Actually, I think this comment could apply to Denny’s blog in general. I think one thing that helped was when he started requiring full names.

Denny – I could wish you would have more posts like this. An improvement, in my humble opinion, would be just saying what you think the passage means. Not every act of exegesis needs to be warfare against liberals, skeptics, democrats and devil worshippers Sometimes, so I think, Bible study should be a quiet pastoral exercise meant to tune ones heart in response to God. But I don’t want to toss a fly into my own bottle of ointment here.

In my opinion there is an improved tone here and I appreciate it. This blog is from a different tribe than my own but I appreciate being able to read and see the perspectives discussed here.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about you (though sometimes you still resort to calling Denny names ). Take care.

There are all kinds of hermeneutical issues in what we are discussing. For instance, “David” in the psalter is often a generic term for a king, the superscriptions in the Psalms are redactions, more psalms are ascribed to David via the superscriptions than is actually the case. Oftentimes authors, be they NT authors or intertestamental ones, speak of the psalms generically like David wrote the whole thing, which he did not. This is not inaccurate of them to say this since we often do the same thing.

Also, in light of Christ’s first advent we can read the OT scriptures through a different lens, one that interprets it christologically (or christotelically, which is the terminology I prefer). So “David” may have had a messianic figure in mind originally, or he may have just had a historical king and successor in mind. However, in light of Christ’s coming there is a sensus plenior (“fuller meaning”) in the text that allows us to interpret it christologically.

As far as “plenty of people” recognizing Jesus, I was speaking more in mass terms. If the OT is so obvious about a messianic figure as Denny claims, so that they even had the same theological categories that we possess, and if Jesus encapsulates all of all of those attributes, then identifying him as that one Messianic figure would have been easy and obvious. However, the NT tells us that mystery was built in, and they didn’t recognize him. Even the NT tells us (I forget the reference) that the OT authors at times didn’t know what they spoke about.

As far as your last paragraph, we’re in complete agreement. That was my main point in my previous point. In my opinion, I think we need to distinguish between a Messianic figure that is prophesied and the historical Jesus of Nazareth to prevent naivete. Often, a “Messiah” in the OT is not even divine. This is deep stuff, and I’m not very qualified to discuss it, but I appreciate your words.

In fact Darius, over the past year of interacting on this blog, I have detected more and more candor and less and less fundamentalism and dogmatism in you. It appears you are growing, friend, and I appreciate that and want to encourage you to keep it up.

“I would like to ask you, if the psalmist and OT authors had Jesus in view, then why didn’t anybody recognize Jesus when he came?”

Well, plenty of people recognized Him as the Messiah. Simeon, Anna, His disciples, John the Baptist, just to name a few. The Pharisees and large numbers of Jews didn’t recognize Him because they hadn’t interpreted Scripture correctly and because their hearts were hard.

Did the OT authors or David have in mind a historical man named Jesus born in such and such a year? Probably not. But most of them did definitely have the Messiah in mind all the same.

First of all, it is not generally disputed that Jewish thought broke into factions at some point between the sadducees (who did not believe in the resurrection, so they were sad, you see), and the pharisees. If I remember correctly, the book of Daniel is what caused the debate between the groups. Both groups, by the way, believed the book of Daniel to be scripture, but differed in their interpretation. I might have some of my details wrong, but my point is that there was a stream of Jewish thought that denied “life after death”. On what Biblical basis can we say our Biblical authors did or did not subscribe to one camp or the other? Does it even matter in this passage?

Second, what is the problem with saying that there is no praising of God in death? What is wrong with saying that when we are dead, we are dead, and that’s the end of it? Being a Christian, of course, I believe we are brought back to life, but I have no theological or Biblical problem with people literally being no more except in the mind of God, who will resurrect them. In this case, I would even say that it is better exegesis. In other words, creaturely life is embodied life, though I do not expect such a view to be popular on this blog.

I could go further in discussing the Biblical concept of “afterlife”, which differs from that of my evangelical upbringing, but it has all been said before.

On a positive note, the challenge is a good one.

“lord” (adonay) is a term used of multiple referents (human beings and divine ones). We can look at this through a christological lens and say it was Jesus, but to claim the psalmist had Jesus in view is naive at best, brother. Also, in some texts we may be able to claim that a messianic figure is in view, but to claim it’s the historical Jesus Christ of Nazareth is absurd because Jesus of Nazareth wasn’t born for hundreds of years.

I would like to ask you, if the psalmist and OT authors had Jesus in view, then why didn’t anybody recognize Jesus when he came?

Seems the Psalmist did have Jesus in view…

This logic stopped me dead (pun most likely intended) for the reason you gave. And it caused me to ask a lot of questions about how I fit this in with the NT view of the afterlife. All that to say that I’m most convinced that your analysis is the right one.

Thanks for the help in thinking this through.