psalms of solomon

Psalm of Solomon 17 is by far the most significant section of the collection. The Psalm describes a Davidic, messianic figure who will purge Jerusalem of Gentiles, gather the exiles and lead them in righteousness and shepherd the Lord’s flock in righteousness. This lengthy Psalm draws on the canonical Psalm 72 and is witness to fervent messianic hopes among some strands of early Judaism. The belief a messiah would soon appear and liberate Jerusalem from their Roman oppressors ultimately culminates in the first Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. See also my post on Messianic Hopes and the Jewish Revolt.

Psalm of Solomon 17 describes the activities of a “lawless one who lays to waste our land” (17:11). From the vivid imagery of verses 11-20 it is difficult to say this person is a Gentile, although he does things in Jerusalem that “gentiles do for their gods in their cities” (v. 14). He drives de devout ones from Jerusalem and they take refuge in the wilderness (v 17). The most common view is this lawless one is Pompey and the psalm represents the messianic expectations of the Pharisees. Julius Wellhausen suggested the psalm reflects the political unrest at the time of Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II.

Although it seems clear enough that Psalm of Solomon 2 refers to Pompey as one who defiled the sanctuary (Ps.Sol 2:1-2), the identity of the lawless one is less obvious in Psalm 17. Kenneth Atkinson challenged the consensus view that Pompey is the lawless one by arguing the Psalm refers to Herod the Great. After he was appointed king of Judea Herod was forced to attack Jerusalem in order to secure his territory (37 B.C.) He was assisted by the Romans According to Josephus (Ant. 14.16.2, §475-81), “they were murdered continually in the narrow streets and in the houses by crowds, and as they were flying to the temple for shelter, and there was no pity taken of either infants or the aged, nor did they spare so much as the weaker sex; nay, although the king sent about, and besought them to spare the people, yet nobody restrained their hand from slaughter, but as if they were a company of madmen, they fell upon persons of all ages, without distinction.” Herod’s siege of the city took place in a sabbatical year which led to a famine and increased the suffering of the people. After securing Jerusalem Herod murdered the last of the Hasmonean dynasty (Antigonus II, Aristobulus III, and Hyrcanus II). Atkinson therefore dates Psalm of Solomon 17 sometime between 37 and 30 B.C.

The defenders of Jerusalem considered Herod a foreign invader, and the capture of the city must have appeared as an apocalyptic invasion anticipated by the Hebrew prophets. Josephus says “Now the Jews that were enclosed within the walls of the city fought against Herod with great alacrity and zeal (for the whole nation was gathered together); they also gave out many prophecies about the temple, and many things agreeable to the people, as if God would deliver them out of the dangers they were in” (Ant. 14.16.1, §470). There are two important items in this description. First, the whole nation was gathered and fought against Herod with zeal. Allowing for obvious exaggeration, this zealous gathering to resist the foreign invader, Psalm of Solomon indicates the son of David who is coming will smash the arrogant sinners (17:22-24) and gather “a holy people” (17:26).

Second, the zealous ones in Jerusalem “gave out many prophecies about the temple.” Although written after these events, Psalm of Solomon 17 contains the sorts of prophecies one might expect when the lawless gentiles are slaughtering people in the streets of Jerusalem. The description of the coming son of David in verses 21-25 is a collection of allusions to messianic texts in the Hebrew Bible. Atkinson compared several texts from Qumran which indicate the Qumran community also expected a Davidic king (4Q161; 4Q285; 4Q252; 4Q174) who would be a warrior (4Q161; 4Q285; 4Q252; 4Q174) and a righteous ruler (4Q252; 4Q174) (Atkinson 458). Atkinson observes that the authors of Psalm of Solomon 17, the Qumran texts, and the book of Revelation are usually regarded as pacifist, but they all looked forward with “apparent eagerness to great bloodshed and annihilation of their enemies” (460).

I would suggest Josephus’s description of the final defenders of the temple in 37 B.C. as “zealous” may indicate they were not as pacifistic as commonly thought. Although there was an expectation of a Davidic warrior king who would smash Jerusalem’s enemies, the zealous ones in 37 B.C. (or A.D. 70) were willing to join Phineas, Elijah and Judas Maccabees and defend the land against foreign invaders.

Whether this Psalm reflects the siege of Jerusalem at the time of Pompey or Herod, I agree with Atkinson’s conclusion to his article: the actions of Jesus at the triumphal entry and his “rampage in the temple” (as he puts it), as well as Jesus’s prediction of the destruction of the Temple would have resonated with the hope for a Davidic warrior messiah. Jesus’s intention to “give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45) was a shock even to his closest followers.

Bibliography: Kenneth Atkinson, “On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17,” JBL 118 (1999): 435-460.

Psalm of Solomon is another example of two-ways theology. There is a sharp contrast between the righteous (δίκαιος) and the sinner (ἁμαρτωλός). In this psalm, the difference between these two types of people is that the Lord has mercy on the righteous, devout person who fear him (13:12). The title of this psalm is a comfort or encouragement (παράκλησις) for the righteous. By properly understanding suffering the righteous person acknowledges they have been protected by the mercy of the Lord.

The first four verses of this psalm reflect the experience of the righteous. Although they suffer calamity, “the right hand of the Lord” covered them and they were spared. The right hand is βραχίων, literally the arm of the Lord. This is the regular expression for the Lord’s power in the Hebrew Bible. In Exodus 15:16, for example, the mighty arm of the Lord protected Israel as they came up out of Egypt. LXX Psalm 76:16 [ET 15] uses the word to describe the redemption of Israel: “You with your arm redeemed your people, the children of Jacob and Joseph.”

The writer says the Lord protected the righteous from sword, hunger, death and “wicked beasts.” This list sounds like the typical description of the dangers for the Jewish people in exile (Ezek 14:13-23, for example), but these also resonate with Paul’s famous line in Romans 8:35: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?” or the suffering listed in 2 Corinthians 11:19-32. In 1 Corinthians 15:32 Paul says he “fought wild beasts” in Ephesus. Commentators usually take this as a metaphor for some sort of persecution. Both the psalmist and Paul agree suffering is not something to fear since the Lord protects the righteous. The difference is the psalmist says the Lord protected him from even meeting these things (v. 4) while Paul saw suffering as his participation in the suffering of Christ.

In fact, the righteous may suffer, but that suffering is discipline rather than judgment (13:7-10). The psalmist understands suffering as punishment for sin done in ignorance (v. 7). God is admonishing the righteous like a beloved child (v. 9). Verse 7 calls this suffering the “discipline of the righteous” (ἡ παιδεία τῶν δικαίων). In Psalm of Solomon 8:29 Israel’s suffering is described as discipline, calling to mind the common metaphor of Israel as an unruly child who needs to be disciplined (Hosea 11, for example).

The psalmist may be thinking of a text like Proverbs 3:11-12, “My son, do not despise the LORD’s discipline (παιδεία) or be weary of his reproof, the LORD reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.” Hebrews 12 also cites this verse from Proverbs to encourage Jewish readers to endure suffering as discipline from the Lord. But again there is a difference, the writer of Hebrews does not suggest his readers are being punished for sin when they face hostility on account of their faith in Jesus as Messiah.

The psalm concludes by repeating the contrast between the righteous person and the sinner. The righteous will go on forever but the sinner will be taken away for destruction (ἀπώλεια, 13:11-12). This is common to two-ways texts like Psalm 1, but it is a regular feature of Jesus’s parables as well. At the harvest (the final judgement), the righteous are like wheat gathered up and stored in the barn, the unrighteous are like weeds thrown into a fire and destroyed (Matt 13:24-30). When the messiah comes he will separate the nations like sheep from goats. The sheep are welcomed into the kingdom of God and eternal life (Matt 25:34, 46) but the goats are cursed and sent “the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” to eternal punishment (Matt 25:41, 46).

According to this psalm, although the righteous may suffer discipline in this life, the Lord’s mercy is on the devout person who fears the Lord (13:12).

This psalm stands in the Jewish wisdom tradition by condemning the lawless and slanderous tongue. The writer uses the adjective παράνομος, a word appearing in the LXX some 73 times, most often in wisdom literature. In Proverbs 3:32, for example, every lawbreaker is impure before the Lord. The writers of the Psalms of Solomon use the word eleven times (see 4:19 for example, may “the bones of the lawless before the sun in dishonor,” a phrase repeated in 12:4). This is not some breach of a pharisaical tradition. The only appearance of the word in the Septuagint translation of the Torah is Deuteronomy 13:14, the lawless who entice people to commit idolatry. In Judges 20:13 it describes the men who raped and killed the Levite’s concubine. It is the kind of rebellion that must be uprooted and cut off from the land (Prov 2:22).

In this psalm, the lawless are known by how they speak (12:2-3). Their words are “in diversity of twisting” (Lexham LXX). A visit from the lawless one will fill a home with a false tongue. The speech of this person is like a fire that scorches beauty. With glee, the lawless one will burn down your house through their lies.

The slanderous tongue is often compared to fire in wisdom literature (Ps. 120:3; Prov. 16:27; 26:21; Isaiah 30:27; Sirach 28:12-26).

Psalm 120:3 (ESV) What shall be given to you, and what more shall be done to you, you deceitful tongue?

Proverbs 16:27 (ESV)  A worthless man plots evil, and his speech is like a scorching fire.

Sirach 28:12–12 (NRSV) If you blow on a spark, it will glow; if you spit on it, it will be put out; yet both come out of your mouth. Curse the gossips and the double-tongued, for they destroy the peace of many.

Like James 3:5-6, the tongue is compared to a fire that “scorches beauty” (PsSol 12:2). James and Psalms of Solomon both use the verb φλογίζω. This verb is rare in the LXX, but it has the sense of intentionally setting a fire to destroy something. For example, in 1 Maccabees 3:5, Judas searched out people who broke the Law, and “he burned those who troubled his people.” Although most Americans know about how a careless fire can burn thousands of acres, James may have in mind a pyre, wood stacked to make it burn quickly (the NEB has “a huge stack of timber” (see Sophie Laws, James, 147).

Although the psalmist began by calling on God to save him from these lawless people, in verses 4-6 he turns to cursing the slanderous and blessing the “quiet person who hates injustice.” He prays that the bones of the lawless be scattered far from those who fear the Lord. Denying someone a proper burial is the ultimate dishonor. He asks God to destroy the slanderous tongue in “flaming fire far from the devout.”  The phrase flaming fire (πυρὶ φλογὸς) appears in 2 Thessalonians 1:8: when the Lord returns with his mighty angels, he will inflict vengeance on the ones who do not obey the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ with “flaming fire.”

Once again, this is not far from James 3. James says the tongue starts a fire that sets the course of one’s life. Like a bit or a rudder, misuse of one’s words steers a life one direction or another. Think of a “white lie,” which requires increasingly more complex lies to cover the first lie. Many political scandals are a series of cover-ups of an initial lie. For James, the person who starts out speaking foolishly will have their life altered by that lie in ways that cannot be imagined. In fact, the tongue can start a fire stoked by Hell’s fires. That new trajectory for one’s life leads to Gehenna! Like Psalm of Solomon 12:4, the slanderous speech of the lawless one will result in “flaming fire.”

But the psalmist blesses the quiet person who lives peacefully at home. Paul also describes the ideal Christian life as living quiet, peaceful lives in 1 Thessalonians 5:13-14, 2 Thessalonians 3, and 1 Timothy 2:3-4. James 3:17–18 includes peacemaking among the seven virtues that characterize the righteous. For the psalmist, the righteous are those who “hate injustice (12:5), similar to Psalm of Solomon 5. When I commented on that Psalm I drew the analogy to the sort of “religion God accepts” based on James 1:27. James and Paul both stand within the same stream of Second Temple Jewish wisdom literature as Psalms of Solomon 12 by contrasting life of wisdom (quiet, peaceful, respectful) with the slanderous unthinking speech of the lawless ones.

R. B. Wright points out this psalm resonates with Baruch 4:36–5:9 and has clear allusions to Isaiah 40-55. Since the author seems to know Sirach, Baruch cannot be dated any earlier than 180 B. C., but it could very well be written any time before A.D. 135. Doran Mendals concludes “At the present stage of research, the question of dating must remain open” (ABD 1:620). It is likely both Psalms of Solomon 11 and Baruch use material from Isaiah 40-55 in similar ways to look forward to the return of the scattered exiles to Zion.

The Psalm begins with the command to “Sound in Zion the signal trumpet of the sanctuary” (11:1). To sound a signal trumpet can call Israel to mourn over the state of the Temple. For example, when the temple was liberated the army assembled on Mount Zion and when they say the temple was desolate and the altar profaned, they “mourned with great lamentation” and fell to the ground, “when the signal was given with the trumpets, they cried out to Heaven” (1 Macc 4:36-40).

But in this case the metaphor is positive. In Psalm of Solomon 11:1 a voice is announcing the good news of the return of the exiles to Zion. This announcement of good news is a possible allusion to Isaiah 52:7. There a watchman lifts up his voice as he sees the returning captives coming back to Zion. The good news in Isaiah and Psalm of Solomon 11 is the end of the exile. The phrase “good news” appears in the New Testament as well, especially in Luke. The angel Gabriel came to announce good news to Zechariah (Luke 1:18) and Mary (2:10); John the Baptist preached good news to the people (Luke 3:18) and Jesus’s preaching is good news to the poor (4:18; 4:43; 7:22; 8:1; 16:16). Some New Testament scholars have seen a Roman background to “good news” (εὐαγγέλιον) since an announcement concerning the emperor may be described as “good news.” But it possible to read Luke’s use of good news within the world of Second Temple Judaism, the “good news” announced by the Gabriel, John and Jesus is the end of the exile.

This is the case for the few likes of Psalm of Solomon 11. Verse 2 compares the return of captives is compared to children coming from the north, east, west and “far distant islands.”  Like Isaiah 40:4, the Lord will make their paths level and Israel will be supervised by the Lord himself (verse 6). Like Isaiah 40:18-20 and Baruch 5:7-8, the Lord will make the desert bloom like a forest so that their journey will be easy and pleasant.

In Matthew 8:11 Jesus says “many will come from the east and west to recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.” The identity of those who enter the kingdom in Matthew 8:11-12 is a matter of discussion in recent scholarship. Since Jeremias, the majority opinion is that the included “many” are believing Gentiles and that the excluded “sons of the kingdom” are unbelieving Jews (Jesus’ Promise to the Nations, 51). However, Dale Allison challenged this consensus opinion by arguing that the “many from the east and the west” are Jews from the Diaspora rather than Gentiles replacing Jews at the eschatological feast (“Who Will Come from East and West? Observations on Matt 8.11-12 /Luke 13.28-29,” IBS 11 (1989): 158-70). Allison points out that there is no text in the Hebrew Bible or the Second Temple Period which describes Gentiles as coming from the east and west. Isaiah 59:19 describes a pilgrimage from the east and west when the Redeemer comes to Zion for those in Jacob who have turned from transgression.  Psalm 107:3 describes Israel coming from the east, west, north and south.  Philo (Spec. Leg. 1.69) uses this language (”from the east and west”) to describe the return of Diaspora Jews from Alexandria and Babylon to Jerusalem for festival days.

While agreeing with many of Allison’s points, M. Bird nevertheless maintains that the consensus view is essentially correct (“Who Comes from the East and the West? Luke 13.28-29/Matt 8.11-12 and the Historical Jesus,” NTS 52 (2006): 441-57). Bird points out that the book of Isaiah has both a “pilgrimage of the Gentiles” (Isa 2:2-4) and an eschatological banquet (Isa 25:6-8).  Allison does not think that Jesus’ audience would have read the two texts together since there is no pilgrimage and conversion of the nations in the eschatological feast.

Psalm of Solomon 11 seems to be solid evidence that a biblically literate Second Temple Jewish listener would hear echoes of Isaiah 40-55. This is a call to Jewish captives in far distant lands to return to Zion at the end of the Exile. Although it cannot be said Jesus is using Psalm of Solomon 11, he certainly stands within the same traditional as this psalmist as he interprets Isaiah 40-55 (and his messianic role as the one calling Israel to gather around himself).

The writer reflects on the first destruction of Jerusalem and the dispersion which followed (9:1-3). The title of the psalm is εἰς ἔλεγχον, translated as “For Proof” by Wright (OTP 2:660) but as “For Rebuke” in the Lexham LXX. The noun can have the sense of proving something to be true (in contrast to faith in Hebrews 11:1), but it is also an expression of strong disapproval, reproof or correction (BDAG; 2 Tim 3:16).

The psalmist acknowledges Israel was scattered among all the nations as a result of the righteous judgment of God. Israel had “neglected the Lord” (an articular infinitive, ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι). The verb can refer to a revolt (Acts 5:37) and the related noun (ἀποστασία) is often translated as a religious falling away, an apostasy. This is the sense of the word in the LXX (Deut 32:15; Jer 3:14). The writer is therefore acknowledging Israel’s guilt when they were sent into exile in 722 B.C. and 586 B.C. In Jeremiah 16:13 the Lord declared “I will hurl you out of this land into a land that neither you nor your fathers have known.” The writer of this Psalm is on the other side of that long exile and confesses the Lord to be righteous, and Israel to be lawless (ἀνομία, v. 2).

This is a significant admission from the author of this Psalm. Although it is impossible to be certain of the date of composition, the writer likely lives under Roman rule, sometime between 63 B.C. and A. D. 70. The first three verses of this Psalm are therefore evidence Jews living around the first century thought of themselves as living in a continuing state of exile. Daniel 9 expresses the idea that the exile would last not seventy years, but “seven times seventy years” (Daniel 9:20-27). N. T. Wright has promoted this idea in many of his writings and it has almost become the consensus opinion in New Testament scholarship (although see the essays in Exile: A Conversation with N. T. Wright edited by James M. Scott). Unlike Psalms of Solomon 17, there is no hint of Jewish nationalism in this particular Psalm.

It is only the Lord who can cleanse the soul from sin (9:4-7). This section of the Psalm is important for understanding the use of righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) in the first century, especially in Romans and Galatians. Psalm of Solomon 9:5 says the one who does righteousness stores up life for himself with the Lord (ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην θησαυρίζει ζωὴν αὑτῷ παρὰ κυρίῳ), and the one who unrighteousness (ἀδικία) causes his own life to be destroyed. Daniel Falk observes this verse is often cited as the “clearest example of God’s mercy earned by conduct” and he cites Mark Siefrid, “the destiny of the individual can be said to be contingent on behavior” (Justification and Variegated Nomism, 1:41).

Falk however argues Psalms of Solomon 9 intends just the opposite, only the repentant sinner will receive mercy from God. In the very next verse the psalmist describes the repentant sinner calling on God and being cleansed and restored. Verse 7 specifically states “your goodness is upon those that sin, when they repent.” The first three verses acknowledges the rebellion of Israel resulted in the exile. For the writer of this Psalm, the only solution at the present time is to pursue righteousness while recognizing even the righteous still sin and need to call upon their Lord.

Therefore the Israel of the psalmist’s day ought to recognize they are still God’s people and put their hope in God’s covenant which he made with their ancestors (9:8-11). The writer grounds this in God’s character (he is both faithful and compassionate). Israel was chosen as God’s people and God has put his name on them.

The writer does not consider the possibility God has finally rejected his people since he is confident that even after the dispersion of 586 B.C. Israel is still God’s people. Assuming the Psalm was written after Israel came under Roman power in 63 B.C., the Psalm encourages people living under yet another foreign oppressor that they are still God’s people even if they are still living in the exile.