Tag Archives: zechariah

Advent Day 24: The Davidic Covenant

Posted on by
Reply

TODAY’S FIRST READING (2 Sm 7:1-5, 8b-12, 14a, 16)

FROM 2 Samuel 11b-12, 14a, 16:

“‘The LORD also reveals to you
that he will establish a house for you.
And when your time comes and you rest with your ancestors,
I will raise up your heir after you, sprung from your loins,
and I will make his Kingdom firm.
I will be a father to him,
and he shall be a son to me.
Your house and your Kingdom shall endure forever before me;
your throne shall stand firm forever.'”

From Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: Old and New Testament, page 474

The Davidic Covenant

The Davidic covenant is the latest and greatest of the Old Testament covenants. Following the steady buildup of covenants between God and his people over the centuries, beginning with Adam and continuing with Noah, Abraham, and Moses, the divine covenant with David brings the biblical story to a theological highpoint. Each of these ancient covenants helps to prepare the way for messianic times, but Jewish and ­Christian traditions agree that hopes for a coming Messiah are anchored most explicitly in the Lord’s covenant with David.

Nathan’s Oracle

The foundation of the Davidic covenant is Nathan’s oracle in 2 Sam 7.8-16, which responds to David intention to build a sanctuary for Yahweh. Nathan reveals that the king’s desire, although noble, is not part of God’s plan for his life. Instead, something more wonderful is envisioned. What David wants to do for the Lord hardly compares to what the Lord wants to do for David. This divine plan can be summarized under four headings.

1. Dynasty. Yahweh first pledges to build David a “house” (2 Sam 7:11). By this he means a dynasty, a hereditary line of royal successors, so that his kingdom and his throne will be “established for ever” (2 Sam 7:16). The house of David may have to be disciplined as times and circumstances demand, but the house of David will never be fully disowned like the house of Saul was when the Lord abandoned it on account of Saul’s failings (2 Sam 7:14-15). David’s dynasty will exercise an everlasting rule that is guaranteed by God.

2. Temple. Yahweh’s second pledge responds directly to David’s desire to build a Temple (2 Sam 7:2). The king wishes to begin construction on a worthy sanctuary, but, according to Nathan, the privilege a building a “house” for the Lord will fall to David’s royal “offspring” (2 Sam 7:12-13). This is an allusion to David’s son and successor, King Solomon, who pulls together a massive workforce to construct the Jerusalem Temple after his father’s death (1 Kings 6-8). The Temple thus serves as an architectural sign of the Davidic covenant.

3. Adoption. Yahweh’s third pledge is to create a father-son relationship between himself and David’s royal offspring (2 Sam 7:14). It is a promise that the kings of David’s line will be made sons of God by divine adoption. In this way, the covenant of kingship creates an especially close relationship between Yahweh and the anointed successors of David. It is implied in Ps 2:7 that the royal adoption of each king take place on the day of his coronation.

4. Law for Mankind. In response to the oracle, David senses that God, in pledging himself to these grandiose commitments, is initializing a plan to extend his blessings to the human race beyond Israel. What the Lord has revealed to him is nothing less than torat ha-adam, “the law of mankind” (see note on 2 Sam 7:19). The Law of Moses was a gift for Israel alone; but the covenant arrangement promised to David is a gift for Israel and other nations alike. This becomes visible in the days of Solomon, who recruits Gentiles from Phoenicia to assist with building the Temple (1 Kings 5:6, 18), who implores Yahweh to answer the prayers of the Gentiles who direct their pleas toward his Temple (1 Kings 8:41-43), and who instructs inquiring Gentiles from many nations in the fundamentals of godly “wisdom” (1 Kings 4:3- 10:1-10, 24).

Nathan’s oracle is worded as a divine promise, but its terms are guaranteed by divine oath. Whether a formal pledge is made on this occasion or afterward makes little difference. It is clear from other texts that Yahweh makes his commitments to David into a covenant (2 Sam 23:5; Sir 45:25; 47:11) by swearing an oath to David (Ps 89:3-4, 35-37; 132:11-12). And since God alone swears the oath, he alone assumes responsibility for its fulfillment. The Davidic covenant of kingship is an unconditional “grant”, meaning that Yahweh takes upon himself the unilateral obligation to make good on his pledges, regardless of whether or not David’s future line of successors proves worthy of this honor.

New Testament Fulfillment

The pledges made to David are provisionally realized in Solomon during the golden age of the united monarchy and, to a lesser extent, in the centuries that the Davidic dynasty ruled in Jerusalem. But definitive fulfillment awaits the coming of Jesus Christ. He is the Messiah grafted into David’s dynastic line (Mt 1:1-16) and the one chosen by God to sit on David’s throne “for ever” (Lk 1:32-33). Like David, Jesus is anointed by the Spirit (1 Sam 16:13; Acts 10:38), and, like Solomon, he offers the wisdom of God to the world (1 Kings 10:1-10; Mt 12:42). The Temple he builds is not a stone-and-cedar sanctuary in Jerusalem but his body, the Church of living believers indwelt by the Spirit (Mt 16:18; Eph 2:19-22; 1 Pet 2:4-5). In the Resurrection, Jesus’ humanity attains the royal adoption promised to David’s offspring (Acts 13:33-3 Rom 1:3-4), and, at his Ascension, he commences his everlasting reign (Lk 1 :33) as David’s messianic Lord (Mk 12:35-37). Even now, he holds the key to the kingdom of David (Rev 3:7) and bears the distinction of being “King of Israel” (Jn 1 :49) as well as “he who rises to rule the Gentiles” (Rom 15:12). According to the very first Christian sermon, all of this is the fulfillment of Yahweh’s oath to David (Acts 2:29-35).

My take

There is a lot wrapped up in the Davidic covenant, as explicated in the excerpt above from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, is there not? It took about one thousand years for this solemn agreement to find its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. This is why we should pay particular attention to those incidents in the Gospels when Jesus is called Son of David. The persons saying this are not simply calling the Lord by any title — there is a whole depth of meaning behind it. Another word study, this time of “Son of David”:

The term is used eight times in the Old Testament, seven times referring to David’s biological son, Solomon, the other time to David’s son Jerimoth. For Solomon’s story (consider how he is a type [check out here and here] of Jesus — and how he’s not) see 1 Kgs 1-11 and 2 Chr 1-9.

The term is used sixteen times in the New Testament in eight different episodes or contexts, one of those being genealogies, one time referring to Joseph, Jesus’ foster father, one time used by Jesus in referring to David, and the other five times being addressed to Jesus. Note carefully (and use a good commentary), those contexts, especially the last five.

A last note, this on the Gospel reading (Lk 1:67-79). It seems to me that one major takeaway from Zechariah’s exuberant prayer is the value of silence. Zechariah had a lot of time to think, not knowing when — or if — he would ever get his voice back. Silent contemplation, without distraction, can yield great results. Let us take a lesson from this episode by spending much more time listening to the Lord and his mother (I imagine Zechariah heard Mary’s Magnificat and sat by while his wife Elizabeth and Mary were chatting in those three months leading up to the birth of his son) and much less time in idle conversation (yikes!). The results just might be amazing.

Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel;
for he has come to his people and set them free.
He has raised up for us a mighty Savior,
born of the house of his servant David. (Lk 1:68-69)

AI generated — I could not find an image with all three figures that wasn’t licensable.

God bless!

Advent Day 19: Speechless is not so bad

Posted on by
Reply

TODAY’S GOSPEL (Lk 1:5-25)

From Luke 1:19b-20:

“I was sent to speak to you and to announce to you this good news.
But now you will be speechless and unable to talk
until the day these things take place,
because you did not believe my words,
which will be fulfilled at their proper time.”

From Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture: The Gospel of Luke, page 39

“Gabriel was sent precisely to announce to Zechariah this good news about John. For the first time Luke uses the very euangelizō (‘to announce good news’), which refers throughout Luke-Acts to the preaching of the gospel message (e.g., 4:18; Acts 5:42). The proper response to ‘good news’ is to ‘believe’ (see Acts 8:12). However, Zechariah did not believe and so is punished by becoming temporarily speechless (literally, ‘silent’).”

From Opening the Scriptures: Bringing the Gospel of Luke to Life, page 15-16

“Gabriel has told Zechariah the gospel truth, as it were, but Zechariah would not accept it.
…
“Zechariah did not understand how he and Elizabeth could have a child in their old age, and he limited what he thought God could do to what he could understand. Nevertheless, the things that Gabriel said would happen ‘will be fulfilled at their proper time’ — in God’s timing. God’s word is always fulfilled. Zechariah will be ‘unable to talk until the day these things take place.’ It is not apparent what ‘day’ Gabriel is referring to, since he has not only spoken of Elizabeth bearing a son who is to be named John (verse 13) but of John carrying on a ministry as an adult (verses 15-17). Zechariah must have been left wondering how long his speechlessness would last and what would have to be fulfilled for him to talk again.”

My take

It is hard to blame Zechariah for being incredulous regarding this whole episode. How many times did he enter the sanctuary previously with nothing unusual happening? Now, out of the blue, so to speak, this awesome figure tells him news he wasn’t expecting and that he finds difficult to believe. Maybe he thought he was hallucinating. How long must he and his wife have prayed for a child before giving up due to biology. Their prayers seemed to go unheeded.

We know that Zechariah and Elizabeth “were righteous in the eyes of God, observing all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly” (v. 6), so their faithfulness was finally rewarded. Here is where Zechariah drops the ball. Having conceded that it was not meant for him and his wife to have children, it is no longer on his radar. In the surprise of the presence of the angel, he apparently did not recall episodes in the history of the Chosen People that were comparable, for example, Abraham and Sarah, and, from today’s first reading, Manoah and his barren wife. He pays a price for his doubt, but the end result is glorious.

It occurs to me that it would be wonderful if doubters of God’s Revelation would be struck mute today. Instead of spreading ignorance, criticism, lies, or heresy, they would be taught a lesson for them to consider (silently) and for the rest of the world to see until they came around to the truth. Then, like Zechariah, they would bless God (cf. v. 64) and bring the fear of God to others (cf. v. 65).

May we all be struck dumb instead of speaking ignorantly, falsely, or irreverently about the word of God.

The Angel Appearing to Zacharias (1799–1800) by William Blake

God bless!

Advent Day 21: What’s in a name?

Posted on by
Reply

TODAY’S READINGS

The Gospel reading is from Lk 1:57-66, again picking up where we left off from the previous day. Here, Elizabeth names her newborn son to those gathered round.

When they came on the eighth day to circumcise the child,
they were going to call him Zechariah after his father,
but his mother said in reply,
“No. He will be called John.”
But they answered her,
“There is no one among your relatives who has this name.” (vv. 59-61)

“[C]ircumcision of Jewish males incorporated them into God’s covenant with his people (Gen 18:9-14; it was ‘the mark of the covenant’ (Gen 17:11). Circumcision was done on the eighth day after birth (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3). Elizabeth and Zechariah observe all God’s commandments (1:6); their son is circumcised on the proper day. Neighbors and relatives (verse 58) came to celebrate the circumcision…

“The Hebrew name that comes into English as John means ‘God has shown favor’ (using God’s personal name — Yahweh); it was not an unusual name in priestly families (1 Macc 2:1-2). Luke does not explaining the meaning of John’s name, but it is highly appropriate: God has shown favor to Elizabeth and Zechariah and would show favor to his people through their son (see 1:16-17)…

“If a son was not named after his father, it was customary to name him after one of his other relatives. But no one in the families of Elizabeth and Zechariah is named John. Breaking with customary practice in naming John is a sign that he is someone out of the ordinary. His significance will not lie in his family heritage but in who he is an what he will do.” (Bringing the Gospel of Luke to Life, 38-39)

I’ve long wondered why it was so astonishing to those visiting John’s parents that the little boy was not named after his father. I an unaware of any instance in the Bible where a Jewish parent and child had the same name (Abraham Jr., anyone) or even that of a relative (at least mentioned)? I did a bit of research: some speculate that it was because John had a special mission (as mentioned above); others that it was a specifically Levite custom at the time, or still others that Luke got some bad info (which doesn’t square with my understanding of biblical inerrancy). If anyone has come across anything more definitive or explanatory, please let me know in the comments.

Also, check out the article, What’s Your Name?, that gives important scriptural insights and practical application to this Gospel story. Maybe it will inspire you to look up the etymology of your own name (here’s mine).

CATHOLIC COMMENTARY ON SACRED: SCRIPTURE: OLD TESTAMENT!

I had been checking in from time to time on the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture website to find out if, after having published volumes covering the entire New Testament, the Old Testament would be tackled. Well, to my surprise, a suggestion came up yesterday on Amazon about a new commentary on Wisdom from this series (already in my cart)! I checked the site again, but no news there. So I contacted one of the General Editors, Dr. Mary Healy, who tells me, “Yes, we’ve started work on the OT, and Wisdom and Ezekiel will be coming out in 2024! Next will be Sirach and Isaiah, and roughly two volumes every year.”

This is a phenomenal series. I have the entire NT set, and have worked through many of the volumes, even using one to lead a Bible study. Scholarly, but accessible, these are meant for interested and engaged Catholics of all stripes. If you have not seen these yet, I encourage you to pick up at least one (maybe the one that covers your favorite Gospel or epistle) and read it.

CHRISTMAS…HISTORICALLY

Finally, I listened today to one of my more recently adopted favorite podcasters, Catholic Answers apologist Jimmy Akin, who explores what we know, or can reasonably speculate, about the first Christmas. I can assure you, without question, that you will learn something new. For example, there is a decent reason to believe the first Christmas happened on September 11, 3 B.C. — and you’ll be entirely surprised the scriptural warrant for this. Learn this and a lot more in the podcast. And check out the many subjects Jimmy covers in his Mysterious World.

God bless.

The Birth and Naming of Saint John the Baptist (1450-1460) by Sano di Pietro