Joseph  is the beloved son of his father and (although not born first) is essentially made the firstborn.  Jewish tradition held that Joseph was the son that most looked like his father and whose life most resembled Jacob’s. Jacob taught Joseph the mysteries and the learning that he had obtained in the school of Shem and Eber. His (priesthood) garment was dipped in blood. Joseph was sent to be a slave/servant in Egypt (which is associated with Babylon, or the World). He was made second-in-command (vice-regent) in Potiphar’s house, and resisted all temptation. He was put into prison for crimes he did not commit. While in prison, he helped (in a way) liberate the good (butler/cup-bearer) and condemn the wicked (baker). He was raised up out of the prison to become vice-regent of Pharaoh. He is responsible for providing fertility/prosperity to Egypt (the World) during a time of draught, and brings salvation to his brethren. I’m sure there are many other parallels that can be noted.

After we are told of the death of Joseph, the book of Genesis ends and Exodus begins. The Israelites have multiplied and, because the Egyptians (who possibly overthrew the dynasty that favored Joseph and his Semitic family) feel threatened by their numbers, they are made slaves. We are told that they were in this condition of slavery for over 400 years. They looked forward to a new savior who would free them and return them to their promised land.  They desired, in effect, for the Lord to give them a new beginning.

That is exactly how the psalms represent the Exodus events — as a new Creation.  The psalms speak extensively about the Creation of the world, which they describe as Yahweh’s victory over the Chaos Waters — often including great sea monsters (Rahab, Leviathan, etc.). Gen. 1 picks up on this idea when it describes God as “dividing” the waters in the early stages of creation. The psalms are much more graphic and likely represent older versions of the story.  A good example is Psalm 74:12–17:

Yet God my King is from of old, working salvation in the midst of the earth.

13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy might; thou didst break the heads of the dragons on the waters.

14 Thou didst crush the heads of Leviathan, thou didst give him as food for the creatures of the wilderness.

15 Thou didst cleave open springs and brooks; thou didst dry up ever-flowing streams.

16 Thine is the day, thine also the night; thou hast established the luminaries and the sun.

17 Thou hast fixed all the bounds of the earth; thou hast made summer and winter.

Psalm 89 expresses a very similar image of Yahweh’s conflict at the Creation:

9 Thou dost rule the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, thou stillest them.

10 Thou didst crush Rahab like a carcass, thou didst scatter thy enemies with thy mighty arm.

11 The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine; the world and all that is in it, thou hast founded them.

12 The north and the south, thou hast created them; Tabor and Hermon joyously praise thy name.

Compare also Psalms104:5-9; 93:1-4. Yahweh’s victory over the Chaos waters and its forces of darkness merits his being enthroned as king over the world. Sigmund Mowinckel believed that this was the basis of the so-called enthronement (and other related) psalms we have in our Bible. He commented:

Even the special hymns of enthronement bring out very clearly that the fundamental myth of the festival is the myth of creation … Yahweh has become king of the world, because he has created it. And as we have seen, these psalms do not refer to any abstract notion of creation, but to the same mythical and poetical idea which may be glimpsed behind the account of the creation in Gen. 1, but which is much more prominent in other passages of the Old Testament, namely the idea of creation as the victorious struggle of Yahweh against the dragon of the primeval ocean, or against the primeval ocean itself (tehom).¹

Mowinckel then points out that in the Psalms (and elsewhere) the rise, or “election”, of Israel in the Exodus story is equated with the Creation. Egypt becomes the chaotic monster Rahab and the Red Sea becomes the primeval ocean, Tehom (Isa. 30:7; Ex. 15:48). Just as Yahweh divided the primeval waters, he also divides the Red Sea for his people. Through this historical act of “creation”, Yahweh becomes king over Israel (Deut. 33:2, 4f.; 114:1f.; cf. Deut. 32:8 LXX). Yahweh then builds his temple on his holy mountain (Ex. 15:17f.). Yahweh establishes his covenant with his people, which is then renewed at the annual festival (when all these psalms about Creation, the Exodus, and Yahweh’s enthronement in his temple are sung).²

Psalm 77 presents the dividing of the waters at the Exodus in the same type of “conflict” language as the Creation.

13 Thy way, O God, is holy. What god is great like our God? 14 Thou art the God who workest wonders, who hast manifested thy might among the peoples. 15 Thou didst with thy arm redeem thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah 16 When the waters saw thee, O God, when the waters saw thee, they were afraid, yea, the deep trembled. 17 The clouds poured out water; the skies gave forth thunder; thy arrows flashed on every side. 18 The crash of thy thunder was in the whirlwind; thy lightnings lighted up the world; the earth trembled and shook. 19 Thy way was through the sea, thy path through the great waters; yet thy footprints were unseen. 20 Thou didst lead thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.

(Note the cool reference to God’s footprints in v. 19)

Psalm 114 contains very similar language, informing us that “When Israel went forth from Egypt…the sea looked and fled…at the presence of the Lord.”

One of the clearest passages that relates the primeval battle at Creation to the Exodus is Isa. 51:9–10:

Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the dragon? 10 Was it not thou that didst dry up the sea, the waters of the great deep; that didst make the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over?

As Mowinckel noted, in the various manifestations of this motif, Pharaoh/Egypt seems to be cast as Rahab, the Dragon, the agent of Chaos in opposing Yahweh’s salvific works (liberating Israel). We also note that the plagues sent against Egypt line up quite well with the days of Creation — i.e., there are the plagues that have to do with water, with land, with the air, with darkness,  and with destruction of life (instead of creation). In the end, the waters are parted so that dry land appears, but then close down again to crush the Egyptians (Rahab). The Israelites (Adam and Eve) are placed in the Promised Land (eventually).

Last, but certainly not least, we should mention the role of Moses as Yahweh, dividing the waters. Exodus 7:1 alludes to this when God declares to Moses: “See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.” Moses was placed in the position of Yahweh in this story. Philo, at the turn of the era, understood this very literally and wrote that Moses “was named God and king of the entire nation.”³ At Qumran, 4Q374 2 ii relates Exo. 7:1 to the story of Moses’ transfiguration after seeing God on Sinai. It seems to be suggesting that Moses’ resultant shining face was evidence of his deification. Crispin Fletcher-Louis suggests that Moses, with his shining face, is fulfilling the priestly blessing of Aaron expressed in Num. 6:25 — “The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee.” Moses’ face, Fletcher-Louis argues, is to the Israelites as if it were the Lord’s face shining upon them.⁴  In the Exodus story, Moses speaks to Pharaoh through Aaron (his prophet). Moses performs great wonders, including the parting of the Red Sea, just as Yahweh parted the great waters at Creation.

This Creation story is fundamental to the oldest sections of the Hebrew Bible and can be seen repeated over and over — in the Flood story, the Exodus, the Psalms, Isaiah, Job, many of the minor prophets, and elsewhere. Keep that in mind and you will find many fun and insightful parallels that will help you understand your reading better. God’s work of Creation is the first work of Salvation and that theme is repeated over and over again in the history of Israel.

1. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, Vol. 1, 143
2. See Ibid., 154ff.
3. Philo, Life of Moses 1:158
4. Crispin Fletcher-Louis, “Some Reflections on Angelomorphic Humanity Texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Dead Sea Discoveries, vol. 7, no. 3 (2000), 298

While the purpose of this post is not to give a fully history, or even a summary, of their view, I wanted to at least highlight the work of Danish scholar Aage Bentzen on this topic. Essentially, this post will contain a few passages from his book King and Messiah, first translated into English in 1955 by The Lutterworth Press.

In this thin volume, Bentzen does a stellar job of summarizing the work of the great scholars before him and presents an overview of the arguments surrounding the meaning of the so-called “ascension,” ”enthronement,” and “royal” psalms that had been identified.  From these psalms, and by comparison with their knowledge of ancient Near Eastern rituals (based on Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and then newly discovered Canaanite texts), scholars believed they could reconstruct a hypothetical Israelite ritual that was central to First Temple religion.  The ritual that emerged was seen as “The Festival of Yahweh’s Ascension to his Throne on New Year’s Day,” a “ritual drama” that could be seen through a trained reading of these psalms. This ritual had the Creation of the world as its central theme–an event that included Yahweh’s fight against the powers of Chaos (Sea, Flood, Dragon, Rahab), his victory, and subsequent creation of the world, along with his enthronement in his new temple. This event was re-created in the Israelite New Year festival, where the Israelite King represented Yahweh in the ritual drama.

I add to this very brief summary some of Bentzen’s comments on this topic, starting in Chapter 2 of his book. 

Looking at Psalm 2, he explains:

The…interpretation of the psalm…suggests that it is an oracle on the day of the king’s ascension to his throne…The presupposition is that the Day of the Ascension to the Throne is no common day of the year. The kings of Babylon and Assyria do not ascend the throne de jure, until the New Year’s Day following the death of their predecessor; and in Egypt the coronation of the king takes place in connection with the beginning of the rule of the gods.¹

The enthronement of a king is always a repetition of a primeval act. It is a repetition of the enthronement of the first king in the days of the beginning, the primeval age. The first king is the patriarch of the Royal House, identical with the patriarch of mankind. Hammurabi says in the introduction to his great collection of Babylonian Laws that he got his “name” from teh great Creators Anu and Enlil, when they created the World; i.e. that he was elected king at the creation² . The same is said in Israel of the Messiah in Micah 5:1, where his epiphany is compared with the sunrise…And so we get a significant and powerful pun between the two meanings of the word mikkedem: “His uprising is from the East”, the latter word (mikkedem) being interpreted in its other sense through mime ‘olam, “from the Days of Old”, the beginning of time. The Messianic poem in Micah 5, like the parallesl in Isaiah 9 and 11, is a typical Royal Psalm. This conception of the primeval election and birth of the king is also preserved in the ancient versions of Psalm 110:3 (cf. LXX, Syr. and also Vulg.) Probably this same idea is behind the name of the Messiah in Isaiah 9:5, when he is called not only “God Almighty”, but also ‘abi-’ad, “Father from Eternity”, i.e. “primeval patriarch”. 

The  king, then, is Primeval Man. The first man of Genesis 1:26–28 is desribed as the first ruler of the world. In the first Creation Story, the “gospel” of the New Year, we hear the blessing spoken by God at the enthonement of the first Royal Couple of the world. Man is to “rule” over all living creatures. Man and Woman, like the Babyloian kings, are “images of God”, i.e. the Royal Couple is Divine, as in the famous apostrophe to the king in the oracle for the Royal wedding (Psalm 45:7). The same idea is developed in Psalm 8, in the description of the “Son of Man”, who is “little lower than God”, “nearly a God”. This “Son of Man”, according to the evident dependence of the psalm on the ideas behind the first chapter of Genesis, is the First Man and the First King…[I]n the Creation story of Genesis 2:4ff…we are told that the First Man gave the animals their names and that none of them was his equal…the Israelite prince in Psalm 110 is enthroned at the right hand of God, on Zion, his holy mountain (Psalm 2)…He has enthroned his King in the Sanctuary of Jerusalem, which is also from the Days of Old (cf. e.g. Jeremiah 17:12). This king and saviour, who (like all ancient kings) is also his prophet, now pronounces the will of God…

The king, as in Mesopotamia, is Son of God by adoption…we have no right at all to doubt that in principle the king of Israel was considered an ‘elohim…But the king is thought of as the divine-human bearer of salvation, the guarantor of the victory of God. He is not so absolutely a god as in Egypt. 

It is certainly singificant, too, that in Psalm 2 the enemies asre described as “terrestrial” (“kings of the earth”, v. 2). These earthly beings are emphatically confronted with “Him that sits in the heavens” and we find the king on his side through the divine act of adoption. Through the ceremony of anointing, and through the enthronement mentioned in v. 6, he has been made “celestial”. He is now, through God’s decree, “a new creature”, made unconquerable by his holy strength.

All this is made clear to the people in the Song of the King, in which he proclaims his election on the enthronement festival. He has received the divine oracle…which he now proclaims to the people. The Psalm is phenomenologically a parallel and type of the Christmas Gospel: The Saviour has been born! Isaiah 9:1–6 belongs to the same literary type. This is, moreover, significant not only for religious phenomenology, but also for Christian theology.³

To be continued…I want to share next Bentzen’s presentation of what the New Year enthronement ritual actually entailed, including enthronement, investiture, and ordination as priest. I believe this is important for LDS, as it is key to understanding the Old Testament, the New Testament, including early Christian understanding of Jesus as Messiah (and simultaneously prophet, priest and king), and also the LDS Temple rituals.

1. King and Messiah, 16
2. my note: see Abr. 3:23
3. King and Messiah, pp. 17-20

“The Psalms were the hymn book of the temple, and in them we glimpse something of the ancient liturgy” (M. Barker, Temple Themes in Christian Worship, p. 137).

If this is truly the case, then a careful study of the Psalms should reveal important insights regarding the nature of temple worship in ancient Israel. Barker is not alone in her opinion regarding the close relationship between the Psalms and the temple. Due to the generosity of a dear friend, I have recently had the opportunity to look over Sigmund Mowinckel’s The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (2 vols., trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas, New York: Abingdon,1962) and Aubrey R. Johnson’s Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel (Cardiff: Univ. of Wales Press, 1967). Both of these texts support Barker’s assertion that many, if not most, of the psalms referred to, or were used in, temple worship. I’m sure support for this idea could be found in many more works, but I happened to be blessed to have my hands on a copy of these two, which related directly to the topic of this post.

Mowinckel: The Relationship between the Psalmists and the Temple

While I will not attempt an in-depth overview of all that these two authors say on the topic, I want to give at least a taste of what their research finds. Mowinckel concludes that most of the psalms were written by temple singers–temple personnel who lived on the temple grounds and composed (often prophetic) hymns for use in temple rituals and for praising Yahweh (see vol. II, pp. 85-90). In discussing the connection between the psalms and the temple, Mowinckel reasons:

The original cultic psalmography obviously developed at the temples.This is the case everywhere. So also with the psalmography of Israel…This conclusion as it applies to psalmography in general and to the origin of the psalm types is generally acknowledged at the present time (p. 85).

As we have seen, the psalmists time and time again speak of their internal and external relations with the Temple and its orderings and the service there. They are living in the Temple, they are thinking and expressing themselves in the notions of Temple and cult (p. 89).

Again and again they disclose their knowledge of the cultic life that went on at the Temple, and not infrequently they allude directly to the different ritual functions taking place there.

Broadly speaking the psalms came into being at the Temple…they were composed for use at the regularly or irregularly recurring cultic functions and situations there, to be recited by or on behalf of persons of such standing that psalms were to be sung for them (p. 90).

Johnson: The Psalms, the King, and Temple Ritual 

Johnson’s approach to the psalms is quite similar to Mowinckel’s (see footnote on p. 61)–also relating them to the liturgy/ritual of the Temple (see e.g. p. 60). Johnson, in Sacral Kingship, is concerned with how the psalms played an important role in temple ceremonies and festivals that celebrated the kingship of Yahweh. She notes that there are many liturgical works among the Psalms “which lay stress upon the fact that Yahweh is King, and, what is more, that He is enthroned as King in virtue of His control over the great cosmic sea and His rule over the more stable world of heaven and earth, of which He is the Creator” (p. 60).

Johnson presents an incredibly interesting reconstruction of what some of these rituals may have entailed. As indicated by the title of the book, the main thrust of its hypothesis is that the Davidic king was considered to be the anointed high priest (messiah) and that he led the temple rituals and processions, representing/acting in the place of Yahweh himself (pp. 13-14). The ritual enthronement of the earthly king represented the re-enthronement of the heavenly King.

Psalm 132, for example, according to Johnson, appears to have as its original Sitz im Leben (life situation) a dramatic commemoration or liturgical re-enactment of the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem and the founding of the “everlasting covenant” of Yahweh with the House of David (pp. 19-20).

Mowinckel had seen Pss 90-106, among others, as a liturgical collection to be used in the Autumn, or New Year, Festival, which was the most important of ancient Israelite festivals (Johnson, pp. 54-57).  According to Johnson, the liturgy of this festival included:

a) the celebration of Yahweh’s original triumph, as leader of the forces of light, over the forces of darkness as represented by the monstrous chaos of waters or primeval ocean;

b) His subjection of this cosmic sea and His enthronement as King in the assembly of the gods; and

c) the further demonstration of His might and power in the creation of the habitable world (p. 101).  

These accomplishments of Yahweh are re-enacted annually in the form of a ritual drama. Johnson translates Psalm 48:9 as “O God, we have pictured Thy devotion in the midst of Thy Temple.” The human participants re-enact a ”picture” of the real acts of Yahweh.

Psalms 29, 95, and 99 depict the enthronement of the victorious Yahweh on his Throne, which was likely represented by the ritualized enthronement of the Davidic king.

Psalm 95 depicts the temple officiator calling the assembly to worship. The officiator becomes the representative of Yahweh. Johnson explains:

 “Then the personality of the speaker (possibly a cultic prophet [or the king himself]) gives way, as it were, to that of the Godhead; so that, acting as an extension of the divine Personality, he proceeds to address his hearers as Yahweh Himself” (pp. 68-69). 

Psalm 118 depicts another procession, where the king/messiah, the earthly representative of Yahweh, takes the place of the Ark. This ritual includes the king’s ritualized  humiliation at the hands of enemies, his symbolic death and resurrection, and also his washing, anointing, and investiture in royal robes.[1] The king is raised up and re-enthroned as God’s vice-regent (Ps 2). God then sets the king on his Holy Hill (the Temple), and the king declares the decree that he received from Yahweh: “Thou art my son, this day I have begotten thee.”

Ps 110 deals with the rebirth of the king. This takes place after his dramatized deliverance by God from the Underworld, apparently at the spring of Gihon, “as the morning appeareth” (v. 3). He has been reborn and raised up (resurrected), both to the throne and also to the priesthood of Melchizedek.

Much more could be said about both Mowinckel and Johnson’s superb analyses of the Psalms and their relation to the Holy Temple. Suffice it to say that there is much more about the temple that could be gleaned from the Psalms, and we Latter-day Saints are in a great position to be able to do so.

Barker on the Psalms and the Vision of Yahweh in the Temple

After all that, I want to come back to Barker and her research in Temple Themes on how the Psalms depict God in the temple. She indicates that the Psalms envisaged the Lord as dwelling in Zion (Ps 9:11) on his holy hill–temple–(Ps 43:3) [2].  The Lord’s glory could be seen shining from the temple (Psalms 80:1; 94:1-2). Those who visited the temple expected to see the Lord there (Ps 17:3,15).  Barker also seems to suggest that the psalms (which were put to music) were used to invoke the presence of the Lord (p. 142). She notes that the word “hallelu-jah” is found at the beginning or end of many psalms. Hallelujah is usually taken to mean “praise the Lord,” but the Hebrew root hll can also refer to “shining.” Barker then reasons that perhaps the people, when saying ‘hallelujah,” were invoking the brilliant presence of the Lord in the temple (p. 142).  This is a very interesting idea and probably relates to the reason we play prelude hymns in our chapels (temple chapels included)–we are “invoking” the Spirit of the Lord to be present.

Again, I was very pleased to find that so much could be learned about the temple from the Psalms. I look forward to learning much more in the future–and I’ll be sure to tell you about it. Please share your insights with me, as well. 

Notes

[1] See also Baruch Halpern, The Constitution of the Monarchy in Israel (Ann Arbor: Scholars Press, 1981), 99.

[2] For more on the Lord dwelling in His temple, see Psalms 84:1, 7; 26:8; 11:4; 80:1; 99:1; Isa 6:1; 12:6; Jer 8:19.