STU\DIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

A series of monogrQphs designed to provide clergy and laymen withthe best work in bibheal scholarship both in this country and abroad.

AiMtlJrJ' EditD""

C. F. D. MauLI!,L:r& Marg....t Proftmr ojDhiinilJ inlh, Unhlmiryo/C.",bridgtJAMBS B....~, ProfmOT ofOld r"kJmellt Liltrat"", alii! Tb«J!fJll.

Pri""fOn Ybeologi<al S,minaryPzrE~ ACKROYD, S."""I noDidJan Proj",or o/OU T"t",,""f Studirr,

Uninrdty ofLo"""nFLOYD V~ FILSON j Proftuor Gf f\"TtaJ TuJam6l1t IJJ;raJnN and HiFlory,

MCCD"""" TIHolo!J<a1 S""i""'J, CbicagoG. ERNE'lT Wp"c;m, Pro/trior ojOld TfSfammf UhforJ' Dill! Th,.logy

at HaT;;arJ UnitJlniry

. ".'-:1,

STUDIES IN BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

STUDIES INDEUTERONOMY

GERHARD VON RAD

TriJlISIaJld iD'DAVID STALKER

-;:rLL - q \~. ,

ftI"lIP no••'•""'11'1'1 'J'." t':l·'

1"\,,,\IIUll'I

SCM PRESS LTDBLOOMSBURY STRBBT LONDON

CJ~oJ3)

l

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE DEUTERONOMISTIC THEOLOGYOF HISTORY IN

THE BOOKS OF KINGS

A SHORT time ago a detailed study of the Dcuteronomistichistories appeared in Noth~s Oberlieferungsg~!CkichtJkb8Studim: it closed what was It grievous and mortifying gapin ou~ writing on the Old Testament.1 Noth subjected theliterary question to a fresh revision, but whatJu.s nowbecome abundpltly and concl,;,sivelY,clear is thatJthis ~re~t

work is not the outcome of a literary process of reoactton :it merits without qualification the rare and exalted title ofhistorical writing. On the one hand, all kinds of olderhistorical material have been gathered together and com­bined into a thematic unity by means of a comprehensiveframework. On the other, tl1e choice ofmaterial is obviouslyrestricted, and for all that lies beyond the theology ofhistory which is to be demonstrated, the reader is contit;uallydirected to the sources. This is the exercise ofthe functlon ofthe historian in tl1e strictest sense of the word. It is cer­tainly historical writing claiming to be very distinctiv~ inkind-it has actually a unique theological stamp upon It­and that explains Why it was misconceived in the periodwhich kept believing that it had to measure it only by thepositivistideal ofan 'exact writing of history'. It is 0:UYthisspecific theological claim which the work makes that 1S to bediscussed here. The literary technique of the Deuterono­mist-the way in which he welds together into unity, withtl1e help of a comprehensive framework. all kinds of sourcesfor a king's reign and, apart from that, refrains from anycontribution of his own except occasional parentheticalobservations and comments-that literary technique must

'M. Noth: (JberJiifmmgsguthithtlit!H Sflirlien. Schriften tUr K~lligI'

~Irger Gd. Gmll., 18. Jahr, Geisftm4sI. KJoIIl. Hift~. J943.

74

The DmterOl1omistio Tbe%fl oj History

here be taken for granted as known.' We call these historiesDeuteronomlstic because they take as normative for theirjudgement of the past certain standards laid -down eitherexclusively or chiefly in Deuteronomy.2

We know that through Deuteronomy the question of thepure Jahweh cult in Jerusalem, as against all the Canaanitecults of the high places, became (1!'tim!w stantis et cadentisecclesiae. It is by this criterion, which had become absolutelyobligatory for his own time, that the Deuteronomist nowmeasures the past; and it is well known that, in the light ofit, aU the sovereigns of the kingdom of Israel are judgednegatively, because they 'all walked in the sins of Jeroboam,the son of Nebat'. Of the sovereigns of the kingdom ofJudah, however, live receive qualified approval, and two(Hezekiah and Josiah) actually unrestricted approval. Tothe secular historian such a method of judgement willappear unjust and cmde. As a matter of fact, the Deuter­onomist makes absolutely no claim to appraise the kings at agiven moment in relation to the particular historical ~itu­

adon confronting them.8 The judgement passed on the Icingsis not arrived at on the basis of a balanced reckoning of anumber ofpros and cons, by means of an average, as it were.of their achievements and their sins of omission. It is inkeeping with this work's peculiar theological claim, which

1 The present investigation is restricted in principle to the Deuter­onomistic parts of the great historical oomplex. We can dispense withan exact and detailed delimitation of the Deuteronomistic frameworkand the other Deuteronornlstic additions because, in all that is essential,the O.T. Introductions are in agreement about the literary division ofthese parts.

• The justification for eonfi~g our .study to the Books of ~ings. isthat in every respect a new seetlon begrns for the Deuteranom,st w,thSolomon, and it is only then that the histories come to their realsubject.

S How completely different is the way in which the author of thehistory of the succession of David is able to let the reader see theimport of the poli!ica1 and human c0t1.lplications in which ~he king wasinvolved as a chaln of sombre necess1ty r von Rad: Arc!Jw flit' KnltIIr­gtsthkhk, 1944, pp. H fr.

75

Sl1idies in Deulcronomy

is that it presumes to know the final judgement of God, thatso much more is said about the kings in the sense of'either-or' than in the sense of 'and-and'. It follows thatthe Deuteronomist is not concerned with the various goodand evil actions, but with the one fundamental decision onwhich he was convinced judgement and salvation finallydepended. In this respect the Deuteronomistic historiesdefinitely allow the kings the moment of a free decision foror against Jahweh, while the so-called claBsical histories inIsrael had portrayed men really more as the passive objectsof God's designs in history.

The question whether objective justice waS done to thesekings, in that they were measured against a norm which didnot in fact apply in their time, is possibly a specificallymodem one. None the less, the question docs present itselfhere in this form: was the standard applied by the Deuter­onomist, viz. the insistence on centralised worship, some­thing absolutely new in Israel? Admittedly it was 'unknown'in the monarchical period, but we did see that Deuteronomydocs not conceive ofitselfas something new, and it is, more­over, in fact only a large-scale up-to-date readaptation of themost varied standards that did apply in the past. And thehistory of the cult shows us that in its early period, theperiod of the old amphictyony, Israel was in fact consciousto a great extent of her necessary conformity to this norm.The Deuteronomistic standard of judgement thus appearsin a somewhat different light from that in which we pre­viously believed it necessary to view it. With all that,one may safely reckon that possibly at all periods ofhistory, the past, viewed in the light of criteria which havebecome obligatory for a later age, has always to a certainextent been put in the wrong subjectively, but that never­theless from that time onwards the objective right andnecessity of such judgements cannot be doubted.

The great events in the shadow of which the Deuter­cnomist wrote were the catastrophes of 72.1 and 586,

76

The D"I/tronomistk Theology of History .

happenings which. in his eyes had undoubted theologicalsignificance; they expressed Jahweh's rejection of bothkingdoms; ever since, saving history with Israel had beenat a standstill. This is the clue to the understanding of theDeuteronomist: he is 'Writing at a time when there wasdistress and perplexity because no saving history was takingplace. It is possible to connect the hcJlth1e which have oftenbeen noticed in these histories with this quite unprecedentedsituation. In the circumstances, the correct standards formany of the facts of the past may actually no longer havebeen at the Deuteronomist's disposal. But of course theDeuteronomist's sole concern is a theological interpretationof the catastrophes which befell the two kingdoms. Con­sequently, he examined past history page by page with thatin view, and the result was quite unambiguous: the faultwas not Jahweh's; but for generations Israel had beenpiling up an ever-increasing burden of guilt and faithless­ness, so that in the end Jahweh had had to reject his people.The demand for centralised worship is certainly not theonlyone which the Deuteronomist,following Deuteronomy,makes of the kings; he asks if the kings trusted Jahweh(n~¥ 2. Kings 18.1), he asks if they were 'perfect' withJahweh (;-rl;-r~ C~ C,?~ I Kings 11.4; IH, 14). Of course itis predominantly cultic sins which he mentions.1 He is veryoften content with the awkwardly redundant statement thata king had not followed the 'ordinances, commandmentsand statutes of ]ahweh'. A very decided f1a~ging of de­scriptive power is noticeable here. What the"Deuteronomistmeans is obviously that the king in question and his periodhad not been able to satisfy the whole of the divine demandfor obedience. It is therefore the question concerningcomplete obedience that the Deuteronomist puts to thekings.

1 Especially in the great epilogue to the fall of the lciogdom of18l'acl in 4 Kings '7·7 if.

77

Sludi&s i/1 Deutero/1tJmy

Thi~ question of obedience is the first fundamental ele­ment in the Deuteronomistic presentation of the history.But alongside this subjective co-efficient, and continuallycorresponding to it, there now appears in Israel's historyanother, an objective one. We meet it when we enquireabout the manner of the divine intervention in history.The Deuteronomist's conception is manifest!y this: Jahwehrevealed his commandments to Israel; in case ofdisobediencehe threatened her with severe punishment, with the judge­ment of total destruction, in fact. That had now actuallytaken place. Jahweh's words had been 'fulfilled' in history-they had not 'failed', as the Deuteronomist is also fond ofsaying.l There thus exists, the Deuteronomist means, aninter-relationship between the words of Jahweh and historyin the sense that Jahweh's word, ouce uttered, reaches itsgoal under all circumstances in history by virtue of thepower inherent in it.' This conception can be reconstructedvery clearly from the Deuteronomist's work. We refer tothat system of prophetic predictions and enctly notedfulfilments which runs through the Deuteronomist's work.With it we may speak of a theological.chump, no less thanin the case of the 'framework schemel, even if it is usedmore freely and with greater elasticity, corresponding tothe nature of the subject.

(I) Prop/Jecy:Jahweh establishes the kingdom of David at the handof Nathan. His son will build a house fOf Jahweh.2 Sam. 7.];.

Fuljilmmt:l Kings 8.20: 'Jahweh hath fulfilled the word that hespake.' Solomon has ascended the throne and builtthe temple.

1 Josh. 21.4j; "P4;] Kings 8.)6; z Kings 10.10.

'Dent. P.47: Jahweh's word ls not 'vain' (j?j).

(78\_~~)

Thu DtNterofll)miJlk Tbeqlogy oj Hlilory

(2) Prqpbery:1 Kings 11.29 if: Ahijah the ShlIonite: ten tribes willbe taken from Solomon's kingdom, because he hasforsaken Jahweh, worshipped other gods and notwalked in Jahweh's ways.Fulfilment:1 Kings u.ljb: Rehoboam rends the kingdom, bring­ing on the catastrophe: 'but the cause was from Jahwehto establish (O'P'iJ) the word which he spake by Ahijah

the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.'

(;) Prophecy:1 Kings I; : An unknown prophet: At Bethel a descen­dant of David-Josiah-will slay the priests of thehigh places on the altar, and bum men's bones upon it.Fulfilment:2 Kings 2;.16-i8: Josiah pollutes the altar at Bethel byburning men's bones upon it 'according to the wordofJahweh which the man of God had proclaimed ... '.

(4) Prophecy:1 Kings 14.6 if: Ahijah the ShlIonite: Jeroboam, whomJahweh made prince over Israel, has done evil aboveall that were before him. Therefore Jeroboam's king­dom will be rooted up, 'as a man taketh away dung,till it be all gone'.FU/jiffllent;I Kings 15.29: The usurper Baasha exterminates thehouse of Jeroboam 'according to th.e word of Jahwehwhich he had spoken by his servant Ahijah theShilonite ... '. .

(y) Propheo:I Kings 16.1 if: Jehu ben Hanam: Baasha, raised byJahweh to be prince over Israel, has walked in the waysof Jeroboam and made Israel to sin, therefore it willbefall him in his house as befell the house of Jeroboam.

79

SID.

Stflfiiu in V",terOf/oH(J

Fulfilment:I Kings 16.11: 'Thus did Zimri destroy all the houseof Baasha, according to the word of Jahweh which hehad spoken to Baasha by the prophet Jehu.'

(6) Prophecy:J.08h. 6.2.6: 'Whoso rebuildeth Jericho, let the founda­tIOn stone cost him his first-born, and the setting upof the gates his youngest.'

FIIIft/ment:I,Kings 16.;4: Hiel rebuilds Jericho: 'At the cost ofhis first-born Abiram did he lay the foundation and atthe cos.t of his youngest Segub did he set up th~ gates,ac~rding to the word of Jahweh which he had spokenby Joshua the son of Nun:

(7) Prophecy:I Kings 2.2.l7: Micaiah ben IrnJah: brael will be scat­tered and without shepherds; let every man return tohis house in peace.

Fmfilm61lt:I Kings 2.Z'3~ f: (without being specially pointed outby the Deuteronomist) Ahab succumbs to his wound.Every man to his house I

(8) Propbecy:I Kings 2.U1 f: Elijah's prophecy of doom againstAhab and hh house. .

Ftdfilment:] Kings 2.1.2.7-29: Because Ahab humbled himself atthe word of judgement, it will only overtake his son.(Cp. 2. Kings 9.7 f.)

(9) Prophecy:1. Kings 1.6: Elijah: Ahaziah ofJudah will not recover'he must die. '

80

The DeuterofJomiilk ThroloO of History

Fulfilment:2. Kings 1.17: Ahaziah died 'according·to the word ofJahweh that Elijah had spoken'.

(10) Prophecy:2. Kings 1.1.10 If: Unknown prophets: Because of thesins of Manasseh evil will come upon Jerusalem, 'suchthat whoso hcareth of it, both his ears shall tingle'.

Fulfilment:2. Kings 1.4.1.: Jahweh summons the Chaldeans, etc.,against Judah, 'according to the word of Jahweh whichhe had spoken by his servants the prophets'. 2 Kings23.2.6 is also important: in spite of Josiah's reformJahweh does not leave off his great wrath. Because ofManasseh's provocations, Jahweh had resolved todestroy Judah as well.

(n) Prophecy:2 Kings 22. I ~ If: Huldah: Josiah will be gathered tohis fathers and not see the evil that comes uponJerusalem.

Fulft/ment:2. Kings 2.3.3°; The body of Josiah, who had fallen atMegiddo, is brought to Jerusalem and buried there.

Of course, this conspectus can only give a rough indi­cation of the theological structure of the Deuteronomistichistorical work within the Books of Kings. In actual fact,in this connection the Deuteronomist demands the keenestattentiveness on the part of his readers: they are to discern )this all-prevailing correspondence between the divine wordspoken by prophets and the historical events even in~those cases where notice is not expressly drawn to it. (It j'was to illustrate it that the Deuteronomist took in theElijah and the Isaiah stories as we1I.)l J;n. general we may

1 Whether. we can ipeak of aa. accoWlt of the prophet Ahijah theShilowte as a 'well-rounded unit' and put it on the same plane as the

lsi')\..../'

SI"dit.r in DCJller()tJomy

take. ~t as .axiomatic that the Deuteronomist has givenexplicIt notices of a fulfi1ment mostly in those cases wherethe matter was not so directly obvious to the readerwhile he could dispense with them at any point where th~history spoke for itself. On the other hand we have tobear in mind that on the literary side the Deu'teronOmist isworking almost exclusively with traditional material which

(( in. its tum does not now everywhere fit in quite smoothly, wlth the peute~onomist~s theological principles. In many

respects It has ItS own lmport and then again cannot beeasily adapted to the Deuteronomistic !fhema. We tend tooverestimate the freedom which antiquity used with tra­ditional material.

Taken individually, these prophecies raise a considerablenumber of questions. There need be no doubt that, as faras concems source, these citations go back in most cases togenuineP!QEb~ words. That is evidenced by the pictorialphraseology, which is quite undeuteronomic, and thejJarallefismm membroTHm in which to some extent theseoracles are still preserved.1 There cannot, however, havebeen a very large store of such sources accessible to ourauthor, else he would not have cited three times-andindeed against three different kings-the words 'him thatdieth ... in the city shall the dogs eat, and him that diethin the field shall the fowls of the air eat.'ll As to who this~euteronomistic' ~rophet was, the material at our disposalIS altogether too slight to allow conclusions to be drawn.One would be reluctant to set the prophecy ofan Ahijah or

accounts of Elij~. BUsha and Isaiah, as Noth does (op, fil., p. xu),seems very questionable to me. At leasl the literary question is then~mplctelydi1fetent, for, contrary to what we find in the other acCOunts1ll the aCCOUtlt of Abijah the DeuleronOallsl's band bas had the decisiv~part. Ahijah's ptophecy now stands entirely within the context of thesp~cilically Deuteronomi~tie question as to Jahweh's plans with theheIrs to the thtone and kingdom of David,

1 e.f:;.in 1 Kings 14.10, IS; 16.4; 2 Kings 21.1'.S 1 K.ings 14.II; 16,4; 21.24.

h

The Deutmmomistit Theology oj History

a Jehu ben Hanani or the unknown prophet of z f9~gs

ZI 10 ff on the same plane as that of the so-called wrItingpr~phets. That prophecy seems to be entite~y lacking in thewider conceptions of history. The focus 15 solely on thenational history of Israel, and there it speaks of Jahwehimmanent in history, acting in judgement or m~rcy..N?nethe less, it could well be that prophecy of a, f~r1y dis~mct

stamp is discernible behind this body of pre~ct,lOnoutlinedin rigid schematic form. The Deuterono~st s own con­ception of the main element in the prophe~c office ~omes

to expression in 2 Kings 17,13: ~ahweh gives tesbrnony(i'37ij) through it, in virtue of which the prophets call forrepentance and the keeping of the com;nandments.

This Deuteronornistic theology of histOry, the theologyof the word finding certain fulfilment in history, an~ onthat account the creative word in history, may be descr1be~

in respect of its origin, as~~<:rtaining to ol~!<phecy. It ISinteresting now to observe how fund~ental the D,euteron- )ornist makes this presupposition of his that the hIStory ofthe two kingdoms is simply the will of Jah:w~h and, the ,word ofJahweh actualised in history. As such,lt IS meafl;11lg­ful' thus the course of events in both the kmgdoms IS tobe "read: looking backwards. The wa~ in which theDeuteronornist uses the actual course of,hlstory as a .theo­logical criterion appears in hi~ pn;sentauon of th~ historyof the two kingdoms from qwte different srandpomts.

The doom of the northern kingdom is really sealedwith the first sin, the apostacy of Je:oboam V Thestereotyped observation about the real gwlt of all the otherkings is that they walked in the sin of J.eroboam. Ho:ve~er,

the Deuteronomist had to reckon wlth the complicationthat Jahweh had in actual fact spared 0is kin~dom .foranother two centuries. This enigma, which was m realIty,

1 1 Kings 14. l6: 'Uahweb) shall give Israel up because of .~e simwhich Jeroboam committed and which he led Israel to COmm1t.

8J

SfNdies in Dmfmnomy

ofcourse,no more than a postponement ofpunishment,findsits explanation in ]ahweh's grace, through which relativegood, even in kings who were rejected, was not passed Overuncredited. Ahab humbled himself at the word of judge­ment, and so the judgement upon his house was not fulfilledin his own lifetime (x Kings :1.1.29). Jehu had, in spite ofhis rejection, done some things which were well-pleasingto ]ahweh, and therefore his children Ullto the fourthgeneration were to sit upon the throne of Israel (2. Kings10·3°; Xj.I2.). During a time of severe oppression at thehands of the Syrians, Jehoahaz had implored ]ahweh'shelp, and Jahweh had thereupon held out his hand in graceover the sinful kingdom (2 Kings I.P3; 14.2.6). But thenthe tragic end did come, and in his great epilogue in 2. Kings]7·7 ff the Deuteronomist shows how transgression of]ahweh's commandments had brought judgement in itstrain. The sources-theological sources, that is-which theDeuteronomist uses to build up his picture are perfectlyplain: he had given to him ]ahweh's will as shown in the

'ccimmandments in Deuteronomy, and the actual course ofthe history of the northern kingdom, as Jahweh's wordwhich is creative of history, had shaped it.

With the history of the kingdom of Judah the position isdifferent. That history, too, appears in the first instance asa story of human disobedience, with the cloud of God'sjudgement gathering ever thicker. How in this case is thedivine forbearance, the much more extended span of divinepatience, to be explained? This leads us to mention anelement in the Deuteronomist's theology of history whichwe have so far left out of consideration.

Jahweh says to Solomon in 1 Kings It. I; : <•.. butI willnot rend away all the kingdom; one tribe will I leave to thyson, for David my servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake,which I have chosen.'

Ahijah the Shilonite says to Jeroboam in 1 Kings II.;2:

, ... but the one tribe shall remain to him for David my

84

The DuJferollomiJtic Theology of History

servant's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, which I havechosen.' hi

11.36: ' ..' . but one tri~e _will I le~ve to s son,that a light may always (O'''~)J 'f) remam before me formy servant DavId (":I:t~ ''17 .,'~) in Jerusalem, the dtywhich I have chosen, to let m~ name ?well t~ere.' ,

Of Abljam the Deuteron01l11st says in 1 Kings 15.4: ,,'but for David's sake Jahweh left him a light in )e;nsalem,in that he set up his son and let Jerusalem remau:.

Of Jehoram the Deuteronomist says in z Kings 8.19:, ... but Jahweh would not destroy lU~ fot his se~ant

David's sake, as he had promised to glve him always a light(for his children).' .

By the light which )ahweh promised to DaVId theDeuteronomist means, of course, what is~a;id.in the Nathanprophecy in z Sam. 7, where Jahweh leglt1mJSeS and gua.r­antees the Davidic dynasty.l It i~ intere~~ng ~o see hOW.lOthe Deuteronomist this prophenc tradition IS fused wlththe Deuteronomic theology of the cult-place and the, name;that is how two traditional elements of completely diffe~t

prove~ance are here united into a whole (cp. espeC!~y] Kings Il.;6). But the Deuteronomist ?oes not ~enuonthis deuteronomised Nathan prophecy slt?Ply to ~1Ve thereason for Jahweh's patient forbearance Wlth t~e kingdo1')1of Judah. This traditional element has an essentially greaterpart to play. ,. eh

David says to Solomon 10 r Kings z:4: May J~w

establish the word: ' ... there shall not fall a man to Slt onthe throne of Israel.' .

Solomon says in his prayer at the consecraUon of thetemple in 1 Kings B.zo: <Now hath Jahweh fulfilled theword that he spake; for I am risen up in the room of myfather and have set myselfon the throne ofIsrael, as Jahweh

1 Pre.deuteronornic referencell for this expression are 1 Sam. u ,17;Ps. IF, 17 (cp. 1 Sam. I,n).

8j

StHmO! in DIIPeronomy

promised, and have built the house for the name ofJahweb,the God ofIsrae1:

On the same occasion in r Kings 8.2.j: 'And now,Jahweh,thou God of Israel, keep with thy servant David thepromise thou gavest him: there shall never fail thee a manto sit before me on the throne of Israel:

]ahweh says to Solomon in I Kings 9.j: ' ... so will Ilet the throne of thy kingdom remain upon Israel for ever,as I promised thy father David: there shall never fail theea man upon the throne of Israel.' ,

These passages, like the others quoted above, all belong,from the point of view of literary criticism, to the specialtheological schema within and around which the Deuter­onomist built his work, and therefore have a specialsignificance for the ends he had in view. They exhibit atraditional element which is whollyundeuteronomlc,namely,a cycle of definite Messianic conceptions.

This leads us at once to ask how the picture of David isbuilt up in particular. The actual history of David isnoticeably free from Deuteronomistic additions. This isastonishing in view of the constant mention of David inthe course of the history that follows as the prototype of aking who was well-pleasing to Jahweh. The reasons for itare, however, probably only literary: David was treated ina document which was of such range and so well con­structed that in face of it the Deuteronomist had to refrainfrom his usual technique of inserting theological glossesand comments in brackets. Apart from the well-knowndistortion of the meaning of the Nathan prophecy in 2, Sam.7· r3, it is only at the end of the history of David that theDeuteronomist makes any comment, and even so thepicture which he himself had of David is not made dear.But the case is remarkably different in the Deuteronomisticpresentation of post-Davidic history.

xKings H' Solomon walked in the statutes ofhis fatherDavid ('J~ /"I'i'~~).

&6

The Dmterot1fJ!lJistit Theology of History

5.I7: David was prevented from building the temple byhis wars, but David is still the spiritual originator of thebuilding of the temple.

8.17 f: David proposed to build the temple; in that hedid well.

9.4: David walked beforeJahweh '1n integrity of heartand uprightness' rr-?1 J~'7. ClJf).

r L4: David's heart was perfect with Jah~eh l.

(il~il7 C~ tI !.~).

II.6: David followed Jahwe1I complet~ly l..

(ilJfl7 ''J!:!~ Ny.?;).

rr.33: David walked in Jahweh's ways and did what waswell-pleasing to him (fl~ii7 '~'$i'f "r.cr mWp'2).

r 1.38: David walked in Jahweh's ways, did what waswell-pleasing to him, and kept his statutes and command­ments.

14.8: David kept ]ahweh's commandments and fo~owed

him with all his heart, doing only what was well-pleaSing toJahweh r~tI i''J n,fV~,? ;J~(-";?f ''J!:!~ 1'20).

15.3: David's heart was perfect with Jahweh.

15.5: David did what wa.s weIl-pleasing to ]ahwe~ andturned not aside from anything that he commanded ~lm allthe days of his life, save only, ~ the matter of UrIah theHittite (":0 '~7 " lil~:$-"~~ '!II;) 1IrN').

r j. II: Asa did what was well-pleasing to ]ahweh, likehis ancestor David.

2. KlDgs 14.3: Amaziah did what was well-pleasing toJahweh; but not like his ancestor David.

r6.2.: Ahaz did not do what was well-pleasing to Jahweh,like his ancestor David.

St1Idies in Detd"()tJof!{Y

18·5; Hezekiah did what was well-pleasing to Jahwehwholly as David did.

2.I.r Jahweh sai~ to David (sir) and his son Solomon:In this temp,le and 1n Jerusalem, which I have chosen outof all the tnbes of Israel, will I cause my name to dwellfor ever.

,a2:J!: Josiah walked wholly in the way of his ancestorDaVId.

This list, too, is wholly made up of sentences of 'theDeut~ron~m.ist. ~e picture has only one conceivablemean:ng: It I~ DaVId, and not, as was often said, Solomon,:who IS the king after the heart of the Deuteronomist. He15 the prototype of the perfectly obedient anointed andtherefore th~ model fDr all succeeding kings in Jerus~em.But what ~d of ~ David is this, whD walked beforeJahweh 'f'jl :l~? t1~f, whose heart is perfect withJahweh, and who did only (j;''J) what was well-pleasing to

J,ahweh? ,unquestionably it is not the David of the succes­SIOn .storIes, that. essentially. contradictory personality,tenaCIOUS, persevermg and VIgorous in public life butdangero~sly weak in his own household, a man wh~ wasmany a time ensnared in guilt, yet in the end graciously ledby Jahweh through every entanglement. This quite humanplc~re has nDW had a completely independent cycle Df con­ceptIOns. superi~posed upon it, namely, that of the ideal,theoc~atlc DaVId, exemplary in obedience. The Deuter­onolTllst, th~s brings ~idence in the first place for a cycleo~ .r-,~esslaruc ~onceptJons which must have been living inhi~ ?-me.)"It IS hard to say how and where this pictuJ:eong:tnatecl,"of a David whose dross was all refined ~wIn P

. 4 ay.s. 132 ~e meet ~gam the picture of the David who was

exemplary ~ obedience. But above all it seems to pre­suppose ISaIah too.1 Be that as it may; in the acceptance of

1 e.g, In. 1.,U.

88

Tk DeHterOfl()mistk Theology ofEMory

this strong tradition the Deuteronomist has gone farthestfrom the theological rock whence he was hewn, namelyDeuteronomy!; and the large place which the Deuterono­mist gives this tradition in his work shows that the Deuter­onomic tradition had not been able to assert itself in all its,purity. The Messianic cycle of conceptions, which wasobviously very strong, had forced its way into it and madeitself good. The attempt so deliberately to set the wholebusiness of the temple to David's credit is truly astonishing.Perhaps there was something which made it necessary forthe temple tradition with its comprehensive cultic contentto be brought still more under the aegis of David and sogain fresh authorisation.

Finally, the Deuterollomist for his part was only beingtrue to the tradition given to him. There~W~§ given to himas a principle creative in history not only the word ofJahweh's curse upon the transgressors of his command­ments, as it appears in Deuteronomy, but also the propheticword of promise in the Davidic covenant. The Deuter­onomistic presentation Df the history had tD reckon withboth Df these given quantities; the DeuterDnomist in factattributes the form and the course of the histDry of thekingdom of Judah to their mutual creative power. Thisenables us to set down an important conclusion: accordingto the Deuteronomistic presentation, Jahweh's word isactive in the history of Judah, creating that history, and thatin a double capacity: 1, as law, judging and destroying; 2.

as gospel-i.e., in the David prophecy, which was constantlybeing fulfilled-saving and forgiving. It is the Nathanpromise which runs through the history of Judah like a«a:rJxwv and wards off the long merited judgement fromthe kingdom 'for the sake of David' .

Immediately the question arises: But how did it turn out

1 According to the Deuteronomist's writing, 'the represClltaciveconcern for maintalning the relation between God and people lies' onthe king (Noth, op. ~J1., p. 1n), a thoroughly undeuteronomic idea,

89

SJyJjes in Deuleron01J!y

in the cnd? Was the word of grace after all the weakercoefficient and was it finally driven from the field of historyby the word of judgement? The actual end of the history ofthe kingdom of Judab, as well as the fact that in the latermonarchical period the Deuteronomist no longer saysanything about the saving function of the Nathan promise,seem to point in this direetion. It is as if the "7 ':791]lost their power to protect as human guilt grew ever greater.Surely the theological dilemma in which the Deuteronomistfinds himself at the end of his work is palpable: on the onehand, he was the last person to reduce any of the terribleseverity of the judgement; on the other, he could not, naydared not, believe that Jahweh's promise, i.e., the light ofDavid, had died out for ever; for a word of Jahweh'suttered hlto history never falls. Thus there can be no doubt,ill our opinion, that we can attribute a special theologicalsignificance to the fim.l sentences of the Deuteronomist'swork, the notice about the release of Jehoiachin ftomprison.

In the thirty-seventh year after the deportation of kingJehoiachh1 of Judah, on the twenty-seventh day of thetwelfth month, Evil Merodach, the king of Babylon, in thefirst year of his reign, granted amnesty to king ]ehoiachinof Judah and released him from prison. He spoke kindlyto him and assigned him a place above the place of theother kings that were with him in Babylon. He was allowedto put off his prison clothes and eat constantly at the king'stable his life long. His maintenance. the settled daily main­tenance, was certifi~~ to Ipjm by the killg, as mucll as herequired, his life long.

To be sure, nothing is expressed in theological termshere, but something is justhinted at, and with great reserve.But for all that a happening is mentioned which had thesignificance of an omen for the Deuteronomist, a fact fromwhich]abweh can start again, ifit be his will. At all events,the passage must be interpreted by every reader as an

90

\.\pII

The Detlterllflomiltif Theology of History

indication that the line of David has not yet come to anirrevocable end.l

, Noth in his essay has already cut the ground away ftomverdicts which in the main are absolutely unfair to thishistorical writing. Refusal to enter into the great problemsof internal politics is not to be explainelL simply as incapa­city on the part of the DeuteronomistIWhat the Deuter­onomist .:e:.:.sents is really a history of tfic creative word of]ahweh. JWhat fascinated him was, we might say,~functionIng of th~ivine word in~ And so, inreamy,-ther-eIleSTntlu~emendous claim. ,Thedecisive factor for Israel does not ~ in the things whichordillarily cause a sUr in history, nor in the vast problemsinherent in history, but it lies ~plying a few very simpletheolo ital and prophetic fi.1I1da~insa1Joutthe11;i~. n SOlt1so yt~__ fJahwch which gives continuity and aspiration to thepllffiOmenoiiof history:-Wh1chlI11.ites" the-ya:rlethmd in­d1v~enOmet1a toforrna-wlrGlenililie Slgl1t of God.'Thus the Deutetonomisrslmmw.i'rlJexCJiipTa:iyVitlditywhal'

saving history is in the Old Testament: that is'2:-P!~Sof hist()ry_wro~hjs.JQtmeQJ~Y..~_~or~ of ]ahweh con­tinua.IIY_i?.!~v_~!1E in iu..~g~~t andsalvaticin'a.nchiirectedt,oYf~rdsa£ulfilmen.t..... - ~- .._._._-~ _.. '-

1 '!'he verses contain 'a note which allows fOt hope in God's gtace',1. KOhl.r: Tbeof. d. A.T., p. 77.

• The Deuteronomist makes King Solomon give clear expressionto this relation ofcorrespondence between word and history: 'what thouhast promised with thy mouth, thou hast fulfilled with thy hand.' r Kings8·~4·