On the interpretation of vs. 4.
The second oracle of the psalm (vs. 4) must be understood within the above
context. In it the promise of priesthood is made to the king. The context of
the psalm defines the character of the-priesthood that is here promised: it is
a martial priesthood. We may, of course, extract this oracle from the psalm and
use it to illustrate and expound the nature of the relationship between king
and priest in Israel. Before doing so, however, it is important to note what
aspects of the priesthood are stressed: not only is it a priesthood forever but
also a priesthood for war. It must be admitted that it is not readily apparent
what bearing the military context of the psalm has upon the promised
priesthood. If we assume, however, as we must, that the psalm had meaning and
coherence, it is Incumbent upon the interpreter to remain dissatisfied with an
atomistic Commentary on the separate verses. The attempt must be made to
discover its unity, its interrelationships, its internal structure. It
therefore seem not only logical but imperative that we assume a connexion in
waning betweem the first oracle of the psalm and the second. The connexion seem
to necessitate at least this: (i) the king is invested as priest while he is
sitting (on the throne) and (ii) the investiture has a special relation to his
ability to play effectively the role of smiter of enemies. He wields the
sceptre of Yahweh not only as king, but as priest as well. We will define more
precisely below the nature of the relation between priest and king (paragraph #
7) and the significance of the wielding of the sceptre (paragraph # 8)" (John
G. Gammie, “Melchizedek:
An Exegetical Study of Genesis 14 and the Psalter” [PhD Dissertation;
University of Edinburgh, 1962], 158-59)
King and Cult. The
Israleite king in all probability was a leader in cultic drama in which he
played the rôle of Moses . .
. (Ibid., 257)
