In the Article “Rethinking the ‘Sure
Mercies of David’” Peter Gentry argues that Isaiah 55:3 should be understood as
a subjective genitive instead of an objective genitive. Gentry states, “The
‘sure mercies” are by David rather than for David as in the consensus view”(279)[1] He introduces the topic by
explaining the debate on how the phrase hasde dâwïd should
be interpreted.
Gentry explains that Chaquot and Beuken
both took the subjective interpretation of the phrase. Meanwhile, Williamson
and Walter Kaiser Jr. hold to the objective interpretation, which is the
traditional view of how to interpret Isaiah 55:3. The objective view is
explained in four basic parts by Gentry. First, Williams argues that Isaiah
55:3 in the LXX, conveys the idea of David being an objective genitive (280),
and that the Vulgate and the Targum “preserve the ambiguity of the Hebrew”
(280). Essentially, Williams believes that only the Syriac Peshitta supports
the subjective genitive interpretation. Second, Williams dismisses the
grammatical facts that the majority of occurrences of hesed, while being “bound
to a noun…virtually everywhere the free member or pronominal suffix indicates
the subject or agent of the kindness” (280). Rather, Williams believes that the
readers originally would have understood “every text that precedes Isaiah 55:3
chronologically”. Williams’s fourth and final point is that 2 Samuel 7 is
directly linked to Isaiah 55:3 and that it is “emphasizing the faithfulness of
God” (280).
Gentry responds by affirming Beuken’s and Caquot’s
position about bound phrases being the reason to “interpret David as the agent
or subject” (281). Gentry states, “out of eighteen instances in the plural,
only two are considered objective; and…out of 228 occurrences of the singular
only six can be found that may possibly or probably be read as objective”
(281). Gentry also counters Williams and Kaiser, by explaining that Isaiah 55:3 cannot
be interpreted to mean “‘blessings’ or ‘faithfulness promised’ to David”…but to
mean “actions that fulfill covenant obligations and stipulations.
Meanwhile, Gentry argues that the “waw-consecutive
perfect forms marking future time in the middle of v. 9 clearly marks the break
between past blessings and future promises”(283). He further argues that Samuel 7:11b,12a agree with this future tense idea
because they are promises that have “be fulfilled after David’s death” (283). Gentry
also brings out the fact that God will establish an eternal throne and a father
son relationship. He argues that this covenant is not unconditional but
requires a “faithful son” (283). This is held together by a chiastic structure
that shows that both divine and human faithfulness are part of this covenant
(283). Furthermore, Gentry’s theory is based on this idea of a faithful father
and son.
Gentry bolsters his argument by explaining that in Hebrew
the idea of being a son consisted of holding or possessing “common
characteristics” of the father. Moreover, the ancient near east Canaanite and
Egyptian cultures from 1650 B.C. forward believed that the king possessed common
characteristics of their local deity (284). Thus, kings were believed to be the
sons of God, and the representatives of God to humanity. Gentry also argues
that God, in a way, intended it to be that some would represent God on earth.
He explains that God created man in his image as a mirror to him. After the
fall, Israel inherited that role and also according to Exodus 4:22-23 Israel is
referred to as Yahweh’s son(287). Finally, he reasons that the king is
responsible for being the leader who God holds responsible to be His
representation to the people and other nations(287).
Gentry breaks down 2 Chronicles 6. Based on his
analysis, Gentry basically argues that both Yahweh and the Davidic son both
have to be faithful for this covenant promise to take place, because God uses
the Davidic son to pour out on everyone his covenantal blessing (291). Hence,
he seems to argue for a future Davidic son who will fulfill God’s covenantal
promise. This is inferred when he states, “But the oracle through Nathan makes
clear that Yahweh will only keep them [faithful promises] to and through a
faithful son…[and that] the promises of Yahweh await fulfillment only when the
throne is occupied by an obedient son” (291). Moreover, Gentry states, “that
Yahweh must …provide the obedient son if the covenant is to be maintained”
(291). Gentry also believes that in the Greek (LXX) Isaiah 55:3 and its New Testament
echo in Acts 13:34 is an idiomatic phrase that could convey, if not be directly
translated to something like holy decrees or assurance or kindness of a future Davidic son (298-300).
In conclusion, Gentry believes that this
passage is talking about a future Davidic son. He bases this from Isaiah 55:3b
where the Hebrew phrase is “expressed in the future tense” (292). Moreover,
Isaiah 55:4-5 continues to express this idea about God’s planned future for a
“future David” who will be a “witness to the nations,” a “leader” and a
“commander” (294). This is why Gentry’s argument is that the Hebrew phrase is
subjective and not objective, resulting in a future Davidic son of God who is a
faithful leader of people who are in Him, and those people who are in Him are
witnesses to the nations.
Analysis:
I think Gentry is right on several
points. First, I do think he is right that the phrase hasde dâwïd is subjective and not objective. He makes a sound argument based on the
grammar where most
occurrences of hesed, when being “bound to a noun…virtually everywhere
the free member or pronominal suffix indicates the subject or agent of the
kindness” (280). Moreover of the eighteen times hasde
is used in the plural, only two
are in the objective case, and of the 228
times it is found in the singular case only six are possibly objective
genitives(281).
Second, Gentry’s is correct when he states that it takes both a faithful
God and a faithful Son in order for the covenantal promises to take place. His
argument is strong especially when one realizes that Israel and the church
today are both chosen to represent God here on earth to a fallen humanity.
Moreover, the Davidic Son was responsible for being faithful, otherwise the
blessing would not manifest because it is predicated on the son’s faithfulness.
Gentry make this clear when he references Nathan’s oracle to David about not
being able to build the temple (291).
David was being punished because he was not living faithfully and the
promise of the temple would have to later be fulfilled by his son Solomon ( 1
Chr. 17:4).
Finally, he is right about claiming
that Isaiah 55:3b-5 is talking about a future Davidic Son. This is shown by the
fact that “Isa 55:3b is expressed in the future tense,” and that the next
passage in the perfect tense conveys the idea that God has a planned future for
that son (192). This seems to be referring to the Messiah Jesus Christ who is
both a descendent of David and a faithful son.
Moreover, Jesus is a faithful son who is also a firstborn of many sons
and daughters who bear witness of Him and a relationship with God to the rest
of the world. Finally, Jesus is also on a throne at the right hand of God.
Therefore, while Gentry does not come right out and say it, I think he has
given a very strong defense for there being Messianic prophecies in this
passage that refer to Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment