or some such sense Ls that riven in_ the next P^^ragraph^ S^TTirn intenirets less equivocally «' M ■"" Ji-votc-riw.™., aa fCugh Ihe rTferenie wasV the profligate sons of the upper or ™Sn| classes. Some modem Jewish c°n"!«"'^*°„7'^'j.'^-''?he Dr Field (Hexapla, i. 22), make the 'sons of God -the descendants of Seth, and the ' daughters of men ' = the descend- ams of Cain But there can be Uttle doubt that the sense is aa in Job 1» 21 387, Ps 291 etc.
(6) In one remarkable verse the title seems to be applied to judges or rulers (Ps 82«) ' I said, \e are gods ; and all of you sons of the Most High (cf v 1 ■ klso Jn lO**). And in a number of places ' judges' are in some way or "ther equated wth 'gods' (Ex 21« RVm and AV, 22«-» RVm and AV, IS 2'^ RVm and AV ; in all these places God in RV is lit. ' gods,' •elOhim, according to the familiar idiom).
The origin of this latter usage is not quite clear. It appeare to be coSfe^ted with the fact that J^" Vrln^ot'li^i^t ft decisions were given in early tunes in the form of oracia at some sacred place and in the name of the dei^.
It is a further quest on whether or how tar M »i° wae sutirested bv this usage. That it was so suggested was the oS Wew: and Duhm (e.g.) still explains of the Hasmon^a^ nrinces Baethgen, of heathen rulers. But some recent wntere, princes , caeuifeeii.u ...i;., davs of criticism, take
T/iwi"p""394fl!)?orthe g;>dk"oTthese'i.ations. Most commea tators comparers 58, reading 'O ye gods m v.i.
(c) Of more importance, and indeed on the direct line of Messianic promises, is the designation as applied to the theocratic king, ^o^t^.s the lead- inci passage is the assurance given by Nathan to Davl^d, ' I will be his father, and he shall be ray «nn ' C S V). Many other places point bacK w this, esp. Ps 89-«- ". 'But these wUl meet us again
""(^Tciosely associated with the application to the theocratic king is that to the iAc«cm<^. people For this we go back primarily to Ex 4*' Ihou Shalt say \^U> Pharaih, Thus saith the LOKD Israel is my son, my firstbom,'-an announcement thit soems"^to have been present to the mind of the p ophet Hoseawhen he wrote ' \Vhen Israel was a ctiild, then I loved him, and called my son out
°'(?)^[rt'hl"tHl"''L' is given both to the theo- cratic kin.' and to the theocratic people where the^ ar^^clearly distinguished from each other tU more inevitable wi^s it that the Bame title would belong to them when the two ideas coalesce into one, as they do in the passages that may be caUed m^e directhj Messianic. Conspicuous among these are Pss 89 and "J.
S0^" OF GOD
SOX OF GOD
571
Ps 89. — This j)salnj is based uiion the promises of 2 S 7, but also in v." clearly takes up Ex 4--. Hence, while it is agreed that both King and p»'>[)le are in view, oiiinions dilier somewhat as to the <legrce of jjrominence to be assigned to each. Cheyne (Conini. on v.^") has 'no doubt that the Davidic king (or rather 'the Davidic royalty') is meant.' IJut 'the Davidic house has long been overthrown, and the fate of the nation has a more practical interest for the writer, whose description partly lits the king, partly the people, now become the heir of the old Davidic promises.' In OP p. 118 he pronounces more decidedly for the 'post- exile Jewish Church' in the Persian period (Arla- xerxes II. and III.). Strack points out a close resemblance to the state of things under Josiah ; Duhm, to that under Alexander Jannffius(c. 88 B.C.). Wellhausen, like Cheyne, explains of the com- munity, which ' in the history of the theocracy BQcceeded to the place formerly occupied by the kings.'
Ps 2. — Even more central in its bearing upon the history of Christian thought is Ps 2, esp. v.'^ Opinion is leaning r.ither more than it did to the view expressed by Cheyne, tliat this psalm has not • a contemporary historical reference ' (though Duhm believes it to have been composed at the accession of Aristobulus I. or Alexander Jannseus ; Cheyne liinmelf thinks that the writer ' throws himself back' into the age of David or Solomon, to which, according to Strack, he belongs). What might be called the most modem view is concisely stated by Wellhausen (PB, 'Psalms,' ad lor..): 'The Messiah is the speaker, and tlie whole psalm is composed in His name. It is not merely the hopes concerning the future to which he gives expression ; it is the claims to world-wide dominion nlready cherished by the Jewish Theocracy. All the heathen are destined to obey the Jews; if they fail to do so, they are rebels. The Messiah is the incarnation of Israel's universal rule. He and Israel are almost identical, and it matters little whether we say that Israel has or is the Mes.siah. . . . On the day when Jlivn founded the Theocracy, He gave it the right to unlimited earthly dominion. This right is involved in the very idea of the Theocracy. Zion, as being the seat of the Divine rule, ia, ipso facto, the seat of universal rule.'