine attestations

in the baptism and transfiguration, recalls Psalm 2 and its associated

traditions and responds to the hierarchs' question: Jesus' authority over

the temple derives from his being the owners unique beloved son

come to purify it. But whereas the original Isaianic version announced

the sanctuary's destruction (cf. Targ. Isa. 5:5) here the threat is again

solelyfocused on the apostate and murderous "tenant" temple leader

ship (cf. 4Q162 which reads Isa. 5:1-7 eschatologically, with the guilty

party being "the men of mockery in Jerusalem" who "have rejected the

Law of the Lord and cast off the word of Israel's Holy One," cf. Mark

1:24).

The "rejected stone" thus echoes the first passion prediction (cf.

, only here and in 8:31 which prediction as we saw

was confirmed by Psalm 2 in the transfiguration) and Jesus' coming

death ("builders" commonly refers to "teachers" or "religious leaders;"

CD 4:19-20; 8:12, 18; 19:31; b. Ab. 114a; b. Ber. 64a; Cant. R. 1.5;

cf. Acts 4:11; 1 Cor 3:10).23

Nevertheless, in a probable allusion to his

subsequent resurrection (integral to all three passion predictions), Jesus

declares that as God had done for his earlier Davidic son he would

surely do eschatologically for his greater messianic one. As Psalm 2

promised and Psalm 118 celebrated, the vindicated Davidic king

would receive his inheritance (', Ps. 2:8; cf. in

Mark 12:7) even if presently threatened by his surrounding "wicked

tenant" foes (cf. Ps. 118:7, 11-12) likened in 4Q174 to Psalm 2's

rebellious nations.

But what ofthe hopes of a restored temple, not least of Psalm 118?

Although the stone-saying can refer to an amazing reversal and is later

taken to mean David's irresistible accession to the throne (cf. Targ. Ps.

118:22), Sol. 22:3 and 24:3 take Ps. 118:22 to mean the stone that

completes Solomon's temple. Since in Qumran the community con

ceived of itself as a temple (e.g., 1QS 8.5-14; CD 3.19-4:6),24

albeit

only until such time as the eschatological temple appeared under the

23 )J.D.M. Derrett, "'The Stone that the Builders Rejected'," in Studies in the New

Testament. II. (Leiden: Brill, 1978), pp. 60-67.


11/17

RE Watts /BiblicalInterpretation 15 (2007) 307-322 317

auspices of the Davidic Messiah (4Q174), it is not unlikely that in

typical fashion Mark's Jesus draws several distinct hopes into himself.That is, in answer to the question "by what authority?" (11:27-33) he

is at once the Davidic beloved son who will purify Jerusalem and its

templenow so defiled that on prophetic precedent it cannot escape

destruction (e.g., Jer. 7:11 in Mark 11:17; cf. eh. 13)and simultane

ously, assuming the architectural imagery of the immediately following

parable, the chief stone of a new temple consisting of a reconstituted

vineyard Israel gathered around himself (cf. Mark 3:34-35; 10:42-

45).25

Again in the light of 4Q174 and Psalms of Solomon 17 s understand

ing of Psalm 2, the rationale for Mark's chiastic structuring of the two

Psalm 118 citations around Jesus' temple demonstration is clear. The

temple is under judgment (11:12-25) because of the corruption of its

superintendents and their rebellion against God's Davidic agent sent

to restore it (11:1-11 and 11:27-12:12). The temple leadership are

thus aligned with Psalms 2 and 118's rebellious nations (cf. 4Q174

and Pss. Sol. 17). But again as Psalm 2 promised and Psalm 118 cele

brated the son of David's apparently overwhelming foes will be

defeated by Yahweh's intervention, and the rejected messianic stone

will become the chief stone, this time ofa new purified and holy peo

ple-temple (cf. Mark 14:58; 1 Pet. 2:4-7).

Psalm 110

1. David's Son, David's Lord

Having just emerged as Israel's teacher parexcellence (Mark 12:13-34),

Jesus' next appeal to a psalm presses still further the question of his

identity, again cast in Davidic terms and explicitly set in the temple

(12:35). Yet another Davidic psalm, Psalm 110 appears to be a reinter-

pretation of Psalm 2, heightening several of its themes.26

Instead of the

king, Yahweh now speaks, commanding him to rule in the midst of

his foes (w. lb, 2b) as the nations, apparently having ignored the


12/17

318 RE WattsIBiblicalInterpretation 15 (2007) 307-322

warnings ofPs. 2:10-11, suffer grislydefeat (w. 5-6). Whereas Ps. 2:6

simply observes that the king is installed on Yahweh's holy hill here his

relationship to the sanctuary is uniquely expressed in terms of a

Melchizedekian priest-king (v. 4).27

But it is the command, heightening Ps. 2:7 s "son" designation, that

the king sit enthroned at the Lord's right hand (Ps. 110:1; cf. LXX

109:3 s ) which inspired the most reflection, apparently

informing the exaltation of several eschatological figures including a)

the Isaianic servant where "high and lifted up" is elsewhere in Isaiah

only used ofthe Lord (52:13; cf. 6:1; 14:13-14; 33:10), b) Dan. 7:13 s

one like a "son ofman,"28

and later c) Melchizedek in HQMelch [13]

2:9-11,29

and d) 1 Enoch's "the Chosen One"also drawing on both

the Isaianic servant and the Danielle "son of man"who sits on God's

throne (51:3; 55:4; 61:8; 62:2).30

It also led Rabbi Akiba to posit two

thrones in heaven, thereby incurring a sharp rebuke for profaning the

presence (b. Hag. 14a; b. Sank 38b; cf. Hekhalot Rabbati where David

wears a radiate crown and sits on a throne offire beside God's31

).32

Against this backdrop and on the critical though apparently common assumption that David is both the author of the psalm and

speaking "by the Holy Spirit" ofthe Messiah, Mark's Jesus exploits the

tension that emerges when David calls his messianic son "Lord."

often introduces an unsettling fact33

and the implied confounded

silence suggests that his interlocutors felt this tension too. Granted the

Scriptures nowhere formally designate the Messiah "Son of David,"

the point is clear enough. If David calls the Messiah "Lord" then his

27 )The -

1 is difficult; cf. LXX .

28 )Donald M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), p. 26;

Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995), pp.

180-84.29 )

Cf. Paul Rainbow, "Melchizedek as a Messiah at Qumran," BBR 7 (1997), pp.

179-94 (184); Marcus, The Way of the Lord, p. 133.30 )

J. VanderKam, "Righteous One, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1

Enoch 37-71," in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Messiah (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

1992), pp. 169-91.31 )

Hengel, Studies, p. 195.


13/17

RE. Wans /BiblicalInterpretation 15 (2007) 307-322 319

full status, as the subsequent influence of Psalm 110 suggests, cannot

be exhausted by the scribes' mere "son of David,"34

which returns us

again to the question of Jesus' authority (11:27-33).

The manner of Jesus' arrival in the city and his action in the temple

(both more messianic than prophetic at least in terms of contempo

rary interpretations of Psalm 2), combined with his claim to be the

owner's "beloved" son and his citation ofPs. 118:22-23 constitute an

implicit messianic declaration. His question here would have little

point if he had not and such a reading helps explain the high priest's

later forthright question (14:61). Consequently, if the scribes esteemed

David, how much more David's messianic son whom David himself

calls Lord?

Although not explicit in Psalms of Solomon 17, the majority of other

Jewish eschatologies also envisaged some priestly component.35

It is

intriguing that although Jesus has been engaged throughout in the

priestly activities of teaching (often on purity) and declaring individu

als clean,36 it is only after his Davidic entry and his actions and

masterfully confounding teaching in the temple precincts that heappeals to Psalm 110the one text that explicitly speaks ofa Davidic

priest-king. The scribes need also to understand that the Messiah is

also Israel's supreme authority on purity in Israel's teaching and wor

ship. The combination would not be unusual, and for some perhaps

expected (cf. e.g., the Hasmoneans, 1 Mace 14:41; T. Mos. 6:1; Jub.

32:1; T.Levi 18).

But "Lord" almost certainly means more. As Psalm 110 apparently

informed later exaltation trajectories, so too Jesus is identified withIsaiah's finally exalted servant

37and Daniel's son of man. But Mark's

opening sentence announces Yahweh's personal return to his temple

(cf. the Malachi overtones of the transfiguration), and in forgiving sins

as a prelude to healing and subduing the sea he does what only Yah-

34) The occasional claim that Jesus is denying that the Messiah is the son of David

seems highly unlikely.

35) See Crispin Fletcher-Louis, "Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1," JSJHA(2006), pp. 155-75.36)


14/17

320 RE. WattsIBiblical Interpretation 15(2007) 307-322

weh himself can do.38

More than the Melchizedekian Davidic

priest-king who is responsible for the Lord's house, Jesus looks remark

ably like Davids Lord and thus the veryLord ofthe house.

Finally, if only Jesus' identity was at stake, Ps. 110:1a would have

sufficed. But his inclusion of the second strophethe crushing of all

enemies (Ps. 110:1b; cf. w. 5-6)makes the threat inherent in reject

ing him that much more explicit. Ps. 2:10-1 l's warning is about to

become a reality.

2. Seated on the RightHand ofPower

In what is more accurately Jesus' pre-trial hearing, the temple is again

centerstage in the one specific accusation that he has blasphemed the

sanctuary ()though Mark has hitherto spoken only of the

by declaring it thereby implying that the temple

was idolatrous to the core (cf. LXX Lev. 26:1, 30; Isa. 2:18; 10:11;

Dan. 5:4, 23; 6:28).39

Similarly, the high priest's question, not surpris

ingly given the expectations noted above and Jesus' recent words and

actions, straightforwardly assumes a link between temple and the Messiah.

In explicating this, his first public affirmation of messianic identity

(Mark 14:62), Jesus' second reference to Ps. 110:1 reaffirms his divine

ly mandated status as the Davidic heir who shares in God's rule

buttressed by the chiastically arranged Dan. 7:13 citation itself de

pendent on the psalm (cf. the same combination in the laterMidr. Ps.

2.9). Jesus' confronting "you will see" focuses on the consequence of

this enthronement. Those who oppose him will, like the idolatrousnations, come under God's judgment (Ps. 110:5-6; cf. 4Q174's use of

Psalm 2), the circumlocutory "the power" (cf. 1 En. 62:7; Sifre Num.

112) resonating with the psalm's account ofGod's "powerful" scepter

wielded in the day of his "power" against the enemies of his Melchize

dekian king (cf. LXX Ps. 109:2-3). In claiming the highest possible

status Jesus implicitly characterizes his opponents as Yahweh's enemies.

38 )On Marks identification of Jesus with Yahweh, B. Blackburn, TheiosAner and the


15/17

RE Watts I BiblicalInterpretation 15 (2007) 307-322 321

Psalm 22

The Abandoned Messiah?

Although Mark's Passion is thoroughly colored by motifs from the

"Righteous Sufferer Psalms" in general, Psalm 22 is clearly the domi

nant scriptural influence.40

Yet another Davidic psalm, it is unique in

its depths of humiliating suffering and seeming divine abandonment,

sudden and overwhelming deliverance, and far-reaching praise whereby

Yahweh's universal dominion is declared not only to the ends of the

earth but also to generations unborn.Psalm 22 influenced several Jewish traditions (e.g., Wis. 2:12-20;

5:1-7; 2 Bar15:7-8; 48:49-50), some in anticipation of eschatological

deliverance (e.g., 1QH 5:31). In 4QPsf

[88] VII, 6-8; IX, 12; X, 7-14

Ps. 22:14-17 describes the endtime sufferings from which faithful

Zion is delivered as the land and city are purified of Belial and the

wicked scattered (cf. Pss. Sol. 17; Midr. Ps. 22 in which verse 32 speaks

of the rebuilding of the temple).41

The later Targ. Ps. 22, interpreting

David's enemies as Gentiles (v. 13), envisages their universal submission (w. 28-29) perhaps along with Israel's return (v. 32). Nevertheless,

there is no evidence that Psalm 22 was understood messianically, prob

ably if Peter (Mark 8:31-33) the crowd (15:29-32) and the later Targ.

Isa. 53:3-11 are any guide, because God's abandoning the Messiah was

inconceivable. But after three passion predictions Mark's Jesus faces no

such obstacle. While not minimizing his suffering, that only verse 1 is

cited hardly warrants skirting the fact that each passion prediction,

Psalms 2, 118, and 110, and Psalm 22 itself fully expect final deliver

ance. The bystanders understanding his cry as calling for Elijah's

intervention along with their "wait and see" response (Mark 15:35)

suggests that they also hear in Ps. 22:1 the expectation of rescue.

The temple is again prominent and connected with Jesus' identity.

The passersby, recalling the earlier accusation (14:58), "blaspheme"

him who having blasphemed the temple is now the one who faces

destruction (15:29-30) and the immediately following chief priests'

and scribes' Messiah jibe (15:31-32) echoes the conjunction of the two


16/17

322 RE. WattsIBiblical Interpretation 15 (2007) 307-322

in the preceding hearing. Likewise, the concluding scene has the tem

ple's curtain torn (15:38) as the centurion declares Jesus to be

(15:39).

If Ps. 22:1 is implicitly an appeal for deliverance and vindication,

reading Jesus' final great cry as despairing seems incongruous (v. 37;

cf. v. 34). In Mark occurs elsewhere only as unclean spir

its encounter Jesus (1:26; 5:7). I suggest, given the foregoing and its

immediate impact on the temple, that it too expresses Jesus' power42

(cf. John's one occurrence when Jesus raises Lazarus, 11:43) as in its

most common NT use, in Revelation, where it expresses God's sover

eign authority over his creation (e.g., 1:10; 5:12; 7:2, 10; 8:13, etc.),

echoing the Sinai theophany (Deut. 4:11; 5:22; cf. 1 Sam. 7:10) and

God's sudden moment of delivering judgment on the ungodly who

gather against Zion (Isa. 29:5-6; cf. Ezek. 3:12; Sib. Or. 3.669; 5.61-

63).

We come then full circle. In Mark's beginning, the voice through

the rent heavens at Jesus' baptism declared him to be God's messi

anic son sent to purge and restore the temple. Here at the climacticmoment on the cross, Jesus again reveals his divine authority. His

"great cry" rends the hostile temple's curtain thereby both demon

strating and effecting the reality that it, not he, is the one "forsaken"

(Liu Proph. 12:11-12; cf. T.Levi 10:3; b. Git. 56b).43

But Ps. 22:27,

30-31 also declares that all the families of the nations would wor

ship before him. So also then, as the transfigured understanding of

Psalm 2 comes to full expression, in fulfillment of Psalm 22 s hope

and Isa. 56:7 s vision of a house of prayer for all nations (Mark11:17), a Roman centurion, no less, becomes the Gentile firstfruits

ofa newly reconstituted people- as he confesses

before its messianic suffering chief stone that Jesus and not Caesar

is "son of G/god."44

42 ) R.H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentaryon HisApobgyfor the Cross (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 948-50.


17/17

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use

according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as

otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the

copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,

reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a

violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

lords house and davids lord

Documents