1 Introduction
Though the book of Isaiah does not use the terminology of a ‘new’ covenant, the promise of God again making a covenant with his people does occur in the second and third parts of the book.1 This covenant is called “an everlasting covenant” in Isaiah 55: 3 and 61: 8, and seems to correspond to the “covenant of peace” mentioned in Isaiah 54: 10.
The books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel also make use of this terminology.2 Characteristic of eschatological promises within these books, however, is that in some way David is part of them.3 This seems to be different in the book of Isaiah. For a long time biblical scholars have noticed that David is remarkably absent in the prophecies collected within the second and third parts of the book. The only exception is the mention of “the sure mercies of/for David” (
This consensus view, however, does not explain why “the mercies of/for David” are still declared to be “sure” or “steadfast” (
2 Isaiah 55: 3b in Its Context
Within the Hebrew Bible the oracle of Isaiah 55: 1–5 constitutes a separate unit.9 The oracle is an invitation to participate in the salvation the Lord will bring near and culminates in a promise concerning the making of a covenant. The literary context indicates that the addressees should be identified as the servants of YHWH who have just been mentioned at the end of the previous pericope10 and who represent the offspring of Zion11 as well as the offspring of the Servant.12
After a series of many imperatives, in verse 3b YHWH himself promises, in first person language, to make an everlasting covenant for them:13
This announcement consists of two cola of which the second syntactically is an apposition to the first. This means that
3 Consensus View
The appearance of the Old Testament Theology of Gerhard von Rad,16 and a study of Otto Eissfeldt shortly thereafter,17 have been very influential within Old Testament scholarship. Since then a consensus has grown that
Since Von Rad and Eissfeldt, a vast majority of Old Testament scholars have taken over the characterization of Isaiah 55 as a reinterpretation of the Davidic covenant in a democratizing or nationalizing way.21 Willem Beuken, however, has described this consensus view as “an opinion that is in imminent danger of becoming an unfounded dogma of biblical theology.”22
4 Alternative Non-Messianic Interpretations
When
Initially Willem Beuken also preferred to understand
A few years later, however, Beuken has been persuaded by another Isaiah scholar, Hugh Williamson,27 that
5 Messianic Reading
Traditionally, the announcement of Isaiah 55: 3 has often been read as a Messianic prophecy. In most cases this Messianic reading is presented by scholars who understand
Among the scholars who prefer understanding
To substantiate this interpretation, Gentry extensively appeals to 2 Samuel 7: 19 where the promise for the house of David is called “the instruction for humanity” (
6 The Biblical-Theological Approach of Henk de Jong
Having briefly described the most important differences in the exegesis of Isaiah 55: 3, it appears that the exegetical choices scholars make are often closely connected to their understanding of the Davidic covenant and its meaning within the context of Old Testament theology in general and the expectation of a new covenant in particular.
In the Netherlands, the Old Testament senior scholar Henk de Jong has developed a canonical view of the concept of covenant, in which he specifically focuses on the theological meaning of the Davidic covenant in the context of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. De Jong, in fact, understands the Davidic covenant as “a covenant within a covenant” which was meant to anchor and to reinforce the Sinai covenant.37 He argues that there has always been an apparent weakness in the Sinai covenant, for it was made dependent on the loyalty and obedience of the humans within that covenant.38 The Golden Calf incident, shortly after the making of the covenant, immediately revealed that for that reason the Sinai covenant would never reach its goal. Though it was founded on the unconditional covenant with the patriarchs, the conditional format of the Sinai covenant itself39 clearly created a problem which had to be resolved. To deal with this inherent weakness a detailed sacrificial system of reconciliation with priests and offerings was put in place. But in practice this sacrificial system as well was dependent on its observance by the human side of the covenant. History would show that Israel often failed and thereby brought in danger the future of God’s covenant with them. Psalms 78: 56–64 describes the fundamental crisis Israel was in at the end of the period of the judges. De Jong, then, argues, referring to Psalms 78: 65–72, that the Davidic covenant in essence was meant to fortify the human partners of the Sinai covenant by reinforcing it with the unconditional Messianic promise and thus to guarantee its future.40
First of all, David and his descendants had to take care of the temple where YHWH would reside among his people and reconciliation would be established on the altar.41 Initially it may seem that this does not solve the problem of the inherent weakness of the Sinai covenant, for the Davidic kings often failed just as Israel itself and there is a conditional element in the Davidic covenant as well.42 But in contrast to the Sinai covenant, the Davidic promise itself is ultimately unconditional,43 for it is closely connected to and even anchored in God’s election of Zion which theologically precedes his election of David.44
De Jong, then, concludes that David and Zion together prepare for the new covenant which was announced in the Old Testament and would be inaugurated with the coming of Jesus Christ, whom the New Testament reveals as being the fulfillment of both David and the temple.45 By way of illustration, De Jong often utilizes the model of an hourglass, which has a wide base, narrows gradually and after its narrowest point becomes wider again. Within a canonical perspective, the Old Testament narrative begins widely with the creation of heaven and earth and of mankind (
In presenting this hourglass model, De Jong underlines the idea that every stage of concentration at the same time functions as a representation. Thus, God does not withdraw from the nations when he elects Israel and does not withdraw from the people of Israel when he elects David, but the interests of the nations are dealt with by his election of Israel and the interests of Israel are dealt with by his election of David. In the same way the interests of the earth are in view when God elects Canaan and Zion. Being “a covenant within a covenant” the Davidic covenant thus has always been for the benefit of the people of Israel as a whole49 and ultimately also for the benefit of all of humanity.50
In this context De Jong also refers to Isaiah 55: 3. Instead of reading this oracle as a democratization of the Davidic covenant, De Jong thinks it better to maintain the reality of both covenants. He suggests interpreting the reference to the Davidic covenant here as a reinforcement of the covenant with the people of Israel by connecting it with the unconditional promise of the Davidic covenant. Announcing the making of an everlasting covenant, God declares that he will remain loyal to his covenant with the people, but he manifests this loyalty in his dealings with the house of David. To stay in the covenant Israel, therefore, has to focus on the gracious deeds of God to David and his house, in the past as well as in the future.51 Reflecting on the relationship between the Davidic covenant and the promise of a new covenant as described in Jeremiah 31: 31–34, De Jong concludes that both are unconditional and function as a reaction to the failure of the Sinai covenant. The new covenant, in fact, is a continuation of the Sinai covenant, but without its weaknesses. In that sense De Jong argues that both the Davidic covenant and the promise of a new covenant essentially refer to the same reality of God offering means of reconciliation and forgiveness to his people. The Davidic covenant itself already was a renewal of the covenant.52
7 Objective Genitive
To evaluate the above described different readings of Isaiah 55: 3 and to understand the reason why David is mentioned here, it is necessary, first, to decide how the genitive in the expression
Weighing the arguments, it becomes clear that understanding
Further support for understanding
8 The Davidic Covenant
To understand the allusion to the Davidic covenant in Isaiah 55: 3 in the context of the announcement of an everlasting covenant, it is helpful to consider how the Davidic covenant relates to the Sinai covenant which was made with the people of Israel as a whole.
It is remarkable that the standard works of systematic theology hardly reflect on this relationship. Generally, the Davidic covenant is only discussed in the context of Christology. Herman Bavinck, for example, calls Christ the mediator of all the Old Testament covenants: with Adam, Noah, Abraham, David etc., and characterizes the Davidic promise as the foundation and center of all subsequent expectation and prophecy.57 Ben Wentsel gives an overview of the covenants without even mentioning the Davidic covenant and Gijsbert van den Brink and Cees van der Kooi only mention the Davidic promise in a paragraph on the sonship of Christ.58 This points to the fact that systematic theologians mainly reflect on the covenant on the basis of a theological concept in which distinctions are made between the eternal covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace, without evaluating the actual occurrence of several types of
From a biblical-theological and canonical perspective, the Davidic covenant can be well understood in line with De Jong, as a covenant which was meant to anchor and reinforce the Sinai covenant. It can adequately be characterized as “a covenant within a covenant”62 making the Davidic king responsible for the upholding of the Sinai covenant by the people of Israel and thus for the realization of its promises.63
On two points, however, his approach needs further refinement. First, De Jong distinguishes relatively firmly between the conditional character of the Sinai covenant and the unconditional character of the Davidic covenant. The use of this rubric, however, is not without problems and runs the risk of contrasting these covenants too much.64 The suggestion of De Jong that the structure of the Sinai covenant itself was deficient already from its beginnings seems to be an oversimplification. On the one hand, it is true that the recurrent disobedience of Israel already began with the Golden Calf incident and led to supplementary cultic provisions.65 Israel’s inability to serve YHWH is sometimes even clearly stated.66 Nevertheless, within the Old Testament there is no indication that the Sinai covenant in itself was inadequate. The Sinai covenant, though conditionally with regard to the realization of its promises, was founded on YHWH’s love for the patriarchs67 and, therefore, fundamentally established as a covenant of grace. On the other hand, even the Davidic covenant was always meant to evoke a reaction of faith and obedience from the rulers and people of Israel. Its promises would not be fulfilled for those who failed in this reaction,68 though YHWH guaranteed that David would always have a lamp in Jerusalem.69 The destruction of Jerusalem and the removal of the Davidic king in exile70 confirm that the Davidic covenant also exhibited conditional aspects.71
Second, and for this present study most importantly, further reflection is needed on the relationship between the Davidic covenant and the new covenant as it is promised in the Old Testament. De Jong only parallels these covenants, typifying them both as a reaction to the failure of the Sinai covenant and as a renewal of it. With regard to content, he even seems to consider them identical. Historically, however, it is likely that the promise of a new covenant, which occurs for the first time in the book of Jeremiah, not only has the failure of the people72 but also the failure of the Davidic kings as its background.73 For this reason it is helpful not only to distinguish the Davidic covenant from the Sinai covenant but also, more clearly than De Jong has done, from the new covenant.
It is because De Jong considers the content of the Davidic covenant as Messianic from the beginning that he practically identifies it with the new covenant. When, however, the Messianic interpretation of the Davidic covenant has grown gradually and in view of the increasing failure of the Davidic dynasty,74 the Davidic covenant appears to function as a connection between the Sinai covenant and the promise of a new covenant.75 With regard to the Sinai covenant, the Davidic covenant was meant to strengthen it by a lasting kingship which was privileged with a special relationship with Israel’s God. With regard to the promise of a new covenant, the everlasting character and Messianic potential of the Davidic covenant was able to give it a sure foundation.76
These last remarks concerning the relationship between the covenants need further elaboration with regard to the understanding of Isaiah 55: 3b–5. Because the “mercies for David” are explicitly called “sure” or “steadfast” (
Instead of speaking of democratization or transfer, Knut Heim prefers to speak of an extension of the Davidic covenant. He argues that if the Davidic promise really had been modified, this would have needed a more detailed explanation. According to Heim, the Davidic promise “remains essentially the same” and verse 4a even “amounts to the restoration of the Davidic covenant,” thus answering the open question of Psalms 89.81 However, just like speaking of a democratization or transfer, speaking of an extension of the Davidic covenant does not account for the fact that this covenant has always been for the benefit of the people of Israel as a whole. Psalms 78: 70–72 makes the important observation that YHWH, bringing his history with Israel thus far to a climax, had chosen his servant David “to be the shepherd of Jacob, of Israel, his inheritance.” As a result of the representing function of David within God’s dealings with Israel,82 the covenant with David serves the interests of the people of Israel as a whole.83
From a biblical-theological perspective it can even be argued that the covenant with David was ultimately destined to be for the benefit of all of humanity.84 This is clearly expressed, for example, in Psalms 72: 17 where the original Abrahamic promise to be a blessing to the nations is connected with the Davidic king: “May all nations be blessed in him; may they pronounce him happy.” Perhaps this same idea is even explicitly stated in 2 Samuel 7: 19 where David defines the just received and future orientated promises for his house as “the instruction for humanity” (
Elaborating on the supposed benefit of the Davidic covenant for the people of Israel, I agree with De Jong that the message of Isaiah 55: 3 can be meaningfully interpreted as a Davidic reinforcement of the covenant with Israel,88 rather than a democratization, transfer or extension of the Davidic covenant. The steadfast or sure mercies for David thus function as the source from which the covenant made for the servants receives the character of an everlasting covenant.89 This everlasting covenant is nothing less than the now ‘upgraded’ version of the covenant with Israel receiving its sure foundation and guaranteed duration from the Davidic covenant.90 Speaking of a Davidic reinforcement of the covenant with Israel presupposes that the Davidic covenant itself retains its original significance,91 just as the covenant with Noah retains its significance when the everlasting mercy of YHWH, which is characteristic of this covenant, is appealed to in Isaiah 54: 8–10 to proclaim the persistent character of the covenant of peace.92
9 Witness to the Peoples
Contrary to the straightforward Messianic interpretation of Gentry, it is not obvious that Isaiah 55: 3 alludes to the death and supposed resurrection of the Servant of YHWH from Isaiah 53.93 Firstly, I already argued for understanding
The qatal-phrase of Isaiah 55: 4 has to be understood as an elaboration of the previously mentioned “sure mercies for David.” David was destined by YHWH to be a witness to the peoples by being their leader and commander. Thus referring to the Davidic covenant, this oracle does not mention its most central promise, namely that David would have a son on his royal throne in Jerusalem at all times and that his kingdom thus would stand forever.99 Instead, the oracle of Isaiah 55: 3b–5 alludes to another aspect of this covenant, namely David’s rule over the nations.
In this regard special attention has to be given to the climactic ending of Psalms 18.100 In Psalms 18: 51(50) the
Just as the qatal-phrase of Isaiah 55: 4 has to be understood as an elaboration of the previously mentioned “sure mercies for David,” the yiqtol-phrase of Isaiah 55: 5 may be understood as an elaboration of the “everlasting covenant.” The Davidic reinforcement of the covenant with Israel guarantees that Israel finally will be able to exercise its witnessing role among the nations. Admittedly, the designation “witness” (
10 Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that the book of Isaiah clearly differs from the other prophetic books with regard to the concept of the new covenant and the way the Davidic covenant is related to it. It is not six of one and half a dozen of the other. When Jeremiah proclaims the making of a new covenant,105 his implicit framework clearly is the ancient Mosaic covenant.106 As part of a new future, the book of Jeremiah also announces the springing up of a righteous shoot (
With regard to the book of Isaiah, however, oracles concerning a new Davidic king occur only in the first part of the book. When, for the first time, something like a new covenant is proclaimed, the explicit framework is the Noahic and Davidic covenants.110 Instead of repeating, however, the ancient promise of a future Davidic king, the Davidic covenant is referred to in order to reinforce the covenant with the people of Israel, especially focusing on the status of Israel as a witness among the nations. This may not be interpreted as a democratization or transfer of the Davidic covenant, for the continuing importance of this covenant is presupposed. The book of Isaiah uses the reference to the Davidic covenant to provide a sure foundation for the message of a new covenant and to emphasize its everlasting character. From a biblical-theological and canonical perspective, the Davidic covenant may be understood – as Henk de Jong has persuasively argued – as “a covenant within a covenant,” meant to anchor and to reinforce the Sinai covenant. In this way, however, the Davidic covenant could function at the same time as the sure foundation for the proclamation of a new covenant, thus guaranteeing the everlasting character of the covenantal relationship between YHWH and Israel and ultimately making Israel itself a witness to the peoples, for the benefit of humanity.
Bibliography
Anderson, Bernhard W. “Exodus and Covenant in Second Isaiah and Prophetic Tradition.” In Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, edited by Frank M. Cross et al., 339–360. Garden City: Doubleday, 1976.
Anderson, Bernhard W. Contours of Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.
Baker, David L. Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments. 3rd ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2010.
Bavinck, H. Gereformeerde dogmatiek, vol. 3. 7th unchanged ed. Kampen: Kok, 1998 [ET: Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006].
Beuken, Willem A.M. “Isa. 55,3–5: The Reinterpretation of David.” Bijdragen 35 (1975): 49–64.
Beuken, Willem A.M. Jesaja [Isaiah], vol. 2B. POuT. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1983.
Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Isaiah 40–55. AB 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2002.
Brink, G. van den, and C. van der Kooi. Christelijke dogmatiek: Een inleiding. Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum 2012 [ET: Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017].
Burger, J.M. “The Story of God’s Covenants: A Biblical-Theological Investigation with Systematic Consequences.” Calvin Theological Journal 54 (2019): 267–299.
Caquot, André. “Les ‘Graces de David’: A propos d’Isaie 55/3b.” Semitica 15 (1965): 45–59.
Clements, Ronald E. “The Davidic Covenant in the Isaiah Tradition.” In Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of Ernest W. Nicholson, edited by A.D.H. Mays and R.B. Salters, 39–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Clifford, Richard J. “Isaiah 55: Invitation to a Feast.” In The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman, edited by Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, 27–35. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983.
Dekker, Jaap. “The Servant and the Servants in the Book of Isaiah.” Sárospataki Füzetek 16 (2012): 33–45.
Deurloo, Karel A. “King and Temple: David in the Eschatology of the Prophets.” In The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy: Festschrift for Henk Leene, edited by F. Postma, K. Spronk, and E. Talstra, 49–60. ACEBTSup 3. Maastricht: Shaker, 2002.
Eissfeldt, Otto. “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1–5.” In Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg, edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter J. Harrelson, 196–207. New York: Harper, 1962.
Gentry, Peter J. “Rethinking the ‘Sure Mercies of David’ in Isaiah 55:3.” Westminster Theological Journal 69 (2007): 279–304.
Gentry, Peter J., and Stephen J. Wellum. Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton: Crossway, 2012.
Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 1: Israel’s Gospel. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003.
Goldingay, John. Old Testament Theology. Vol. 2: Israel’s Faith. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.
Gosse, Bernard. “La nouvelle alliance et les promesses d’avenir se référant à David dans les livres de Jérémie, Ezéchiel et Isaie.” Vetus Testamentum 41 (1991): 419–428.
Hahn, Scott W. Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises. AYBRL. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009.
Heim, Knut M. “The (God-)Forsaken King of Psalm 89: A Historical and Intertextual Enquiry.” In King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, edited by John Day, 296–322. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.
Horton, Michael S. God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
Horton, Michael S. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011.
Jong, Henk de. Van oud naar nieuw: De ontwikkelingsgang van het Oude naar het Nieuwe Testament [From old to new: The development from the Old to the New Testament]. Kampen: Kok, 2002.
Kaiser, Walter C., “The Blessing of David: The Charter for Humanity.” In The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, edited by John H. Skilton, 298–318. Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974.
Kaiser, Walter C. “The Unfailing Kindnesses Promised to David.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 45 (1989): 91–98.
Korpel, Marjo C.A., and Johannes C. de Moor. The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40–55. OtSt 41. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
Kwakkel, Gert. “Verplichting of relatie: verbonden in Genesis; Henk de Jong en zijn visie op het verbond” [Obligation or relation: Covenants in Genesis; Henk de Jong and his view on the covenant]. In Verrassend vertrouwd: Een halve eeuw verkondiging en theologie van Henk de Jong [Surprisingly familiar: Half a century of preaching and theology by Henk de Jong], edited by Jan Bouma, Freddy Gerkema, and Jan Mudde, 117–130. Franeker: Van Wijnen, 2009.
Kwakkel, Gert. “The Conditional Dynastic Promise in 1 Kings 2:4.” In Reading and Listening: Meeting One God in Many Texts: Festschrift for Eric Peels on the Occasion of his 25th Jubilee as Professor of Old Testament Studies, edited by Jaap Dekker and Gert Kwakkel, 79–87. ACEBTSup 16. Bergambacht: 2VM, 2018.
Laato, Antti. The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus: A Reinterpretation of the Exilic Messianic Programme in Isaiah 40–55. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992.
Lalleman-De Winkel, Hetty. Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition: An Examination of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions. CBET 26. Leuven: Peeters, 2000.
Levenson, Jon D. “The Davidic Covenant and its Modern Interpreters.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979): 205–219.
Levenson, Jon D. Sinai and Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible. New York: Harper Collins, 1985.
Paganini, Simone. Der Weg zur Frau Zion, Ziel unserer Hoffnung: Aufbau, Kontext, Sprache, Kommunikationsstruktur und theologische Motive in Jes 55,1–13. SBB 49. Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002.
Rad, Gerhard von. Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 2. München: Kaiser, 1960.
Rendtorff, Rolff. Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 2. Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001.
Rose, Wolter H. “Messianic Expectations in the Old Testament.” In die Skriflig 35 (2001): 275–288.
Sakenfeld, Katharine D. The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry. HSM 17. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978.
Schniedewind, William M. Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Schreiner, Thomas R. The King in his Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013.
Sommer, Benjamin D. A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66. Contraversions Series. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998.
Stromberg, Jacob. “The Second Temple and the Isaianic Afterlife of the חסדי דוד (Isa 55,3–5).” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 121 (2009): 242–255.
Veenhof, Jan. “Als het werk van de Geest zich ontvouwt: In gesprek met Henk de Jong over het verbond van oud naar nieuw” [When the Spirit develops his work: In conversation with Henk de Jong about the covenant from old to new]. In Verrassend vertrouwd: Een halve eeuw verkondiging en theologie van Henk de Jong [Surprisingly familiar: Half a century of preaching and theology by Henk de Jong], edited by Jan Bouma, Freddy Gerkema, and Jan Mudde, 131–146. Franeker: Van Wijnen, 2009.
Watts, John D. Isaiah 34–66. WBC 25. Waco: Word, 1987.
Weinfeld, Moshe. “בְּרִית.” In ThWAT, 1:781–808.
Wentsel, B. Dogmatiek, vol. 2: De openbaring, het verbond en de apriori’s [Dogmatics, vol. 2: Revelation, covenant, and the apriori’s]. Kampen: Kok, 1982.
Wielenga, Barend (Bob). Verbond en zending: Een verbondsmatige benadering van zending [Covenant and mission: A covenantal approach to mission] Kampen: Mondiss, 1999.
Wielenga, Barend (Bob). “Oud en Nieuw Verbond: contingentie en coherentie in de verbondsgeschiedenis” [Old and new covenant: Contingency and coherence in the history of the covenant], In die Skriflig 32 (1998): 333–348.
Williamson, Hugh G.M. “ ‘The Sure Mercies of David’: Subjective or Objective Genitive?” Journal of Semitic Studies 23 (1978): 31–49.
‘Covenant’ is used in this article as a translation of the Hebrew word
Cf. Jer. 32: 40; 50: 5; Ezek. 34: 25; 37: 26.
See Jer. 33: 15–26; Ezek. 34: 23–24; 37: 24–25; cf. Jer. 23: 5; 30: 9. Cf. Bernard Gosse, “La nouvelle alliance et les promesses d’avenir se référant à David dans les livres de Jérémie, Ezéchiel et Isaie,” Vetus Testamentum 41 (1991): 419–28, and Karel A. Deurloo, “King and Temple: David in the Eschatology of the Prophets,” in The New Things: Eschatology in Old Testament Prophecy; Festschrift for Henk Leene, ed. F. Postma, K. Spronk, and E. Talstra, ACEBTSup 3 (Maastricht: Shaker, 2002), 49–60.
The source text of the Davidic covenant is the dynastic promise in 2 Sam. 7: 8–16, which is called “an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and secure” in David’s latter words (2 Sam. 23: 5; cf. Ps. 89: 4(3), 29(28), 35(34), 40(39); 2 Chron. 21: 7).
Gerhard von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 2 (München: Kaiser, 1960), 250.
E.g. Peter J. Gentry, “Rethinking the ‘Sure Mercies of David’ in Isaiah 55:3,” Westminster Theological Journal 69 (2007): 279–304.
E.g. André Caquot, “Les ‘Graces de David’: A propos d’Isaie 55/3b,” Semitica 15 (1965): 45–59; Willem A.M. Beuken, “Isa. 55,3–5: The Reinterpretation of David,” Bijdragen 35 (1975): 49–64.
Henk de Jong, Van oud naar nieuw: De ontwikkelingsgang van het Oude naar het Nieuwe Testament [From old to new: The development from the Old to the New Testament] (Kampen: Kok, 2002). The Theological University of Kampen in the Netherlands houses a Chair “Biblical Studies and Christian Identity,” which is established in honor of Henk de Jong. The present author is holder of this Chair.
For a detailed investigation of the structure of Isa. 55 as a whole, see Marjo C.A. Korpel and Johannes C. de Moor, The Structure of Classical Hebrew Poetry: Isaiah 40–55, OtSt 41 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 606–32. Cf. Simone Paganini, Der Weg zur Frau Zion, Ziel unserer Hoffnung: Aufbau, Kontext, Sprache, Kommunikationsstruktur und theologische Motive in Jes 55,1–13, SBB 49 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2002).
Isa. 54: 17.
Isa. 54: 3.
Isa. 53: 10; cf. 54: 13. See Jaap Dekker, “The Servant and the Servants in the Book of Isaiah,” Sárospataki Füzetek 16 (2012): 33–45.
Willem A.M. Beuken, Jesaja [Isaiah], vol. 2B, POuT (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1983), 284. Beuken draws attention to the preposition
Cf. Caquot, “Les ‘Graces de David,’ ” 45–59; Hugh G.M. Williamson, “ ‘The Sure Mercies of David’: Subjective or Objective Genitive?,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23 (1978): 31–49. Caquot argues for
Cf., e.g., the American Standard Version (1901) and the Dutch Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling [New Bible translation] (2004).
Von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, vol. 2.
Otto Eissfeldt, “The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1–5,” in Israels Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenberg, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter J. Harrelson (New York: Harper, 1962), 196–207.
Eissfeldt, “Promises of Grace,” 199–201.
Cf. 2 Sam. 7: 8.
Von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments, 2:250.
See, e.g., Katharine D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry, HSM 17 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1978), 203–4; William M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 115–16; Jacob Stromberg, “The Second Temple and the Isaianic Afterlife of the
Beuken, “Isa. 55,3–5,” 49.
Cf. Ps. 132; 2 Chron. 6: 42.
See Caquot, “Les ‘Graces de David,’ ” 53. Caquot appeals to Rashi.
Beuken, “Isa. 55,3–5,” 63.
Beuken, “Isa. 55,3–5,” 62–64.
Williamson, “ ‘The Sure Mercies of David,’ ” 31–49.
Beuken, Jesaja, 2B:284–88.
Caquot mentions B. Duhm (1892), N. Glueck (1927), A. Bentzen (1943), J. Morgenstern (1949), J. Klausner (1955), S. Mowinckel (1956), and L.G. Rignell (1956). “Les ‘Graces de David,’ ” 51–52.
Walter C. Kaiser, “The Unfailing Kindnesses Promised to David,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 45 (1989): 91–98.
Gentry, “Rethinking,” 279–304. See also Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 406–21.
Jer. 30: 8–9; Ezek. 34: 23–24; 37: 24–25; Hosea 3: 5.
Gentry, “Rethinking,” 281–82, 297.
Gentry, “Rethinking,” 292, 294–97.
Gentry, “Rethinking,” 287–88, 294–97, with reference to Isa. 42: 1–4; 49: 1–6.
Gentry, “Rethinking,” 301.
De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 94.
De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 89–92. De Jong defines the Old Testament covenant as a reciprocal and personal relationship of which the formula “I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (Jer. 31: 33) is characteristic. He is acquainted with the scholarly discussion of the meaning of the Hebrew word
Cf. Exod. 19: 3–6.
De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 87–93, 97–98.
De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 100–102. De Jong is referring to Ps. 132: 3–5.
2 Sam. 7: 14; 1 Kings 2: 4; cf. 1 Kings 8: 25–26; Ps. 89: 31–33(30–32); 132: 12.
2 Sam. 7: 15–16; Ps. 89: 20–38(19–37); 132: 11.
De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 31–32, 35–36. De Jong is referring to Ps. 132: 13–18, which is connected to the previous verses by the particle
De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 103–4.
Gen. 3: 17–19.
Cf. Matt. 28: 19–20.
De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 16, 42–45, with reference to Acts 1: 8; Rom. 4: 13; Eph. 6: 3.
Cf. 2 Sam. 7: 24; 1 Chron. 17: 22; Ps. 89: 20(19).
De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 61–66. De Jong is referring to 2 Sam. 7: 19; cf. Gen. 12: 3; Rev. 21: 3.
De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 64, 67, 97.
De Jong, Van oud naar nieuw, 152–57.
Williamson, “ ‘The Sure Mercies of David,’ ” 41–43. See also Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed, 202n67.
Williamson, “ ‘The Sure Mercies of David,’ ” 47–48. See also Kaiser, “The Unfailing Kindnesses,” 95.
Contra Gentry, “Rethinking,” 292, 294–97.
Contra John D. Watts, Isaiah 34–66, WBC 25 (Waco: Word, 1987), 246. Watts, referring to the use of the second person masculine singular, argues that King Cyrus is the direct addressee of v. 5.
H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde dogmatiek, vol. 3, 7th unchanged ed. (Kampen: Kok, 1998) 209, 221 [ET: Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006)]. Michael Horton also mentions the Davidic covenant only when he deals with the person of Christ, where he emphasizes its unconditional character. Michael S. Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 447, 538, 458–59.
B. Wentsel, Dogmatiek, vol. 2: De openbaring, het verbond en de apriori’s [Dogmatics, vol. 2: Revelation, covenant, and the apriori’s] (Kampen: Kok, 1982), 156–57; G. van den Brink and C. van der Kooi, Christelijke dogmatiek: Een inleiding (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum 2012), 387 [ET: Christian Dogmatics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2017), 425].
Horton, therefore, argues explicitly that systematic theology should use scripture as its guide in explaining the meaning of the covenant for the Christian faith. Michael S. Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006). Cf. the contribution of Arnold Huijgen to this volume, “Covenant Theology as Trinitarian Theology,” 306–11.
In his contribution to this volume Gert Kwakkel signals a “discrepancy between biblical and theological usage” as regards ‘covenant.’ “Berith and Covenants in the Old Testament,” 23. See also the article of Hans Burger in the present volume, “Theology without a Covenant of Works: A Thought Experiment,” 321–26. Recently, Burger has demonstrated the necessity and fruitfulness of the interaction between biblical exegesis and systematic theology, see his “The Story of God’s Covenants: A Biblical-Theological Investigation with Systematic Consequences,” Calvin Theological Journal 54 (2019), 267–99. Arnold Huijgen advocates for a recalibration of covenant theology “in the light of the present state of biblical studies on the covenant.” See his article in this volume, “Covenant Theology as Trinitarian Theology,” 302.
See, e.g., Bernhard W. Anderson, Contours of Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999), 193–236; Scott W. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises, AYBRL (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 176–213; Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 389–431.
Contra Michael Horton who contrasts David and Sinai as manifestations of two entirely different covenant traditions which “run side by side throughout the Old Testament.” God of Promise, 48.
Contra John Goldingay, who states: “Jhwh is committed to David independently of commitment to the people as a whole.” Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: Israel’s Gospel (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003), 557.
Cf. Barend (Bob) Wielenga, “Oud en Nieuw Verbond: contingentie en coherentie in de verbondsgeschiedenis” [Old and new covenant: Contingency and coherence in the history of the covenant], In die Skriflig 32 (1998): 338–39; Gert Kwakkel, “Verplichting of relatie: Verbonden in Genesis; Henk de Jong en zijn visie op het verbond” [Obligation or relation: Covenants in Genesis; Henk de Jong and his view of the covenant], in Verrassend vertrouwd: Een halve eeuw verkondiging en theologie van Henk de Jong [Surprisingly familiar: Half a century of preaching and theology by Henk de Jong], ed. Jan Bouma, Freddy Gerkema, and Jan Mudde (Franeker: Van Wijnen, 2009), 130. Arnold Huijgen criticizes the use Michael Horton makes of this rubric. See his contribution to this volume, “Covenant Theology as Trinitarian Theology,” 310–11.
Cf. the imbedding of Exod. 32–34 in chapters concerning the service of the Tabernacle (Exod. 25–31 and 35–40), marking a difference with the cultic regulations in the Book of Covenant (Exod. 20: 22–23: 33).
Cf. Deut. 31: 16–18; Josh. 24: 19.
See Exod. 2: 24; 32: 13; Deut. 4: 31.
Cf. 1 Kings 11: 9–13; see also Isa. 7: 9.
1 Kings 11: 36; 15: 4; 2 Kings 8: 19.
See 2 Kings 21: 10–15; 24: 20; 25: 7; Ps. 89: 39–52(38–51).
See 1 Kings 2: 3–4; 9: 4–5. Cf. Barend (Bob) Wielenga, Verbond en zending: Een verbondsmatige benadering van zending [Covenant and mission: A covenantal approach to mission] (Kampen: Mondiss, 1999). Chapter 3 of this doctoral thesis consists of an interesting biblical-theological orientation in the covenants of the Old Testament. See also Gert Kwakkel, “The Conditional Dynastic Promise in 1 Kings 2:4,” in Reading and Listening: Meeting One God in Many Texts: Festschrift for Eric Peels on the Occasion of his 25th Jubilee as Professor of Old Testament Studies, ed. Jaap Dekker and Gert Kwakkel, ACEBTSup 16 (Bergambacht: 2VM, 2018), 79–87.
Cf. Jer. 11: 1–8; 31: 32.
Wielenga, Verbond en zending, 101–2; Wielenga, “Oud en Nieuw Verbond,” 339.
The Nathan oracle of 2 Sam. 7 does not yet announce the coming of a Messiah directly. However, its climactic emphasis on the eternal character of the Davidic throne, even when David’s offspring commits iniquity, deliberately leaves an openness to the future. When the prophets of the eighth century BCE criticized the house of David for its iniquities and announced the coming judgement, this openness of the Nathan oracle resulted in the rise of Messianic expectations such as those in Isa. 9: 5–6 and 11: 1–10. See Wolter H. Rose, “Messianic Expectations in the Old Testament,” In die Skriflig 35 (2001): 275–88.
Cf. Jan Veenhof, “Als het werk van de Geest zich ontvouwt: In gesprek met Henk de Jong over het verbond van oud naar nieuw” [When the Spirit develops his work: In conversation with Henk de Jong about the covenant from old to new], in Verrassend vertrouwd, ed. Bouma, Gerkema, and Mudde, 143.
Referring to the principle of divine sonship, alluded to in Deuteronomy with regard to Israel (Deut. 1: 31; 8: 5; 32: 6, 18–20) and so prominent in the Davidic covenant traditions, Scott W. Hahn argues that the Davidic covenant “serves as a canonical link between the Deuteronomic covenant and the New Covenant, especially in the later prophets (Jer 33:19–26; Ezek 34:23–31; 37:24–25).” Kinship by Covenant, 91.
2 Sam. 7: 12–16; Ps. 89: 4–5(3–40), 29–38(28–37).
Cf. Richard J. Clifford, “Isaiah 55: Invitation to a Feast,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman, ed. Carol L. Meyers, M. O’Connor (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 32.
Cf., e.g., Rolff Rendtorff, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Ein kanonischer Entwurf, vol. 2 (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 2001), 259. Rendtorff even argues that God himself has ended his covenant with David.
Cf. Antti Laato: “There is no reason to suppose that the religious circle behind Isa 40–55, which certainly knew of the high messianic hopes which prevailed among the people attempted to convince the people that they and they alone were the inheritors of every promise hitherto given to the dynasty of David.” The Servant of YHWH and Cyrus: A Reinterpretation of the Exilic Messianic Programme in Isaiah 40–55 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1992), 244–45. See also Ronald E. Clements, “The Davidic Covenant in the Isaiah Tradition,” in Covenant as Context: Essays in Honour of Ernest W. Nicholson, ed. A.D.H. Mays and R.B. Salters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 39–69. Joseph Blenkinsopp notes that “it is difficult to understand why this analogy (with the promise to David, JD) would be used if the author was not persuaded of the permanence of Yahveh’s commitment to David and the dynasty.” He suggests that “sound political reasons for not speaking out in favour of the native dynasty” may have been in the author’s mind. Isaiah 40–55, AB 19A (New York: Doubleday, 2002), 370.
Knut M. Heim, “The (God-)Forsaken King of Psalm 89: A Historical and Intertextual Enquiry,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 309, 311–14.
See the previous description of the hour glass model of Henk de Jong, in which every stage of concentration at the same time functions as a representation.
Cf., e.g., 2 Sam. 7: 9 with Gen. 12: 2.
Cf. Thomas R. Schreiner, The King in his Beauty: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2013), 157. Referring to 2 Sam. 7: 9–16, Schreiner states: “The Davidic covenant represents an expansion of the covenant with Abraham. The Lord will bring universal blessing to the world through the offspring of Abraham. Now it is clear that this universal blessing will also become a reality through the offspring of David.”
Walter C. Kaiser, “The Blessing of David: The Charter for Humanity,” in The Law and the Prophets: Old Testament Studies Prepared in Honor of Oswald Thompson Allis, ed. John H. Skilton (Nutley: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1974), 298–318.
Gentry, “Rethinking,” 287–88, 294–97. Gentry refers to Isa. 42: 1–4; 49: 1–6.
It is not necessary to suppose that David not only had a conscious awareness of the universal implications of the promise, but also of the Messianic implications of it, as Kaiser suggests. “The Blessing of David,” 316.
Though the Sinai covenant is nowhere mentioned explicitly in the book of Isaiah – in spite of the extensive use of the motifs of the exodus and the wilderness journey, – it comes to the fore under several metaphors: rebellious children of YHWH (Isa. 1: 2, 4; 30: 1, 9; cf. 63: 8), sons (and daughters!) of YHWH (Isa. 43: 6; 45: 11), vineyard of YHWH (Isa. 5: 1–7; 27: 2–6), and marriage (Isa. 54). Also when Israel is called “my people” (Isa. 1: 3, 3: 12, 15 etc.), “my heritage” (Isa. 19: 25; 47: 6; cf. 63: 17), or “servant of YHWH” (Isa. 41: 8, 9 etc.), this supposes the reality of an existing covenantal relationship.
David L. Baker, Two Testaments, One Bible: The Theological Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, 3rd ed. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2010), 256. Baker describes the Davidic covenant as becoming here “the prototype for an ‘everlasting covenant.’ ”
Bernhard W. Anderson draws attention to the remarkable fact that Second Isaiah, in contrast to his predecessors Hosea and Jeremiah, does not announce “hope for the future on the basis of the Mosaic covenant with its emphasis upon human obligation”: “the new wine of the gospel could not be contained adequately in the old wineskin of the Mosaic covenant but was best suited to the theology of the everlasting covenant.” “Exodus and Covenant in Second Isaiah and Prophetic Tradition,” in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright, ed. Frank M. Cross et al. (Garden City: Doubleday, 1976), 339–60 (quotations from pages 348 and 357).
Cf. Benjamin D. Sommer, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 40–66, Contraversions Series (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), 119. Sommer asserts: “Deutero-Isaiah avoids nullifying the promises to David as they had appeared in the Psalms and the prophecies of Isaiah ben Amos by reinventing them as a promise to the nation as a whole.” When, however, he suggests that Deutero-Isaiah answered the question “What does one do when a sacred text proved wrong?” (154), this contradicts the explicit characterization of the
Cf. the allusion to the covenant with Noah in Jer. 33: 20–21.
The meaning of the quotation of Isa. 55: 3b within the argument of Acts 13: 34 needs to be studied separately. This is beyond the scope of this article, which investigates the meaning of Isa. 55: 3b within its Old Testament context.
Gentry, “Rethinking,” 293.
Isa. 9: 5–6; 11: 1–10.
Isa. 45: 1.
Isa. 61: 1–3.
Gentry, “Rethinking,” 292.
2 Sam. 7: 12–16; Ps. 89: 4–5(3–4), 25–26(24–25), 29–38(28–37).
Cf. Beuken, “Isa. 55,3–5,” 62–63. Beuken has righty drawn attention to the importance of Ps. 18 for understanding Isa. 55: 3–5.
Isa. 43: 10, 12; 44: 8; cf. 43: 9; 44: 9.
The clause
See Stromberg, “The Second Temple,” 242–55, for a thorough analysis of the reuse of Isa. 55: 5b with regard to Zion and its temple in Isa. 60: 9b.
Cf. Stromberg: “In Isa 55,5a the people’s future role parallels that given to David in Ps 18,44, a fact that reinforces the intended parallel between Israel in Isa 55,5 and David in 55,4.” “The Second Temple,” 243.
Jer. 31: 31–34; cf. 32: 40; 50: 5.
Anderson, “Exodus and Covenant,” 352. See also the contributions of Mart-Jan Paul and Aaron Chun Fai Wan to this volume, “The New Covenant in the Context of the Book of Jeremiah,” 129–31, and “The Concept of the ‘New Covenant’ (Jeremiah 31: 27–40) in Ancient Jewish Reception History,” 220–24.
Jer. 33: 14–26; cf. 23: 5–6.
Jer. 30–31; see 30: 9, 21.
Ezek. 34: 23–31; 37: 24–28. The Davidic promises of Jer. 33: 14–26 are even missing in the Septuagint, thus generating discussion about their authenticity in the book. See Hetty Lalleman-De Winkel, Jeremiah in Prophetic Tradition: An Examination of the Book of Jeremiah in the Light of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions, CBET 26 (Leuven: Peeters, 2000), 175–77, 204–8.
Isa. 54: 10; 55: 3.