8 The Canonical Shape of the Psalter as Cotexts for Understanding Psalm 110: With Special Reference to Psalms 1-2 and Books I-IV

As shown in the last chapter, Psalm 110 should be read in a messianic andeschatological sense. The poet has employed rhetorical and literary devices and techniques to explicate the messianic figure that is both a royal and a priestly person. Does this messianic reading of Psalm 110 align with the understanding offered by the canonical shape of the Psalter? Or do the cotexts of Psalm 110 share the same theological concerns? The purpose of this chapter is to set out to prove that they do share the messianic reading of Psalm 110, as we have delineated in our last chapter. The approach adopted here is to treat the Psalter, particularly certain psalms, as ‟cotexts” of Psalm 110. With 150 psalms in the Psalter, the process has to be selective. Nonetheless, based on certain semantic-thematic links, we will focus our study on Psalms 1-2, viewing them as the programmatic introduction to the Psalter. We will review the canonical shape of Books I-IV in view of Psalms 1-2, paying particular attention to Psalms 72 and 89 because of their strategic positions in Books II and III. Afterwards, we will examine Book IV in view of the message in Psalm 89. All of the above studies will be the focus of this chapter. (In our next chapter, the immediate ‟cotext” of Psalm 110, Book V, will be investigated, which should illuminate exegetical insights from Psalms 108-109 and 132. At the close of our next chapter, we will consider the theological implications of Psalm 110 in view of the other psalms and the nonpsalm texts of Genesis 14, Numbers 22-24, and 2 Samuel 7).

the issue,501 the editorial structure of the Psalter failed to capture the center stage of biblical scholarship. The discovery of the Qumran Psalm manuscripts, however, has challenged scholars to reconsider its importance and examine the editorial arrangement of the Psalter. 502 The current shape of the Psalter is presumably based on the MT text. As indicated, the discovery of the Qumran texts, especially 11Q5, shed light on another kind of arrangement of the Psalter in Books IV and V. Does the Qumran Psalter display another kind of purposeful composition arrangement? If so, why does it differ from the MT's, and what kinds of theological reflections result from the Qumran arrangement?503 In the 1980s, Wilson (and others) spearheaded renewed interest in the editorial structure of the Psalter as a book, generating a flourishing of publications in this important area of biblical scholarship.504 Within all this publishing activity, objections are also raised. Not all scholars agree with an overall purposeful arrangement of the Psalter. Some of the dissenters advocate that intentional editing is more evident in a smaller collection or concatenation (with adjacent psalms only) but not as evident in the Psalter as a whole. For example, Whybray argues that concatenation is a more plausible theory to partially explain some features of the present shape of the Psalter, and that to argue for a final editing process is merely speculative.505 Others deny a purposeful editing of the Psalter but propose to read individual psalms sociohistorically. 506 Based on the discussion above, it becomes apparent that when studying the structural arrangement of the Psalter, one of two approaches can be adopted:507 first, to limit the view by regarding certain sections -two of the adjacent psalms or a group of psalms -of the Psalter (like Whybray), and second, to expand or broaden the view by regarding the overall canonical Psalter (all 150 psalms; like Wilson). Whichever approach is adopted, several matters are left unresolved. Is it intended that the Psalter be used for private meditation, or for public reading in worship? Is the Psalter a loosely conglomerated collection, or a purposeful configuration?508 The underlying assumption for both approaches -a limited selection or the Psalter taken as a whole -is that there is a purposeful collection behind the Psalter by a (group of) redactor(s).509 For example, the Psalms of Ascents are an obvious result of the editing (or collecting) process. Another example crucial to the overall structure of the Psalter is Psalms 146-150, referred to as the Hallelujah-psalms. These smaller collections in the Psalter illustrate that there is a possibility of a purposeful editing of the Psalter.510 Since the possibility exists, an examination of the shape of the Psalter by viewing Psalms 1 and 2 as its beginning is feasible. Both psalms have been crucial to the overall understanding of the Psalter and thus may provide insights into the theological shape of the Psalter.

A Programmatic Structure of the Psalter Shaped by Psalms 1 and 2
At the onset of this study, one key issue needs to be addressed. Are Psalms 1 and 2 treated as one unit in a literary and theological sense? The answer to this question will determine how the Psalter should be read theologically. At the risk of sounding simplistic, it might be said that Psalm 1 is about the Torah and Psalm 2 is about the messianic king. If the two psalms are not regarded as one unit, and if Psalm 1 is regarded as the only introduction to the Psalter, then the implication is that the Psalter should be read similarly to the Torah. If Psalm 2 is part of the introduction, then the implication is more complex, which will be treated later in this chapter. Furthermore, from the biblical traditions, the citation in Acts 13:33 compounds the issue. While 508 These two issues are addressed by Erich Zenger, "Der Psalter als Buch," in Der Psalter in Judentum und Christentum, ed. Zenger, Herder's Biblical Studies 18 (Breisgau, Germany: Herder Freiburg, 1998), 1-35. Whybray lists seven points of agreement evidenced in scholars' views of the composition and purpose of the Psalter and adds six points of disagreement in his Reading the Psalms, 30-32. 509 Since it is impossible to verify the number of redactors for the Psalter, we will use "redactor" in the singular to represent one or many. 510 A recent and comprehensive attempt to trace the editing process of the Psalter beginning with individual psalms, moving to psalm-groups, and then to the overall compositional editing of the Psalms is the ambitious endeavor of Matthias Millard, Die Komposition des Psalters: Ein Formgeschichtlicher Ansatz, FAT 9 (Tübingen: Mohr, 1994 Ps 2:7 is cited there, it is called "the first psalm" by some Greek manuscripts.511 To summarize, there are basically two positions one can assume regarding Psalm 1-2 as a unit in the scholarship debate: either they should be treated as one unit or two separate units. Our position is to treat both psalms as one unit; due to space limitations, we will present the opposite view, along with our critique, in appendix 6.

Psalms 1 and 2 Are One Theological Unit
Treating Psalms 1 and 2 as one unit has its own reasons and interpretation history. Notably, the idea of treating both psalms as one unit did not originate in Christian512 but in Jewish circles,513 as Paul Maiberger specifies. Moreover, it has been pointed that both psalms have long been argued as "proömium" for the Psalter.514 Others propose the unity of Psalms 1-2 for other reasons or purposes. For example, E. Lipiński proposes that Ps 2:11-12 was at one time originally part of Psalm 1,515 though his suggestion is not textually verifiable and is deemed a bit extreme. From a liturgical point of view, William Brownlee suggests that Psalm 1 is "aptly joined to and knitted together with Ps 2 for the coronation of one of the kings of Judah."516 On the other hand, John Walton views Psalms 1-2 as an introduction to the Davidic Covenant from a theological-covenantal point of view517 (we will come back to this Davidic covenantal notion later in this chapter).
None of the above notions, however, have given sufficient attention to the rhetorical purpose of the juxtaposition of Psalms 1-2 in the Psalter. This omission, therefore, means a rhetorical analysis of both psalms is much needed but due to our space limitations, we opt to provide a rhetorical analysis of both Psalms in appendix 7. The effect or result of this rhetorical analysis, especially in view of the correlation of Psalm 1 and 2, is offered in the next two sections.

Effect of the Rhetorical Structure of Psalm 1
We have two comments regarding the effect of the rhetorical structure of Psalm 1.518 First, words that signify a blessing-motif are placed strategically in the Psalter, thus creating a semantic-thematic link to some key antecedent Scripture. Psalm 1 and the Psalter begin with this word yre v. a; .519 Its synonym, $rb,520 appears in strategic positions in various parts of the Psalter, that is, at the end of Books I-IV: 41:14[13], 72:19, 89:53[52], 106:48 (in the form of $wrb). While yre v. a; is used in Ps 1:1 referring to mankind, $wrb in each incident cited is for the Lord ("blessed" in the sense of "praise"). Nonetheless, the blessing-motif, possibly as a frame for the Psalter, should be explored later in view of Psalm 110. This Psalm cites Gen 14:18-20, which is noticeably saturated with the same motif.
Second, while v. 6 is seemingly "out" of the chiastic structure,521 it serves as a recap of the poem and, as an important feature, points the reader back to Yahweh. Verse 6 contains a contrast by way of syntagmatic use of the word $rd ("way"): ~yqi yDI c; %r, D, versus y[i v' r> %r, D, . Significantly, the latter is described as dbe aTo ("perish").522 In v. 6, the reason for perishing is not stated explicitly but presumably the perishing is caused because the wicked ignore the Torah.523 According to 2:12, the picture is made clear (Psalm 2 will be explored later in this analysis): briefly, those who refuse to pay homage to the son of Yahweh will perish (cf. 2:11). Note also how in Ps 1:6a "the way of the wicked" is the subject of the verb "to perish" in v. 6a. Naturally, one would expect "the way of the righteous" to be the subject of the verb "to know," but surprisingly, that is not the case. Instead, Yahweh is the subject of the verb "to know" with the object "the way of righteous."524 Such "inconsistency" ("the way of the wicked will perish" vs. "Yahweh knows the way of the righteous"), with the aid of the un-repeated verb "to know",525 shifts the attention back to Yahweh. This is despite the fact that Yahweh occurs only two times in the text; once in v. 6 and the other time in the phrase hwhy trwtb "Torah of Yahweh" in v. 2. The point is that the Torah of Yahweh, the object of meditation by any person, serves as a pointer to Yahweh himself. In other words, the revelatory aspect of the Torah is stressed, that the Torah reveals who God is or what his plans are.526 The rationale of the notion is to safeguard against an undue over-emphasis on the Torah as the center of Psalm 1, thereby making it a reading guide for the remainder of the Psalter, as suggested by some scholars.527 In a similar vein, some scholars see the notion of Torah as the center of or as a reading guide for the Psalter and blend the Torah with "wisdom" as a redactional In that article, Kratz views the Ps 1:2 reference to "Tora Jhwhs" as distinct from "Tora des Mose" and through the structure of the five books, frequent references to David and the ending doxologies argue for the Psalter as "Torah of David" in comparison to the Pentateuch as "Torah of Moses." strategy of reading the Psalter.528 The debate of Torah-Wisdom as a redactional strategy serving as a guide for reading the Psalter extends beyond our discussion.529 Suffice it to say, both conceptions equally distort the "hermeneutical point of view" that these two psalms insinuate. Both the Torah and wisdom should be regarded a (redactional) "tool" rather than the center or be considered a classification for the understanding of the psalms.

The Effect of the Rhetorical Structure of Psalm 2
For the effect (or result) of our rhetorical analysis of Psalm 2,530 four items are deserving of the reader's attention. The first noteworthy item is the observable use of terms imbued with the notion of "wisdom": WlyKi f. h; ("be wise") and Wrs. W" hi i ("be admonished")531 in v. 10. In a literary sense, these words signal to the sensitive reader a reference to Psalm 1 where there is a lexical sense of the notion of Torah-wisdom. The leaders of the nations are now charged to act prudently, that is, to serve Yahweh as stated in v. 11.
The second noteworthy item is how deleting or retaining the phrase rb; -WqV. n: ("kiss the son") has stimulated much discussion in biblical scholarship. Most propose to 528 For Psalm 1 as an invitation to obtain wisdom through the study of the Torah, see Gerald T. Sheppard, Wisdom as a Hermeneutical Construct: A Study in the Sapientializing of the Old Testament, BZAW 151 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), 142. 529 It can be traced back to Westermann, who proposes that Psalm 1 and 119 form the beginning and ending frame for an early collection of a Psalter. See idem, "Formation of the Psalter," 253. Cf. Joseph Reindl, "Weisheitliche Bearbeitung von Psalemen: Ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der Sammlung des psalters," in VTSup 32 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 333-56. In this article, Reindl proposes "wisdom" as endredaction by looking at Psalms 1 and 146-50, and also by seeing an example in Psalms 90-92 in their shared vocabulary and theme. The argument of Torah-wisdom redaction shaping the Psalter may become too crucial to be dismissed when we come to Book V, where the massive Psalm 119 has been regarded by some as the "center" of Book V. We will further explore the topic in our study of Book V in our next chapter. 530 For a rhetorical analysis of Psalm 2, see appendix 7. 531 Scholars have noted the wisdom influence on Psalm 2 based on these two words. For the former, see Terence Fretheim, "lkf," NIDOTTE, 3: 1243; for the latter, see M. Saebo, "rsy," TLOT, 2: 549. See the wisdom notion noted by E. Beaucamp, Le Psautier: Ps 1-72, SB (Paris: Gabalda, 1976), 46 when he comments on vv. 10-12. emend or delete it532 but not one of these proposals, in our opinion, is legitimate and satisfactory. Although the LXX has a different reading dra, xasqe paidei, aj, "take hold of discipline,"533 something must be in the MT that the LXX translator either could not make any sense of, or he might have rendered a different Hebrew text not passed along to us. Carsten Vang, with his poetic-structural approach, in our opinion, argues very convincingly that each strophe of Psalm 2 contains all of these three characters: Yahweh, the messianic king, and the pagan kings. To delete this phrase would "therefore be very peculiar"534 and throw off the balance.
There is a progression leading to this phrase syntagmatically: from the designation of this person as "the messiah," to becoming "king" [of Yahweh], to being called "son" [of Yahweh], then to being "son" (rb) again (see vv. 2, 6, 7 and 12).535 The Aramaic word rb; "son," contained in v. 12, not only continues the theological progression but also implies having a wider audience -namely the nations -in view.536 As a result, the messianic king as the divine son will rule from Zion extending to a wider (worldwide) area.
A third noteworthy item is Ab yse Ax-lK' yre v. a in v. 12bb. This phrase serves two functions, one literary and one theological. In the literary function, it serves as an inclusio with Ps 1:1, vyai h' -yre v. a; .537 Such an obvious semantic-structural link should be beyond any doubt; any scholar denying this link has given little thought to the redactional intention of the Psalter.538 Its literary function is imbued with a theological notion, which will be explored at greater length in the next section.
The fourth noteworthy item is the phrase Ab in the clause Ab yse Ax-lK' that requires identifying who it is in whom all should take refuge. Syntactically, the closest antecedent is rb "son" whether the speaker of this verse is Yahweh (being quoted by the messianic king) or the poet himself.539 As a result, the admonition that begins in v. 10 serves to urge kings and leaders of nations to take refuge or put their trust (hsx)540 in the "son," the messianic king, syntagmatically portrayed earlier in Psalm 2.541 Based on the above effect and result of our rhetorical analysis, we now delineate the interaction of Psalms 1 and 2 as the programmatic introduction to the Psalter.

A Theological Interaction of Psalms 1-2: Shaping the Reading of the Psalter
We now consider how these two psalms should be read interactively, and as a consequence, how they both shape the way the Psalter is to be read. In our judgment, most scholars who favor reading Psalm 1 as the introduction of the Psalter will advocate that Psalm 1 should shape the reading of the Psalter, including the reading 538 The redactional intention can be seen in these semantic links between Psalms 1 and 2: yrva, bvy, hgh, !tn, ~y, jpv, $rd, dba (and Yahweh). 539 If we were to go along with some scholars who suggest deleting rb; -WqV. n: , then Yahweh would have been the object of Ab, cf. v. 11. 540 Though hsx is commonly glossed as "take refuge in," it became "a formula of trust in the songs of lament or confidence." See E. Gerstenberger, "hsx," TLOT, 2: 465. Cf. how the LXX renders this Hebrew word (ibid). For 2:12bb, the LXX has pa, ntej oi` pepoiqo, tej ev pV auv tw/ | ; hence the notion of "trust or put confidence in" is explicated here. 541 If the son is who Ab refers to, some scholars may challenge our interpretation in view of the content of v. 5 (Amle h] b; y> AnArx] b; W APa; b. Amyle ae rBe d; y> za' ) ), which is parallel to part of v. 12 (APa; j[; m. Ki r[; b. yI -yKi . . . @n: a/ y< -!P, , ); clearly in v. 5, the anger comes from Yahweh, not the messianic king. Our response is that "who" as the subject of the burning anger (. . . @n: a/ y< -!P, APa; j[; m. Ki r[; b. yI -yKi ) is not important. Theologically, it is feasible to have either Yahweh or his messianic king be angry. The key is "who" (Ab) is the person in whom they take refuge in v. 12bb. Syntactically and syntagmatically, Ab can only be identified with the "son" rb. Creach delineates his thesis that the editing of the Psalter can be traced to or nearly be based on 2:12bb. See idem, Yahweh as Refuge, 17-18. Unfortunately he does not exegete Psalm 2, and therefore mistakenly identifies Yahweh as the object of Ab. Such distinction (Yahweh vs. Yahweh's messianic king/son) may not be significant theologically. In fact, Yahweh as refuge is not uncommon in the OT (cf. Ps 5:12[11]). Yet exegetically, we need to maintain this distinction in order to be fair to the text. If our exegesis is correct, this could be detrimental to Creach's entire thesis. In addition, part of his argument in chap. 3 is the Torah "as a surrogate for Yahweh's refuge" is unconvincing and even he himself admits that neither does the "Torah as refuge" occur in the OT, nor has the verb "take refuge" ever taken the Torah as its object (p. 72). He also admits that using "Yahweh as refuge" to trace the editing of the Psalter encounters massive difficulty in Book V (p. 104).
of Psalm 2.542 Furthermore, scholars who refuse to read Psalm 2 messianically will naturally find rapport with those sharing a similar position.543 Other scholars, classified as follows, adopt a moderate position that emphasizes Psalm 1 as a reading guide. First, J. Clinton McCann proposes to read Psalm 1 as a call for readers to appropriate the Psalter as instruction and to read Psalm 2 as the content of that instruction, that is, the Lord reigns.544 Second, Erich Zenger proposes that the king should be a Torah-reader before his people and that "Die sich in der Psalmenrezitation vollziehende Aneigung der Tora JHWHs ist der konkrete Vollzug von hwhy hsh."545 Third, Patrick D. Miller's thesis claims that the voice of the king/the anointed in Psalm 2, who in later psalms (Psalm 3 and following) is represented by David in various psalms' superscriptions,546 is also the voice of the one who reads and lives by the Torah.547 To a certain degree, all of these positions favor Psalm 1 as the basis for shaping the reading of Psalm 2 and thus of the Psalter.
We suggest, however, that there is a syntagmatic progression from Psalm 1 to Psalm 2 based on semantic links between the two and consequently, Psalm 2 shapes Psalm 1 in our proposal.548 There are three elements we observe in these two psalms to support our notion.
First, there is a shift of the focus from the Torah to the messianic son based on the syntagmatic use of this keyword yrva. Clearly, the one whose delight is in the Torah (Acp. x, hw" hy> tr: AtB. ) and who meditates on it daily (~m' Ay hG< h. y< Atr' Atb. ) is called "blessed." Yet, since Psalm 1 is redactionally placed with Psalm 2, such placement probably intends to help any Psalm reader -by repeating the word yrva in 2:12 -move from the Torah-Frömmigkeit to another category of blessing, which is for those who take refuge in the "messianic king and son."549 Here the tone is positive. In the next element, however, the tone is negative.
Second, Ps 2:12 refines the notion of who will perish in Ps 1:6. According to 2:12, those who refuse to "kiss the son" or "take refuge in him" provoke divine wrath, with the consequence of perishing: %r, d, Wdb. ato w> , @n: a/ y< -!P, . The last phrase, $rd wdbatw, is nearly a verbatim repetition of 1:6, dbat ~y[vr $rdw. One is tempted to fit ~y[vr into the slot of $rd wdbatw but the redactor refines or confines who is going to perish by the rest of Ps 2:11-12. In no uncertain terms, the ones who refuse to kiss the son, and those who refuse to serve Yahweh,550 will perish. Note also how 2:1 and 2:2 have already alluded to those who rise up against Yahweh and the messiah: ~yMi au l. , ~yI Ag, ~ynI z> Ar and #r, a, -yke l. m; . Such understanding is a marked departure from Psalm 1 where, in contrast, the reason for "the perishing of the wicked" is rather ambiguous. We can probably postulate that the placement of Psalm 1 followed by 2 is to define the wicked (and the consequence of one's wickedness) not so much by his relationship with the Torah, but by his relationship with Yahweh or his messianic son. A question that naturally follows is what is the role of the Torah in Psalm 1 in relation to Psalm 2? Our next point offers an explanation.
Third, the wisdom link between Psalms 1-2 by these three words [; de Ay, , , Wrs. W" hi ; and WlyKi f. h; (1:6, 2:10) highlights the wise choice of serving Yahweh and trusting the messiah stemming from the reading of the Torah. A challenge is presented to the kings and the 548 A recent work by Robert L. Cole has taken the interaction of Psalms 1-2 seriously. By noting the person in Psalm 1 as royal and priestly figure, the same person reappears in Psalm 2 as heavenly priestly king. See his, Psalms 1-2: Gateway to the Psalter. Hebrew Bible Monographs 37 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2013). How his work differs from mine is further explained in the following paragraphs. 549 In discourse analysis, the syntagmatic dimension is helpful here. In a syntagmatic study of a word like yrva a primary task is to determine how it is collocated with other words. Not taking a syntagmatic view, Barbiero arrives at a similar conclusion: "Inhaltlich sind die beiden Seligpreisungen, Ps 1,1 und Ps 2,12, komplementär, indem die erste den "Weg der Gerechten" abgrenzend (. . . rulers of the earth: they should "be wise" (WlyKi f. h; ) so that they serve Yahweh, kiss the son, and put their trust in him (vv. 11-12). The challenge can only be met when they do what Psalm 1 has hinted at through the notion of wisdom, particularly in v. 6a. Verse 6a is crucial in two aspects. As noted earlier, v. 6a is a recap of vv. 1-3.551 In these three verses, the center is v. 2, sandwiched by (1) the negative notions of the "wicked" in v. 1 and (2) a tree-simile of the righteous in v. 3. The theme of v. 2 is plain: the delight and the meditation of the Torah. Syntagmatically, hwhy only occurs in v. 6 and v. 2. In the latter reference, hwhy is collocated with the Torah. Through these collocations and the hint of wisdom, we then can conclude that the kings and rulers of the nations could be prudent if and when they read the Torah. Since 2:10 has a literary tie with vv. 11-12 as one strophe, we can also infer that the reading of the Torah helps the kings to make a wise choice, the wise choice being to serve (Wdb. [i ) Yahweh and to pay homage to (rb; -WqV. n: ) and ultimately to trust in (Ab yse Ax-lK' ) the messianic son.
To conclude, Psalm 2 seems to shape how we read both Psalm 1 and the Psalter as a whole from a redactional view.552 The import of meditation on the Torah evidenced in Psalm 1 -Psalm 2 is through the wisdom redactional link. As a result, the revelatory aspect of the Torah is properly stressed, namely, that the Torah ultimately points to trusting in Yahweh's messiah. Psalm 2, on the other hand, redefines or qualifies the "blessedness" of Psalm 1 by linking it to the messianic king. It does not contradict Psalm 1's Torah-induced blessedness if we interpret it the way we propose. Consequently, through our syntagmatic and poetic analysis, it becomes evident that there is a mutual or reciprocal relationship between the Torah and the messianic king through the interaction of these two psalms. Our position differs from other scholars' whose view, though similar, is not identical to ours. To explain the viewpoint difference, we would say that most see the Torah-kingship in the interaction of Psalms 1-2.553 Our viewpoint, perhaps more refined by our rhetorical study of Psalms 1-2, is that the revelation of the Torah points to trusting in the messiah of Yahweh, whose kingship and sonship are both affirmed in Psalm 2.554 Thus, we do not deny but deeply affirm Yahweh's kingship; in fact, we qualify it further in view of our study of Psalms 1-2, namely, the messianic kingship of Yahweh. Earlier we had alluded to the Davidic covenant in Psalm 2, which is a prominent feature we cannot afford to ignore. In our understanding of the programmatic introduction set out in Psalm 1-2, Psalm 2 should be viewed from the Davidic covenant, despite the absence of the term in the psalm.555 Presumably adopting a Davidic covenantal perspective, various scholars have linked together psalms like Psalms 72 (Book II), 89 (in Book III), 110 and 132 (in Book V).556 Therefore, we will bear in mind the Davidic covenantal perspective as we investigate the structure of the Psalter.557 In our study thus far a notion has emerged, namely, Torah-revelation-(Pointing-) to-Trusting-Messiah. The test question is, can we sustain this notion throughout the remainder of the Psalter?558 We propose, due to the limitations of this project, to 555 Wilson comments: "Thematically, Psalm 2 is dominated by royal considerations and especially the institution of the Davidic covenant (cf. 2 Sam 7). The psalm throughout presents a positive evaluation of the Davidic covenant divinely instituted and that continues to experience divine support. As such the psalm is admirably fitted for its function as the introduction of the highly Davidic collection of psalms which follows." Idem, "Use of Royal Psalms," 77. (1) as a result of Gunkel's form analysis, "in the original composition the king is the human subject of the psalms, whether they be lament, acknowledgement, praise, or belonging to various other types of psalms" (p. 12); (2) many types of psalms "composed for the first temple and used in it and constituting a part of Israel's canonical literature had a messianic meaning and significance that none of David's successors satisfied up to the time" of exile (p. 14); (3) in the third stage of the canonical development of the Psalter, "the psalms continued to have a royal and messianic significance, but they now carried a predictive meaning as well. Israel must now wait in hope for a future son of David worthy to pray to and sing these psalms" (p. 16); and (4) the coming of Jesus Christ has satisfied this hope; thus "within the literary context of the New Testament the psalms find their final and full meaning and perception. From this fourth and highest vantage point we win the full significance of the psalms" (p. 16). For the present study, our interest falls within the second through the fourth stage of the canonical process of the Psalter in Waltke's schema. examine Books I-III,559 with special reference to Psalms 72 and 89, noting how they are strategically positioned in the Psalter, and noting also the predominance of their genre as royal psalms. Then we will examine Book IV to see whether or not the messianic reading exists in the remainder of the Psalter.560  (Psalms 1, 19 and 119). Therefore, instead of tracing our notion "Torah-revealingmessiah," we limit our study by tracing the messianic reading of the Psalter. Nonetheless, when we come to Book V, we will examine it in view of our original notion ("Torah-revealing-messiah") because of the presence of Psalm 119. It is clear that Psalm 41, which concludes the first book, is not normally identified as one of the 'royal' psalms. While this psalm is traditionally associated with David (see the superscript), and some still attempt to connect it with events in the life of the king . . . , it evidences no distinctly 'kingly' theme. . . . Perhaps, a better explanation for the absence of a royal psalm at the end of Book One and Two into a single Davidic collection (a movement marked by the postscript in Ps 72:20, 'The prayers of David son of Jesse are ended') had already taken place when these royal psalms were set in their present positions. As a result, we are left with two major blocks of material (Psalms 2-72, 73-89) which are marked at their 'seams' by royal psalms.563

A Study of Books
Given the position of Book I and II as "one" collection,564 we now turn our attention to Psalm 72, choosing as our focus the beginning and end of this Psalm. The superscription hmo l{ v. li , appears to take on further meaning besides unique,565 such as "by," "to," "for," or "concerning" Solomon. While the superscription may indicate Solomonic authorship if read in light of the ending verse, v. 20, dwI D' tALpi t. WLK' ,566 it could also indicate that it is a prayer of David concerning his son Solomon. The difficulty of this notion (David praying for his son Solomon), however, is the allusion to the events in 1 Kings during Solomon's reign. For example, Ps 72:10-11 seems to allude to the events in 1 Kings 5:15-26[5:1-12], 9:10-14 and 10:1-13.567 Therefore, unless David as a prophet568 foresees the events happening in Solomon's time, we should treat hmo l{ v. li as an indication of authorship similar to the function of other superscriptions -the most noticeable one being dwI d' l -in the Psalter.569 If Solomon is the author of this psalm, then the prayer in this psalm concerns a king570 who, in a variety of ways, is prefigured by Solomon, and whose life -or at least some aspects of or events in his life -is alluded to in this psalm.571 Who is this king? The answer is found in the strategic position of Psalm 72 itself, aided by the remark in v. 20 that concludes Books I and II. Thus, readers are clued to go back to the messianic king in Psalm 2.572 Evidenced in these two psalms are striking verbal parallels. One clear example is sufficient: linking together Psalms 2 and 72 to positively identify the king in Psalm 72 as the messianic king in Psalm 2 (compare the following): Another clue to the identity of this king is found in 72:1. The phrase $lm-!bl should not be strictly limited to Solomon574 but rather should be expanded to include the identity of someone who might be "the heir to the throne in a wider sense, the descendant in the dynasty of David."575 Considering this phrase in light of Ps 2:6-7, it is safe to propose that the messianic son-king notion evidenced in Psalm 2 is being reiterated here in 72:1.576 To summarize, Psalm 72 appears to repeat the messianic kingship notion detected in Psalm 2: the programmatic reading established by Psalm 2 in the beginning of the Psalter resurfaces at the end of Books I-II.577 Our next task, therefore, is to continue to trace this reading in Book III.

A Study of Book III: With Special Reference to Psalm 89 in View of the Editorial Introduction of Psalms 1-2
Book III is a collection that, according to McCann's analysis, contains "an alternation of expressions of lament and expressions of hope."578 The absence of Davidic superscription is noticeable,579 suggesting that the lament portion of this collection deals with the notion of the failure of the Davidic covenant (or more specifically, the projecting Exile for the southern kingdom).580 There are, however, indications of hope in this collection, as illustrated by Psalm 75, 78, and 84.581 As the last psalm of Book III, Psalm 89582 effectively recaps the lament-hope notion evidenced throughout the entire collection.
Some scholars,583 whose reading is based on the Psalm/Psalter's literary genre, view Psalm 89 as basically composed of three parts: vv.