DAUGHTEK
DAY AND Insight
283
GJVi i. 11901], ii. iii. [lb9S] [IIJF, Eiig. tr., 1885-181)0) ; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 1895 ; A. Harnack, Genchichte der altchristl. Lit.,\\.[\Wl]; C. H. Turner, art. 'Chronol. of NT' in HDB i. [1898] 403 ; T. Zahn, Inlrod. to theNT{Eng. tr., 1909), Appendix ; J. Mofifatt, LST, 1911. Of separate treatments of the Apostolic Age, mention must be made of R. Anger, de Temportnn in Actis A post. Ratione, 1833 ; T. Lewin, Fasti Sacri, 1865 ; G. Hoennicke, Chronol. des Lebensdes Apostels Faulus, 1903; F. Westberg^, Bibl. Chronol., 1910. ANDREW C. ZENOS.
DAUGHTER.— See Family.
DAYID (Aaveld, but TR Aa/3/5). — David, the most popular of the heroes and the most illustrious of the kings of Israel, is often alluded to in the NT. He is ' David the son of Jesse' (Ac 13"), a name reminiscent of his lowly origin ; and he is ' the patriarch David ' (2-"), ' our father David ' (4^^), one of that company of venerable progenitors who may be sujiposed to have bequeathed some- thing of their spirit to all their descendants. He is habitually thought of as the ideal of manhood, the man {dvnp) after God's heart, doing all His will (13-^) ; and as the devout worshipper who desired to find a habitation for the God of Jacob (7^^). All Israelites loved to think of his 'days' (7*^) as the golden age of Hebrew history, and of ' the holy and sure blessings ' shown to him (I3i^*), or Divine promises made to his family, as pledges of ever- lasting favour to his nation. He is of course in- cluded in the roll of the OT heroes of faith (He 11^^).
These were matters of ancient history, but the relation of David to the Messiah seemed a point of vital importance to every Jew and Jewish Chris- tian, as well as of deep interest to all educated Gentile Christians. The Davidic descent of the coming Deliverer — based on Is IP, Jer 23^, Ps 132'^ — was an article of faith among the scribes, who connected with it the hope of regal power and a restored Kingdom. It would be too much to say that our Lord's own discussion of the point (Mt 22^1, Mk 1235, Lk 20^1) amounts to a denial on His part of Davidic descent, but it clearly implies that He did not attach to the traditional genealogy the same importance as the Rabbis. The Messiah's spiritual Lordship, acknoAvledged by the writer of Ps 110 — who is presumed to be David — is for Him the essential fact (cf. W. Baldensperger, Das Selbst- bctvussisein Jesii^, 1892, p. 82 f.). The Apostolic Church, however, appears to have taken for granted His Davidic extraction on the male side. This fact is genealogically set forth in Mt 1^'^^ and Lk 3^^'^. Much earlier, St. Paul is said to have referred to it at Pisidian Antioch (Ac 13^), and in Ro P he expresses the belief that Christ was * bom of the seed of David according to the flesh ' (cf. 2 Ti 2*). For the writer of the Revelation, too, it is an article of faith that Christ is ' the Root (meaning shoot or scion from the main stem) of David' (5^), ' the Root and Offspring of David ' (22'6).
Before the rise of historical and literary criti- cism, the Psalms were assumed to be Davidic in authorship and many of them directly JNIessianic in import. In Ac l^" the 69th Psalm, in 2-5 Ps 16, in 2^ Ps 110, in 4?^ Ps 2, in Ro 4« Ps 32, in IP Ps 69, and in He 4^ Ps 95 are ascribed to David. Ps 16 is supposed to be the poetical embodiment of an astonishing vision granted to David, of the resurrection of his greater Son. In its original signilicance it was a cry for the deliverance of the writer from death and the expression of a serene hope that the prayer would be answered. St. Peter is struck by the parallel between the words of 'the patriarch David' and the experience of Christ, and instead of abstracting the eternal principle contained in the Psalm — that God cannot leave to destruction any holy one with whom He had made a covenant — and applying it to Christ, he assumes, as the exegetical methods of his time
permitted him to do, that the Psalmist had the actual historical events directly in view a thousand years before their occurrence. In the same way Ps 110, which ascribes to an ideal King the high- est participation in the sovereignty of God, is inter[)reted, on the ground that David himself ' ascended not into the heavens,' as a prevision on his part of the Ascension of Christ (Ac 2^^). His- torical criticism insists on the rigid separation of all the Psalms from their NT applications. Each of them had its own meaning in its own time and place. The words ' his office let another take ' (Ac 1'-" II Ps 109^) were no doubt originally spoken regarding some traitor, but probably not by David, and certainly not concerning the betrayer of our Lord. Yet 'the idea lying behind the parallel perceived ... is usually profound, admitting of suggestive restatement in terms of our own more rigorous literary methods' (J. V. Bartlet, Acts {Century Bible, 1901], p. 145).