The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Deciphering Meaning Through Layers of Context (Part 5 of 5)

Biblical Typology

Employing tangible symbols of the past to represent analogous yet loftier divine truths is the function of biblical typology. An OT type (Greek túpos, a “figure” or “image”), which is material and temporary, foreshadows a NT antitype (antítupos, “corresponding to”) of much greater spiritual import.¹

The Lord Jesus Christ is typified in Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45), in Moses (Acts 3:22; 7:37), and in Melchizedek (Heb. 5:5-10). The Passover and the raising of the serpent in the wilderness each prefigures Jesus’ sacrificial death (John 3:14; 12:32-33; 1 Cor. 5:7). The old-covenant-tabernacle ritual corresponds to Christ’s superior new-covenant arrangement (Heb. 9:1-28). The flood of Noah’s day and the Red Sea crossing are analogous to Christian baptism (1 Cor. 10:1-2; 1 Pet. 3:20-21). The Jewish temple is a meager representation of the Lord’s church (1 Cor. 3:16-17; 2 Cor. 6:16), as is the ancient city where the temple stood (Heb. 12:22-23; Rev. 3:12).² Abraham’s physical descendants foreshadow the omniracial Christian community, the true Israel of God (Rom. 9:6-8; Gal. 3:29; 6:16). The literal “heavens and earth,” the typical word-pair describing humanity’s physical habitat, serves as a figure of a completely “new” subsistence (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1; cf. 1 Cor. 15:42-54; 2 Cor. 5:1-8).³

In Matthew’s record of Christ’s teaching, the prophet Jonah’s ordeal typifies the burial and resurrection of Jesus (12:39-40; 16:4); the receptivity of those to whom Jonah and Solomon preached illustrates how much more Jesus ought to be heard (12:41-42); John the baptizer is the antitype of Elijah (17:10-13). When Jesus quotes the saying, “Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land’” (5:5) – its only occurrence in the NT – this sounds like a physical type of the spiritual antitype that follows, “for your reward is great in heaven …” (v. 12b). However, considering the backdrop of Psalm 37, this blessing is not limited to the future but includes God’s provision, comfort, and peace in the present. The literal land inheritance of Abraham’s biological descendants (Acts 7:2-5, 17, 45; Heb. 11:8) serves as a physical type of the spiritual inheritance of Abraham’s spiritual heirs in Christ, realized in the present (Gal. 3:6-29; Eph. 1:13-14, 18; 5:5), future (Col. 3:24; 1 Pet. 1:4), and forevermore (Heb. 9:15).

The Fulfillment

The promised blessings of Matthew 5:3-10, rather than being withheld for millennia into the future, are most certainly accessible to God’s people in the here and now. For the poor in spirit and the unjustly persecuted, heavenly citizenship is now available.⁴ Comfort is provided to those who are mourning.⁵ To be filled with righteousness is assured to all who are eagerly seeking it.⁶ The merciful obtain mercy.⁷ Through his revelation God is seen (understood) with purity of heart.⁸ Peaceable followers of Christ are currently acknowledged as God’s children.⁹ So what about the meek? 

To interpret the promise of Matt. 5:5b as something unavailable until the distant future in a yet-to-be-established earthly kingdom is to ignore the surrounding context and other contextual layers, thereby missing the point. The spiritual blessings of God’s kingdom are not limited to persons living within the ancient borders of Israel. If a literal “land” (or “earth”) inheritance is meant, surely we would expect it to be reaffirmed elsewhere in the NT. Instead, notwithstanding the Apocalypse’s highly symbolic imagery, we find promises like, “he will inherit life everlasting” (Matt. 19:29); “flesh and blood is not able to inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit incorruptibility” (1 Cor. 15:50); “those who are to inherit salvation” (Heb. 1:14); “to an inheritance imperishable, untainted, and enduring, reserved in heaven for you” (1 Pet. 1:4).¹⁰ The fulfillment of these promises did in fact begin in “the land” – in Jerusalem, all Judea, and Samaria – extending to the ends of the earth and to the end of the age (Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; Col. 1:3-6, 13, 23). 

Conclusion

Our study through multiple layers of context has concentrated on the words of a Hebrew poet, quoted by the messianic Lord, and reiterated by an inspired historian. The first contextual layer is Psalm 37, earthly-focused and directed to Israelites living in the land of promise under the old-covenant system of Moses: a mere shadow of things to come (cf. Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). The second contextual layer is Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, wherein attention is redirected to the heavenly and spiritual blessings of God’s approaching kingdom: a time of transitioning from the old and preparing for the new (cf. Matt. 9:16-17; Heb. 8:6-13). The third contextual layer is the Gospel of Matthew, written fairly early in Christ’s new-covenant age to Jewish believers presently living the antitypical substance of these truths in God’s heavenly kingdom come to earth (cf. Eph. 1:3; Col. 1:12-13). The fourth contextual layer is the application of these teachings to our current time and circumstances. 

“Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land’” (Matt. 5:5). For ancient Israelites this meant the assurance of God’s favor, provision, security, and hope. For early-1st-century Jews and latter-1st-century Jewish Christians, it had the same connotation. The Lord still expects humility of spirit, emotional sensitivity, meekness, pursuit of righteousness, mercy, purity of heart, peacemaking, and steadfast endurance. The accompanying blessings are still assured to his faithful followers, both now in this time and in the age to come (Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:30; 1 Cor. 3:21-23).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ G. K. Beale defines typology as “the study of analogical correspondences between persons, events, institutions, and other things within the historical framework of God’s special revelation, which, from a retrospective view, are of a prophetic nature” (“Finding Christ in the Old Testament,” JETS 93.1 [2020]: 29). See also Beale’s Handbook on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012): 13-15. In the genre of Hebrew poetry, the language of the psalms is a copy, mirror, or representation of what it imitates. “How well the image represents the reality becomes the mode of valuation, whether the representation is of a transcendent reality or a mundane beauty” (David Petersen and Kent Harold Richards, Interpreting Hebrew Poetry [Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992]: 10). Accordingly, the historical-religious background of the psalms provides yet another layer of context.

     ² See K. L. Moore, The New Jerusalem: Heaven or the Church?.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, New Heavens and a New Earth.

     ⁴ Phil. 3:20; Col. 1:5, 12-13; 3:1-2. There is a rest spoken of that is yet in the future—something promised that remains to be fully realized (Heb. 3:7–4:11). When Jesus journeyed ahead to prepare a place for his disciples (John 14:2-3), he went beyond the “veil” and penetrated the holiest place to dwell in the presence of God (Heb. 6:19-20; 9:12). This is none other than “heaven itself” (Heb. 9:24). The righteous now have the confident expectation of entering the very same place (Heb. 6:18-19; 10:19-20, 34), wherein their names are registered (Heb. 12:23).

     ⁵ 2 Cor. 1:3-7; 2:7; 7:6-7, 13; 13:11; Col. 2:2; 1 Thess. 4:18; 5:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17.

     ⁶ Rom. 1:16-17; 5:17; 2 Cor. 5:21; 9:10; Eph. 4:20-24; 5:8-10; Phil. 1:11; 3:9; Heb. 12:11.

     ⁷ Rom. 9:16, 18; 11:30-32; 2 Cor. 4:1; Phil. 2:27; 1 Tim. 1:13, 16; 1 Pet. 2:10.

     ⁸ John 1:18; 14:7-9; Eph. 1:17-18; Col. 1:9-10; 2:2-3; 1 John 5:20.

     ⁹ Rom. 8:14; Gal. 3:26; 4:6; cf. John 1:12; Rom. 9:8; 12:18; Phil. 2:15; Jas. 3:18; 1 John 3:1, 10.

     ¹⁰ See also Matt. 25:34; Acts 20:32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 2 Cor. 5:1-2; Gal. 3:26-29; 5:21; Eph. 1:13-14, 18; 5:5; Col. 3:24; Heb. 6:12; 9:15; 1 Pet. 3:9; Rev. 21:6-7. That Abraham was to be “heir of [the] kósmos [world]” (Rom. 4:13) would contextually be in reference to succeeding generations of faith. See Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gæbelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976): 10:50-51.

Related Posts: The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Related articles:

Image credit: https://recruiterpoet.com/2015/04/17/i-thank-the-lord-original-poem-2/

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Deciphering Meaning Through Layers of Context (Part 4 of 5)

The biblical affirmation, “Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land’” (Matt. 5:5),¹ has been communicated through at least three layers of context: the 37th Psalm, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, and Matthew’s historical record. To accurately discern the meaning of this enigmatic statement, all three layers, via Hebrew poetry, Aramaic speech, and literary homily in Greek translation, ought to be considered.

The original saying in its original setting is directed to Israelites faced with the age-old question of why the wicked seem to prosper while the righteous suffer. The reassuring response is that godless prosperity is only temporary, whereas righteousness leads to divine beneficence. Evildoers will ultimately be cut off. Those whose trust is in Yahweh are the ones truly blessed, with recurring emphasis on the covenantal land inheritance (Psa. 37:3, 9b, 11, 18, 22a, 29, 34a). Contextually the statement in question, “but the meek shall inherit the land” (v. 11a), offers comfort and peace as a proverbial expression of Yahweh’s favor and providential care.

This single line from the poem’s sixth stanza is then incorporated into Jesus’ message preached to a gathering of early-1st-century men and women of Abrahamic descent, subjugated and oppressed in their own homeland. The sermon begins with eight beatitudes (Matt. 5:1-12), where the six blessings of vv. 4-9 are bracketed between the repeated blessing of vv. 3 and 10: “for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus was “proclaiming the good news of the kingdom” (4:23) with projected fulfillment in the near future (3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 16:18-19, 28). In this environment, where God’s kingdom takes precedence over temporal distractions (6:33), what would it have meant to these particular listeners to hear, “Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land’”? Familiar with the poetic imagery of the psalms, those influenced by Christ’s teachings would have had greater awareness of an everlasting inheritance and its spiritual significance (19:29; 25:34; cf. Mark 10:17; Luke 10:25; 18:18).²

Matthew is the only Gospel writer to employ the expression “the kingdom of heaven,” synonymous with “the kingdom of God” (19:23-24), underscoring the transcendental nature of the long-anticipated kingdom “not of this world.”³ At the time of writing, the resurrected and exalted Christ was presently reigning as king (Acts 2:30-36; 1 Cor. 15:23-25; 1 Tim. 6:14-15). Matthew, his reading audience, and all other mid-to-late-1st century Christians were citizens of God’s heavenly kingdom as members of Christ’s church (Matt. 16:18-19; Eph. 1:22; 2:19; Phil. 3:20; Col. 1:13, 18), anticipating a future inheritance in the eternal heavenly realm (Matt. 5:12; 25:34; 1 Cor. 15:50; 2 Tim. 4:1, 18; 2 Pet. 2:11).

Contextual Layer #4: Our Contemporary World

Present-day readers should be attuned to what any speaker or writer in the biblical record was seeking to convey to his original audience and how they were meant to understand the message in the context in which it was first communicated.⁴  Before any biblical text says anything to you or me or anyone else far removed from the ancient Mediterranean world, it has already spoken to those to whom it was first addressed. Keeping this in mind places modern interpreters in a much better position to grasp the intended meaning and make application to our 21st-century environment.

Missing the Point With Faulty Hermeneutics

Following chiliastic interpretations of the 2nd century and beyond, the 18th-century reformer John Wesley believed “the Third Beatitude, ‘the meek shall inherit the earth,’ refers to the Millennial Age.”⁵ In more recent times advocates of premillennial eschatology, viewing “the land” of Psalm 37:11 and Matthew 5:5 as the entire world, conclude: “Considering the physical and material character of the promise, the fulfillment must similarly be physical and material. When Abraham’s descendants, that is, all believers alive at the parousia, rule over the earth in the millennium with their Messiah, God’s promise of blessings will be materialized physically on this earth.”⁶ Robert Alter, on the other hand, offers an apt reminder: “In great works of literature, almost always more is going on than one initially realizes, and this is especially true of the Bible, to which readers are likely to come with a baggage of preconceptions and habits of automated or inappropriate response.”⁷ It is reasonable to ask that if the fulfillment must be “physical and material,” how is it that Abraham’s descendants are spiritualized as “all believers” rather than consistently understood in the physical and material sense? 

A More Contextual Approach

As we analyze this seemingly perplexing beatitude through all its layers of context, the poetic nature of the original statement in Psalm 37 should caution against literalization. One of the most common features of Hebrew poetry is symbolism. An underlying truth or insight is conveyed with greater effect by employing expressive metaphors that strike the emotions of a particular reading audience.⁸ Jesus borrows familiar imagery from the ancient Israelite hymnbook that would resonate with his Jewish audience, which Matthew records in Greek translation for a Jewish Christian community.

It is helpful to observe Matthew’s copious usage of a form of the word ouranós (“heaven”): eighty-two occurrences, more than any other NT writer. With the distinction understood between the atmospheric heavens and the Godhead’s eternal abode (e.g. Matt. 5:16, 18),⁹ that which is earthly and physical is contrasted throughout the Gospel with the heavenly and spiritual. “Be glad and rejoice exceedingly, for your reward is great in heaven …” (5:12). “Do not store up for yourselves treasures upon the land, where moth and corrosion destroy, and where thieves break in and steal, but you store up yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor corrosion destroys, and where thieves do not break in nor steal, for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (6:19-21). “For what will a man profit if he gains the whole world but loses his soul, or what will a man give as an exchange for his soul?” (16:26). “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or fields for the sake of my name, will receive a hundred times, and will inherit life everlasting” (19:29). “Come, those having been blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom having been prepared for you from the world’s foundation” (25:34b).

Concluding Thoughts

Awareness and appreciation of these spiritual truths has often been clouded by a poetic verse wrenched from its context and interpreted through the distorted lens of elaborate eschatological theories. The message is much clearer and more meaningful when the words of the psalmist, quoted by Jesus, then recorded by Matthew, are viewed from the vantage points of their respective audiences, leading to a more fitting application in different times and settings.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² This emphasis carried on beyond the earthly ministry of Jesus: Acts 20:32; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 15:50; 2 Cor. 5:1-2; Gal. 3:14, 18, 29; 5:21; Eph. 1:13-14, 18; 5:5; Col. 3:24; Heb. 1:14; 6:12; 9:15; 1 Pet. 1:4; 3:9; Rev. 21:6-7.

     ³ See K. L. Moore, The Kingdom of God (Part 1).

     ⁴ See K. L. Moore, Biblical Exegesis (Part 1).

     ⁵ Nathaniel West, John Wesley and Premillennialism (Wilmore, KY: First Fruits, 2018): 25. The concept of a literal messianic kingdom on earth can be traced as far back as Jewish apocalyptic literature of the intertestamental period and the first couple of centuries of the common era (e.g. I Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch, 2nd & 4th Esdras, Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs), as well as prevalent misconceptions during the Lord’s earthly ministry (Matt. 11:12; Luke 24:21; John 6:15; Acts 1:6). Within the Christian movement, the gnostic Cerinthus (ca. 100) was among the earliest proponents of this view, along with the late 2nd-century Ebionite and Montanist sects. The 2nd-century writings of Irenaeus and Justin Martyr and the 3rd-century writings of Tertullian also referenced a 1000-years’ earthly kingdom at Christ’s return. The view was revived in the mid-19th century as biblical interpretation became less concerned about historical context, and the expression “premillennialism” replaced older descriptive terms like “chiliasm” and “millenarianism.” 

     ⁶ Sung Wook Chung, “Toward the Reformed and Covenantal Theology of Premillennialism: A Proposal,” in A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to ‘Left Behind’ Theology, eds. Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009): 133-46. Other contemporary theologians espousing some form of premillennial eschatology include Craig L. Blomberg, D. A. Carson, Wayne A. Grudem, Robert H. Gundry, Craig S. Keener, Douglas J. Moo, Robert H. Mounce, Grant R. Osborne, and Ben Witherington III. Premillennialism relies on the literal interpretation of figurative language and a materialistic concept of the Lord’s spiritual kingdom. The book of Revelation, a major focus of these proponents, is highly symbolic (apocalyptic) and should not be taken literally.

     ⁷ Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Poetry, Rev. and Updated (NY: Basic Books, 2011): xi.

     ⁸ See Douglas Stuart, “The Psalms: Israel’s Prayers and Ours,” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by G. D. Fee and D. Stuart (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014): 212-16; and David G. Firth, “The Teaching of the Psalms,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, eds. D. Firth and P. S. Johnston (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005): 163.

     ⁹ Both the singular and plural forms of ouranós are used in scripture, sometimes in the same context, to describe the spiritual realm of deity, as well as the future home of the righteous. The former is worded in the plural (Matt. 5:16, 45; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; 10:32, 33; 12:50; 16:17, 19; 18:10, 14, 19; 24:36) and the singular (Matt. 5:34; 6:10; 11:25; 18:18; 21:25; 22:30; 23:22; 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:47; Col. 4:1; 1 Pet. 1:12; 3:22). The latter is also conveyed in the plural (Matt. 5:12; 19:21; 2 Cor. 5:1) and the singular (Matt. 6:20; Luke 6:23 [plural parallel, Matt. 5:12]; Rom. 1:18; 2 Cor. 5:2). In Phil. 3:20 ouranoîs is plural (lit. “heavens”), while the corresponding relative pronoun hoũ, in the prepositional phrase “from which,” is singular.

Related Posts: The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 5

Related articles:

Image credit: Adapted from https://www.news965.com/news/national/arkansas-bill-would-require-schools-offer-bible-class-enough-students-want/lgWyEyjzH962zQOoqNDR8I/

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Deciphering Meaning Through Layers of Context (Part 3 of 5)

The First Gospel, so called because of its positioning in the New Testament, is historically attributed to Matthew Levi, an apostle of Jesus Christ and former tax collector. There is no manuscript evidence indicating that the document ever circulated without “According to Matthew” as its title, and no other name was ever appended to it.¹ 

Seeing that Matthew’s Gospel betrays a strong Jewish orientation, the ethnic heritage of both the author and reading audience appears to have been Jewish. The terminology is decidedly Jewish.² A number of Aramaic expressions occur throughout the text, often without translation.³ Familiarity with Jewish history, politics, ideas, and customs is assumed.⁴ The Hebrew Bible has a prominent place, with about 40 quotations and over 100 allusions, demonstrating a mutual knowledge of and respect for these sacred writings. More fulfilled OT prophecies are cited than in any of the other Gospels.⁵ Matthew opens with the genealogy of Jesus and traces the line of decent back to Abraham (1:1-17).⁶

Palestine, particularly Judea, is a plausible location for the document’s origin and/or destination (cf. Jerome, De vir. ill. 3), although a more popular suggestion is Syria, specifically Antioch. The earliest clear usage of Matthew’s Gospel comes from Antioch in the early 2nd-century writings of Ignatius (ca. 35-107), who made much use of the text (see Smyrn. 1.1; Eph. 19.1-3; Polc. 2.2). The Gospel fits well into the setting of Syrian Antioch, which had a large Jewish population, a well-established Christian community, and a church committed to the discipleship of all nations (cp. Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 11:29; 13:1-3; 14:27-28; 15:40; 18:22-23). 

Contextual Layer #3: Matthew and His Reading Audience

Matthew was more than a biographer and historian. He was also an evangelist and theologian. While providing a reliable record of historical facts, he conveys doctrinal truth for developing faith in Christ and Christ’s teachings. The introduction of Matthew’s Gospel (1:1–4:16) is saturated with quotations from the Hebrew scriptures, confirming Jesus of Nazareth as the long-anticipated fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. The extensive narrative that follows is interspersed with five major sections of discourse material, beginning with the Sermon on the Mount in chapters 5–7. 

Chronologically, geographically, socially, ethnically, and culturally, Matthew’s initial reading audience would not have been too far removed from Jesus’ original listening audience. The teachings and influence of Christ’s earthly ministry had reached as far north as Syria, as far south as Idumea, as far east as the Decapolis and Perea, and all in between (Matt. 4:24-25; Mark 3:7-8). It is highly improbable that the contents of the Sermon on the Mount were limited to a solitary speech on a single occasion. We would surely expect the Lord to have regularly and repeatedly shared this information on multiple occasions. Matthew has captured the essence of what Jesus characteristically taught.

Matthew’s inclusion of this lengthy discourse, absent from the other Gospels, is indicative of authorial selectivity. Each Gospel writer, according to his immediate purpose, at times focuses on certain details ignored by others or omits particular elements highlighted by others.⁷ Consideration of both the similarities and differences is especially informative when comparing Matthew’s record of the Sermon on the Mount with Luke’s record of the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49). In Luke’s rendering of the beatitudes, blessings are pronounced on those who are literally poor and hungry (Luke 6:20-23), whereas Matthew’s record is more spiritually oriented (Matt. 5:3-12).

Rather than editorial modification, as some have suspected, authorial selectivity is more likely. Matthew and Luke emphasize different aspects of the Lord’s teachings for their respective readerships. Matthew’s inclusion of the Psalm 37:11 quotation, “Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land’” (Matt. 5:5), is particularly meaningful from a Jewish perspective. Luke’s account, directed to a non-Jewish audience, has no reference to it. Yet both include the Lord’s anticipatory assurance of the great reward in heaven (Matt. 5:12; Luke 6:23).

The Broader Christian Community

The striking parallels between the Sermon on the Mount and the epistle of James demonstrate the ongoing influence of Christ’s teachings in the early church.⁸ Nevertheless, when Jesus preached this impactful sermon, it was not the time to impart exclusively Christian doctrine, nor was it the time to set aside the Mosaic Law (Matt. 5:17-29; 7:12), but it was necessary to address the fallacies of hypocritical leaders (5:20; 6:2, 5, 16; 7:15-20, 29) and prepare for the approaching kingdom (cf. 6:10, 33; 7:21).

During the Lord’s bodily presence on earth, God’s spiritual kingdom was soon to be realized, specifically within the lifetime of some of his personal disciples (Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 16:28). Matthew and his readers, contemporaries of other NT writers and their readers, were in fact citizens of this promised kingdom as members of Christ’s church (Matt. 16:18-19). From the historical record of Acts 2 onwards, the church Jesus promised to build was existing and growing and recognized as “the kingdom of God.”⁹ 

At the time Matthew’s Gospel was produced,¹⁰ the residents of the Roman provinces of Judea and Syria (later combined as Syria Palestina) were subjected to the governing control of Rome. Those resisting compromise with foreign occupiers and pagan influences were generally suppressed and marginalized. Much of what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount would have resonated with Matthew’s readers and other Christians at this time.

Concluding Thoughts

Why allude to Psalm 37:11? What significance would this have had to the respective audiences of the psalmist, of Jesus, and of Matthew? While the wicked appear to prosper, those deprived of dignity and resources seem to be missing out on the “good things” of this world. But the common theme of Psalm 37, the Sermon on the Mount, and Matthew’s Gospel is that the righteous, even when disenfranchised by the world, are the ones to whom God’s kingdom belongs (Matt. 5:3, 10). It is in this radically transcendent kingdom, where the social boundaries of honor and shame are reversed, that divine favor, comfort, and provision are afforded.¹¹

Matthew certainly does not overlook the Lord’s concern for people’s observable physical needs, but the primary focus is consistently heavenward in addressing their greater spiritual needs (cf. 9:6-8, 35-38; 12:28; 15:31). Matthew’s Jewish Christian community is repeatedly reminded of the enormous chasm between the earthly and the heavenly,¹² the temporary and the eternal,¹³ the physical and the spiritual.¹⁴ It is in this context the statement is made: “Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land’.” A temporal land inheritance, as some modern interpreters suggest, would be a major disappointment!

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:
      ¹ See K. L. Moore, Authorship of NT Gospels; also A Critical Introduction to the NT (Henderson, TN: Hester, 2009): 60-63.

     ² Matt. 2:20-21; 4:5; 5:35, 47; 6:7, 32; 10:6; 17:24-27; 18:17; 27:53.

     ³ Matt. 5:22; 6:24; 16:17; 27:33, 46.

     ⁴ Matt. 1:18-19; 2:1, 4, 22; 14:1; 17:24; 23:2; 26:3, 57, 59; 27:2, 11, 13.

     ⁵ Matt. 1:1, 22-23; 2:5-6, 15, 17-18, 23; 3:3; 4:14-16; 5:17; 8:16-17; 12:17-21; 13:14-15, 35; 21:4-5; 26:63-64; 27:9-10.

     ⁶ See K. L. Moore, Matthew's Audience, and Lineage of Jesus. The Lord’s recorded reference in the third person to “their synagogues” (10:17) is applicable to antagonistic nonbelieving Jews rather than implying anything about the ethnicity of Matthew’s readership. Compare the third person wording in 4:23; 9:35, and descriptions in 6:2, 5; 23:6, 34 of adversarial behavior in the synagogues.

     ⁷ See K. L. Moore, Synoptic Confusion.

     ⁸ See James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976): 21-22; Virgil V. Porter, Jr., “The Sermon on the Mount in the Book of James, Part 1,” BibSac 162:647 (July 2005): 344-60; and “The Sermon on the Mount in the Book of James, Part 2,” BibSac 162:648 (Oct. 2005): 470-82.

     ⁹ Acts 1:2-8; 2:1-47; 8:12; 14:21-22; 19:8; 20:25; 28:23, 31; Eph. 2:19; Col. 1:13, 18; 4:11; Rev. 1:6, 9; 5:10. See K. L. Moore, The Kingdom of God (Part 3).

     ¹⁰ See K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT 64. While a number of scholars propose AD 80-90 for the writing of this Gospel, the present author favors a more conservative date in the mid-60s. This is based, in part, on the testimony of Irenaeus, who reports that Matthew penned his Gospel while both Paul and Peter were in Rome (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1). The Magdalen Papyrus (P64), containing portions of Matthew 26, has been dated as early as ca. 66 (see Carsten P. Thiede and Matthew D’Ancona, The Jesus Papyrus [NY: Doubleday, 1996]), although this controversial dating is disputed.

     ¹¹ See Seung Ai Yang, “Sermon on the Mount/Plain,” in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 2nd ed., eds. J. B. Green, J. K. Brown, and N. Perrin (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013): 847-48. Also K. L. Moore, Honor and Shame.

     ¹² Matt. 5:3, 10, 12-16, 34-35; 6:9-10, 19-21; 11:25; 16:19; 18:10, 18-19; 23:9; 25:31-46; 28:18.

     ¹³ Matt. 5:18; 6:25-34; 7:13-14, 24-27; 10:22, 32-33; 11:20-24; 12:6-8; 23:21-22; 24:35

     ¹⁴ Matt. 6:11-15, 22-23; 8:20; 9:2-8, 12-13, 15-17; 10:28; 11:28-30; 12:25-30, 39-45, 48-50; 16:6-12, 24-28; 17:20; 18:1-14; 19:14, 21-30; 21:21-22; 22:29-33; 23:13, 23; 26:26-29, 41.

Related Posts: The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Part 1, Part 2, Part 4, Part 5

Related articles:

Image credit: Adapted from https://truemeaningoflifeis.com/is-the-bible-true/

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Deciphering Meaning Through Layers of Context (Part 2 of 5)

On a Galilean slope near Capernaum, the Lord Jesus delivered his celebrated discourse traditionally known as “the Sermon on the Mount,” recorded in chapters 5–7 of Matthew’s Gospel.¹ In his mission of “proclaiming the good news of the kingdom” (4:23), Jesus would have been speaking in the Aramaic language to a large gathering of Aramaic-speaking Jews, inclusive of but not limited to his disciples (4:25; 5:1; 7:28; cf. 10:5-6; 15:24). The message, having been preserved in Greek translation, uses imagery and comparisons with which the Lord’s immediate audience would have been familiar (5:13-15, 21-22, 25-27, 31, 33, 38, 43, 46-47), addressing topics particularly relevant to them (5:20, 23-24, 28, 32, 34-37, 39-42, 44-48), while preparing for the advent of God’s spiritual kingdom (3:2; 4:17, 23; 5:3, 10, 19, 20; 6:10, 33; 7:21). 

As part of the lengthy address, Jesus quotes, alludes to, and echoes multiple passages from the Hebrew scriptures.² In the present study our focus is on the segment recorded in Matthew 5:5, “Blessed are the meek, for ‘they shall inherit the land,’” a quote from Psalm 37:11a.³ While the Greek noun gē can be used in various senses (“land,” “ground,” “earth,” etc.; see BDAG 196), most English translations inconsistently render it “earth” in this passage but “land” in the OT text from which it is quoted.⁴ As observed in our previous post, “the land” of Psalm 37:3, 9, 11, 22, 29, 34 is contextually the promised land of the Israelites. To “inherit the land,” from an ancient Hebrew perspective, is idiomatically synonymous with God’s providential care, provision of needs, security, peace, empowerment, averting shame, and salvation (or deliverance), offering the psalmist’s Hebrew audience assurance and hope. From this initial layer of context, we move on to the next.

Contextual Layer #2: Jesus and His Listening Audience

Speaking to a crowd of Jewish contemporaries still amenable to the old-covenant system of Moses (Matt. 5:17-19), the Lord pronounces blessings (“beatitudes”) on those exhibiting certain virtues (vv. 2-11). Included is the quote from Psalm 37:11a. What would be a reasonable expectation for how this statement would have been received by this particular audience?

Those whom Jesus addressed were already residing in the land of promise, albeit under the occupation and control of a foreign power (Matt. 22:17; Luke 2:1; 3:1). When Judea was annexed as a Roman province in AD 6 (incorporating Samaria, Idumea, and at times Galilee), the local Jews begrudgingly transitioned from an autonomous nation to a subjugated and suppressed people. It was in this environment that the defiant Zealot movement was born,⁵ prompting Jesus to observe on another occasion, “but from the days of John the baptizer until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent forcefully seize it” (Matt. 11:12).

In his epic sermon Christ repeatedly challenges the status quo of his day and promotes an alternative way of thinking (“but I say to you …”).⁶ When he affirms, “blessed are the meek” (Matt. 5:5a), to what kind of persons is he alluding? The standard lexical definition of the Greek adjective praüs is “gentle, humble, considerate, meek” (BDAG 861). It would be the opposite of angry hostility (vv. 21-26), lack of self-control (vv. 27-32), lack of integrity (vv. 33-37), retribution (vv. 38-42), and hatred (vv. 43-48). In the original context of Psalm 37, from which Jesus draws the allusion, the description applies to those oppressed but still showing mercy, generosity, righteousness, and faithfulness, trusting in Yahweh, practicing goodness, and obeying his will. 

The quoted blessing, “they shall inherit the land,” is poetry, not theology.⁷ For a Jewish person in antiquity this was a comforting affirmation of divine favor. Anticipating improved circumstances (cp. Psa. 25:13), the expression was “emblematic of the better prosperity and happiness of life.”⁸ But what kind of prosperity? With the provision of physical needs understood (Matt. 6:11, 25-34), note Christ’s weighty emphasis on the heavenly nature of God’s kingdom (5:3, 10, 19, 20; 7:21), the priority of heavenly treasures (6:19-21), and the heavenly reward (5:12) in the presence of the heavenly Father (5:16, 34, 45, 48; 6:1, 9, 26, 32; 7:11). The greatest benefits are by far spiritual in nature (6:1, 4, 6, 9-10, 12-14, 18). A clear distinction is consistently made between the materialistic cares of the world and the loftier ways of God (6:19-24, 33; 7:6, 13-21, 24-27, 29). 

To isolate and literalize the statement in Matthew 5:5 to advocate a literal, futuristic, earthly habitation is a form of “physicalism” that runs contrary to the rest of the Lord’s teachings. Focusing on the temporal to the virtual disregard of the heavenly was characteristic of the vain externals of hypocrites (6:1, 5, 16), the empty ritualism of the heathen (6:7), the materialism of pagan Gentiles (6:32), and the deceptive appeal of false teachers (7:15). It ignores Christ’s persistent contrast between physical and spiritual realities (5:3, 10, 12-16, 34-35; 6:9-10, 19-21). 

Concluding Thoughts

Known for his emblematic and parabolic teaching style, Jesus routinely used earthly examples to convey spiritual truths, particularly with regard to “the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 7:24-27; 9:12-17; 16:6-12; 18:23-35; 20:1-16; 21:28-45; 22:1-14; 24:45-51; 25:1-30), a.k.a. “the kingdom of God” (19:23-24). It is also helpful to remember the common usage of physical types from the OT to illustrate spiritual antitypes in the NT, e.g., Jonah, Nineveh, Solomon, Elijah (12:39-42; 16:4; 17:10-13), to name a few.⁹ To “inherit the land” (5:5b), as a historical symbol, does not replace or counter the spiritually-explicit affirmation, “for great is your reward in heaven” (v. 12b).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ The traditional site is Mount Eremos, just northwest of the Sea of Galilee and west of the Jordan River on the southern slopes of the Korazim Plateau in northern Israel, also known as the Mount of Beatitudes (cf. Matt. 14:23; 15:29; 28:16; Mark 3:13). Seeing that the material in the first thirteen chapters of Matthew’s Gospel is arranged more topically than chronologically, this sermon was likely delivered at the height of the Lord’s Galilean ministry, as indicated by the large crowds. Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² See Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the NT Use of the OT, eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007): 20-30.

     ³ That this is a direct quote from Psalm 37:11 is seen by comparing Matthew’s Greek translation of Jesus’ words with the LXX version of the Hebrew text, showing parallel usage of the nominative masculine plural hoi praeîs (“the meek [ones]”), the future active indicative klēronomēsousin (“shall inherit”), and the accusative feminine gēn (“land”). Also note the inclusion in Matt. 5:5 of the conjunction hóti, which is functionally equivalent to quotation marks. See BDAG 732; H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek NT (Toronto: Macmillan, 1955): 252. 

     ⁴ The Douay-Rheims Bible, New American Bible (revised), Young’s Literal Translation, Orthodox Jewish Bible, and Easy-to-Read Version render the word “land” in Matt. 5:5, while the King James and New King James Versions employ “earth” in both passages.

     ⁵ See K. L. Moore, Ancient Terrorists, Barabbas, Historical Background: Jewish Subgroups, Historical Background: Roman Authority. It has also been suggested that the idea of a separate, organized group of rebels was invented by Josephus in order to divert the hostile attention of the Romans away from the general Jewish populace (see M. Smith, “Zealots and Sicarii,” HTR 64.1 [1971]: 5). It is true there is little evidence of the Zealots as an organized group prior to the revolt of AD 66 (see Josephus, War 4.129-62). Nevertheless, the earlier presence and activities of these freedom fighters, whether organized or not, are evident in passages like Mark 15:7; Luke 6:15; 23:19, 25; Acts 5:36-37; 21:38.

     ⁶ Matt. 5:20-22, 27-28, 31-34, 38-39, 43-44; cf. also 6:2, 5, 7, 16, 32; 7:15, 29.

     ⁷ See Douglas Stuart, “The Psalms: Israel’s Prayers and Ours,” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by G. D. Fee and D. Stuart (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014): 215-16. 

     ⁸ Al Novak, Hebrew Honey: A Simple and Deep Word Study of the Old Testament (Houston, TX: C & D International, 1987): 140.

     ⁹ Discussed further in Part 5. We could add to the discussion the emblematic appeal to “the shepherd” and “the sheep” (Matt. 26:31), or the emblems of the Lord’s Supper representing far greater spiritual concepts (26:26-29).

Related Posts: The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Part 1, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Related articles:

Image credit: https://en.light-of-truth.org/sermon-on-the-mount-the-beatitudes.html

The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Deciphering Meaning Through Layers of Context (Part 1 of 5)

A single verse in the Bible is like an isolated piece of a jigsaw puzzle: the whole picture is indiscernible unless all the pieces are joined together. To focus on a biblical text without considering its surrounding context almost certainly guarantees distortion of meaning. While the twofold emphasis of contextual studies involves the particular environments within which biblical narratives and discourses took place and within which the biblical writings themselves were produced, there are other contextual matters that must not be overlooked. 

Multiple Layers of Context 

The Bible is fundamentally a compilation of sixty-six separate documents representing a variety of literary genres and subgenres. When any passage of scripture is examined, the type of literature through which it is conveyed dictates its purpose and meaning.

If a historian records someone’s public speech that contains quotations from other sources, there are at least three layers of context to consider: (1) the quoted material, including the original speaker or writer, his targeted audience, and their immediate circumstances; (2) the oral discourse, including the orator, the listening audience, and their immediate circumstances; and (3) the written account, including the author, the projected reading audience, and their immediate circumstances. 

The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, recorded in Matthew 5–7, comprises all three layers: (1) scripture quotations, (2) Jesus and his listening audience, and (3) Matthew and his reading audience. All these layers of context are helpful in discerning the Spirit-inspired message, enabling interpreters to handle God’s word accurately and make application to a fourth layer: the present-day church and world.

Contextual Layer #1: Psalm 37 

The biblical psalms, as a collection of prayers and hymns, are more likely to contain words spoken to or about God than from God. They are poetic by nature and characteristically composed with figurative language. Their function is not primarily for the teaching of doctrinal absolutes.¹ In the genre of Hebrew poetry, the imagery is familiar to the psalmist’s contemporary Hebrew audience and creates associations that stir the emotions and engage the mind. A psalmist should therefore be afforded appropriate leeway to create a work within the parameters of his own literary conventions. The more we appreciate the poetry and cultural environment of the psalms, the better we understand the intended message.²

Psalm 37 can be subcategorized as a wisdom (sapiential) psalm, contrasting the respective plights of the righteous and the wicked, along with assurances of blessings and judgments. Lost in English translation is the poem’s acrostic structure, with two lines given to each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Easier to detect is the synonymous parallelism, where the second line repeats or reinforces the preceding line, with meaning drawn from the combination of both. Parallelism is not two separate ideas but one main idea expressed in two different ways. It is important in analyzing any poem to discover its theme and how each part contributes to the whole. The entirety of the psalm, not just a single verse or stanza, supplies the interpretive framework. 

Of particular interest to our present study is the recurring blessing involving the Hebrew verbs shakan (“abide,” “dwell,” “settle down,” vv. 3, 27, 29) and yarash (“inherit,” “possess by inheritance,” vv. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34), along with the noun erets (“land,” vv. 3, 9, 11, 22, 29, 34).³ These familiar concepts would immediately call to the Jewish mind the Abrahamic promises (Gen. 12:1-7; Psa. 105:42-45), the physical aspect of which was realized in Abraham’s biological descendants – the Israelites (Gen. 12:2a, 7; 15:5-7; Ex. 32:13; Deut. 1:8).⁴ This provided a national setting for the fulfillment of the spiritual messianic promise: “in you [your seed, 22:18; 26:4] all the families of the earth [adamah] shall be blessed” (Gen. 12:3b; cf. Acts 3:25-26; Gal. 3:8-29; 4:4-7).

To “dwell in the land” (Psalm 37:3) meant so much more than mere territorial occupancy. Reprobates, void of divine favor, physically inhabited the land of Israel for generations (Lev. 20:2-5; Judg. 1:19-21, 27-35; 2:2-3; Ezek. 33:23-26). In the context of Psalm 37, the land dwellers are those exhibiting trust in God, goodness, and allegiance to the divine will, thereby benefitting from his faithfulness and provision (vv. 3-4). They are further identified as the “meek” [anav] (v. 11), those oppressed (v. 14) yet merciful and generous (vv. 21, 23), righteous and faithful (vv. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40).⁵

To “inherit the land” (Psalm 37:9, 11, 22, 29, 34),⁶ therefore, is an expression of comfort and hope (vv. 1, 7, 8). It is idiomatically synonymous with providential care (vv. 3, 5, 6, 17b, 18, 19b, 24, 26b, 28, 31b, 40), including provision (v. 4, 25), protection (v. 33, 40a), peace (vv. 11, 37), fortification (vv. 17, 19, 24, 39b), rising above shame (vv. 19a, 34), and salvation (v. 39a, 40b). In old covenant Judaism, the sacred land (centralized in Jerusalem) represented Yahweh’s presence among his people (Ex. 33:1, 14; Psa. 27:4-6; 65:4; 140:13; Isa. 2:3). But to literalize the poetic imagery is to miss the spiritual significance of the divine purpose, more clearly revealed in the New Testament.

Concluding Thoughts

The psalmist essentially encourages his readers to trust in the Lord for improved circumstances. Traditionally ascribed to David, apparently in his later years (v. 25), Psalm 37 is thus placed in the historical context of the united kingdom of Israel during the first half of the 10th century BC. In another Davidic psalm (25:13), to “inherit the land” parallels towb, “goodness” or “well-being.” Just to hear the expression would have offered a great deal of consolation to any Jewish persons in antiquity, especially the disadvantaged and oppressed, irrespective of when or where they lived.

While some have posited the dating as late as the 4th century BC,⁷ whoever was responsible for the Psalter’s ancient inscriptions would have had access to information unavailable to subsequent generations.⁸ Moreover, the Davidic titles assume readers know who David is and are familiar with his life and poetry. Whether the psalm was originally intended for pre-exilic Jews, who already inhabited the land, or those in exile, who longed to return to the land, or post-exilic Jews of the diaspora, it offers the same assurances and hope. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Douglas Stuart, “The Psalms: Israel’s Prayers and Ours,” in How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, by G. D. Fee and D. Stuart (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014): 212-16. At the same time, however, we still acknowledge “the importance of understanding the instructional function of the Psalms as a book. This is because the very process of canonical collection means that the 150 psalms now gathered together are seen as playing a special role within the life of Israel. Their place within the canon also means that they have a further role …. their very status as scripture means that they now have a teaching role” (David G. Firth, “The Teaching of the Psalms,” in Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches, eds. D. Firth and P. S. Johnston [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005]: 162).

     ² Mark D. Futato, Interpreting the Psalms: An Exegetical Handbook (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007): 24-42. Ancient near-eastern literature, even when translated, is very different from the literature to which modern readers are accustomed. A poem’s rhetorical effect on a targeted audience, far removed from our own, should not be ignored. See David Petersen and Kent Harold Richards, Interpreting Hebrew Poetry (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992): 1-16.

     ³ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation. The Hebrew noun erets (vv. 3, 9, 11, 22, 29, 34) is consistently translated “land” in most English versions (e.g. ASV, CSB, ESV, ISV, NIV, NASB, NET, N/RSV, YLT), but varyingly rendered in the N/KJV “land” (vv. 3, 29, 34) and “earth” (vv. 9, 11, 22). It is flexible enough to apply to the entire planet (Gen. 18:18, 25), earth’s inhabitants (Psa. 33:8; 66:4), a regional or territorial section of land (Gen. 10:10, 11; 11:28; Psa. 42:6), particularly the land of Canaan (Gen. 11:31; 12:1, 5; Psa. 105:11; 135:12; 136:21) often designated simply “the land” (Gen. 1:8, 21; 12:6; Deut. 17:14; 18:9; Psa. 35:20). In addition to usage in Davidic psalms (incl. 101:6, 8), see also 44:3; 80:9; 85:1, 9, 12; 106:38; cp. 74:8. 

     ⁴ Historically the Abrahamic land inheritance (Gen. 12:7; 13:14-17; 15:7-18; Deut. 4:1; 16:20) was fulfilled (Acts 7:2-5, 17, 45; Josh. 3:14-17; 21:43-45; 1 Kings 4:21; Neh. 9:7-8), albeit conditionally (Lev. 20:22, 24; Deut. 28:1-2, 15; Josh. 23:13-16; 1 Kings 9:6-7; 2 Chron. 20:7). Nevertheless, Abraham’s descendants did not remain faithful to the covenant (1 Kings 19:10; Jer. 31:32) and eventually lost the land (Josh. 23:13-16). The Hebrew olam (“forever”) occurs three times in Psalm 37, in conjunction with the righteous ones’ inheritance (v. 18), abiding (v. 27), and preservation (v. 29). Even though the Abrahamic land inheritance was promised “forever” (Gen. 13:15, ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV), this must be understood not only as a conditional promise but also in view of the fact that olam signifies simple duration and applies to that which continues as long as it was intended (cp. Gen. 17:13; Ex. 12:14; 21:6; 29:42; 30:8; Lev. 23:14; 1 Kings 9:3-5; et al.). Irrespective of what may or may not result on the other end, olam is merely a durative term expressing something that lasts its allotted time. See K. L. Moore, Will the Earth Last Forever?.

     ⁵ The masculine noun anav is descriptive of the humble and gentle (Psa. 10:12, 17; 25:9; 34:2; 69:32), the afflicted and oppressed (Psa. 22:26; 147:6; 149:4; Isa. 11:4; 29:19; 53:4; 61:1), those who seek the Lord, uphold his justice, seek righteousness, and seek humility (Zeph. 2:3).

     ⁶ Except for the infinitive construct in v. 34, the future form of this verb is repeatedly employed (vv. 9, 11, 22, 29), although verbal tense in Hebrew, unlike modern languages, refers more particularly to action than time. The Hebrew future tense expresses what is unfinished, whether future or present, something anticipated or continued at any point of time. See William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (McLean, VA: Macdonald, n.d. [rev. ed., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990]): i-ii.

     ⁷ Elmer A. Leslie, The Psalms: Translated and Interpreted in the Light of Hebrew Life and Worship (Nashville; NY: Abingdon, 1949): 412. Samuel L. Terrien posits a 6th-century date for Psalm 37, from late-exilic or early-postexilic times (The Psalms: Strophic Structure and Theological Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003]: 322). Whether or not a specific time period can be determined, the psalms reflect “the spiritual insight and religious heritage of a small number of ancient Israelites ...” (David Firth and Philip S. Johnston, eds., Interpreting the Psalms: Issues and Approaches [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005]: 17).

     ⁸ When and by whom the collection of canonical psalms was compiled is unknown, though it is not outside the range of plausibility that the titles were appended by the original authors themselves. See Franz Delitzsch, “Biblical Commentary on the Psalms,” Vol. 1, in Biblical Commentary on the OT by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968): 23. Prefixing authorial titles to songs was an ancient practice among the Hebrews (Deut. 31:30; Isa. 38:9; Hab. 3:1; cp. Ex. 15:1, 21; Num. 24:3; Judg. 5:1), inclusive of David (2 Sam. 1:17-18; 22:1; 23:1; cp. Psa. 72:20). Moreover, Davidic authorship of selected psalms is confirmed in the NT (Matt. 22:45; Mark 12:36-37; Luke 20:42-44; Acts 1:16, 20; 2:25-28, 34-35; 4:25-26; [cf. 13:33, 35]; Rom. 4:6-8; 11:9-10; Heb. 4:7); viz. Psalms 2, 16, 32, 69, 95, 110. 

Related Posts: The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth? Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

Related articles:

Image credit: Adapted from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/669722