god's

[Scrawly]

How does one view the passages that speak of human kings as God's in the OT? Such as Psalm 45:6-7:

Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of joy above Your fellows.

To refer to this Psalm as Messianic does not seem to detract from the fact that the king was originally called "God", albeit an inferior god, but a god nonetheless, something I wouldn't expect for strict monotheism within ancient Judaism.

Thoughts?

[Abigail]

Psalm 45:7 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Thy God has annointed Thee with the oil of joy above Thy fellows.

Which human kings, or any of us for that matter, have loved righteousness and hated wickedness? Which man was ever righteous? Only one. Jesus.

[KingsGambit]

It seems like the first six verses are directed toward the king (and God is even mentioned there, clearly not as the subject), but it switches at verse 7 to be talking about God rather than the king. I don't see this as an issue.

Incidentally, parts of the OT was more monolatrous than monotheistic. That means that it did not deny the existence of other gods, but made clear that only God was worthy of worship. (This isn't controversial, even evangelical scholars will acknowledge this.)

[Scrawly]

Psalm 45:7 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Thy God has annointed Thee with the oil of joy above Thy fellows.

Which human kings, or any of us for that matter, have loved righteousness and hated wickedness? Which man was ever righteous? Only one. Jesus.

So in it's original context, this verse was talking about Jesus?

[Scrawly]

It seems like the first six verses are directed toward the king (and God is even mentioned there, clearly not as the subject), but it switches at verse 7 to be talking about God rather than the king. I don't see this as an issue.

The psalm is about the king: "I will address my verses to the king". The king is clearly called God - therefore God (king), your God (Creator) has anointed you..

Incidentally, parts of the OT was more monolatrous than monotheistic. That means that it did not deny the existence of other gods, but made clear that only God was worthy of worship. (This isn't controversial, even evangelical scholars will acknowledge this.)

Right but the issues seem problematic when humans are so closely associated with the divine - such as the begetting of the king as God's son in Psalm 2:7.

[seanD]

The psalm is about the king: "I will address my verses to the king". The king is clearly called God - therefore God (king), your God (Creator) has anointed you..



Right but the issues seem problematic when humans are so closely associated with the divine - such as the begetting of the king as God's son in Psalm 2:7.

Jews definitely had a belief in a supernatural hierarchy (something that many Christians today sadly seem to shun), with the Almighty at the top of the pyramid. But the only time Jews expressed belief in a human with any sort of divine qualities was the expectant Messiah (of course, there were many facets to this belief, including various characters that would play in an eschatological role), and Psalm 2 and 110 were catalysts of this belief. This is very evident in the Qumran scrolls.

[Jedidiah]

The psalm is about the king: "I will address my verses to the king". The king is clearly called God - therefore God (king), your God (Creator) has anointed you..

Yes, pretend to ask a question and then try to start a fight over the answer (which is correct btw).

[hedrick]

John 10:35 implies that Jesus understood Ps 82:6 as applying to humans.

I'd say that these Psalms originally referred to the King, but that it is legitimate to give them a second application to Jesus.

The Word commentary on Ps 45 says:

"Psalm 45 is a superb example of what C. S. Lewis has called “second meanings in the Psalms” (Reflections on the Psalms, 101–15). The primary meaning of the psalm is clear; it is a wedding song, celebrating the marriage of a king to a princess. In its original sense and context, it is not in any sense a messianic psalm. And yet within the context of early Christianity (and in Judaism before that), it becomes a messianic psalm par excellence. The express evidence for the transition is to be found in Heb 1:8–9, where Ps 45:7–8 is quoted with explicit reference to Jesus Christ. But the “second meaning” extends to the whole psalm, not merely to the two verses quoted, and it develops further the way in which the OT’s portrayal of human love and marriage may become the basis of an allegory of Christ and the Church, the Groom and the Bride. "

[Manw� S�limo]

In the ancient world, the king of any nation was a representative on earth of the god of the country. Just as human acting in the imago dei are "gods" to the lower created order, so is the king a stand-in for God to the people, while at the same time, the person wearing the crown can still be seen as merely human.

[Scrawly]

In the ancient world, the king of any nation was a representative on earth of the god of the country. Just as human acting in the imago dei are "gods" to the lower created order, so is the king a stand-in for God to the people, while at the same time, the person wearing the crown can still be seen as merely human.

Right I understand this, but for a king to literally be called "God" seems to imply divinity of some sort and just a stand-in position for God on earth. Also, the king for example, in Psalm 2:7 indicates that he is not just adopted, but actually born of God - "You are my son; today I have begotten you".

[Scrawly]

John 10:35 implies that Jesus understood Ps 82:6 as applying to humans.

I'd say that these Psalms originally referred to the King, but that it is legitimate to give them a second application to Jesus.

The Word commentary on Ps 45 says:

"Psalm 45 is a superb example of what C. S. Lewis has called “second meanings in the Psalms” (Reflections on the Psalms, 101–15). The primary meaning of the psalm is clear; it is a wedding song, celebrating the marriage of a king to a princess. In its original sense and context, it is not in any sense a messianic psalm. And yet within the context of early Christianity (and in Judaism before that), it becomes a messianic psalm par excellence. The express evidence for the transition is to be found in Heb 1:8–9, where Ps 45:7–8 is quoted with explicit reference to Jesus Christ. But the “second meaning” extends to the whole psalm, not merely to the two verses quoted, and it develops further the way in which the OT’s portrayal of human love and marriage may become the basis of an allegory of Christ and the Church, the Groom and the Bride. "

I agree that applying such passages to Jesus was part of the process of reinterpreting Jesus’ identity as a glorified, heavenly messianic figure. However, my point was that ascribing levels of divinity to mere mortals was something we all know pagans practiced, but it also seems to have been done in Jewish circles as well.

[Obsidian]

On multiple occasions, the New Testament explicitly attributes the "begotten" verse from Psalm 2 to Jesus, with regard to his resurrection from the dead. I'm not sure that Psalm 2 had any direct application to an Old Testament king. Revelation also mentions a rod of iron. There weren't any Old Testament kings who made the extensive conquests of the uttermost parts of the earth that are mentioned in Psalm 2.

[Scrawly]

On multiple occasions, the New Testament explicitly attributes the "begotten" verse from Psalm 2 to Jesus, with regard to his resurrection from the dead. I'm not sure that Psalm 2 had any direct application to an Old Testament king. Revelation also mentions a rod of iron. There weren't any Old Testament kings who made the extensive conquests of the uttermost parts of the earth that are mentioned in Psalm 2.

Do you take the view that the psalms and other OT writings were written in the following way:

"for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2Pet. 1:21)?

In other words, those messianic psalms were always intended to apply to Christ (even when first written), yet that was not realized until the fullness of time came and Christ was revealed?

[Obsidian]

I think Psalm 2 was always intended to apply to Christ, and Israel realized it even back in the Old Testament.

[Mr. Anderson]

I think Psalm 2 was always intended to apply to Christ, and Israel realized it even back in the Old Testament.

That they realized it is brought out in the some of the post exile books, works through the Greek and Maccabean periods as well. Though not as fully developed as the Christian era, but enough to see the path of development.