David (Δανείδ, but TR [Note: R Textus Receptus, Received Text.] Δαβίδ)
David, the most popular of the heroes and the most illustrious of the kings of Israel, is often alluded to in the NT. He is ‘David the son of Jesse’ (Acts 13:22), a name reminiscent of his lowly origin; and he is ‘the patriarch David’ (2:29), ‘our father David’ (4:25), one of that company of venerable progenitors who may be supposed to have bequeathed something of their spirit to all their descendants. He is habitually thought of as the ideal of manhood, the man (ἀ νήρ) after God’s heart, doing all His will (13:22); and as the devout worshipper who desired to find a habitation for the God of Jacob (7:46). All Israelites loved to think of his ‘days’ (7:45) as the golden age of Hebrew history, and of ‘the holy and sur e blessings’ shown to him (13:34), or Divine promises made to his family, as pledges of everlasting favour to his nation. He is of course included in the roll of the OT heroes of faith (Hebrews 11:32).
These were matters of ancient history, but the relation of David to the Messiah seemed a point of vital importance to every Jew and Jewish Christian, as well as of deep interest to all educated Gentile Christians. The Davidic descent of the coming Deliverer-based on Isaiah 11:6, Jeremiah 23:5, Psalms 132:11 -was an article of faith among the scribes, who connected with it the hope of regal power and a restored Kingdom. It would be too much to say that our Lord’s own discussion of the point (Matthew 22:41, Mark 12:35, Luke 20:41) amounts to a denial on His part of Davidic descent, but it clearly implies that He did not attach to the traditional genealogy the same importance as the Rabbis. The Messiah’s spiritual Lordship, acknowledged by the writer of Psalms 110 -who is presumed to be David-is for Him the essential fact (cf. W. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu 2, 1892, p. 82f.). The Apostolic Church, however, appears to have taken for granted His Davidic extraction on the male side. This fact is genealogically set forth in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 . Much earlier, St. Paul is said to have referred to it at Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:23), and in Romans 1:3 he expresses the belief that Christ was ‘born of the seed of David according to the flesh’ (cf. 2 Timothy 2:8). For the writer of the Revelation, too, it is an article of faith that Christ is ‘the Root (meaning shoot or scion from the main stem) of David’ (5:5), ‘the Root and Offspring of David’ (22:16).
Before the rise of historical and literary criticism, the Psalms were assumed to be Davidic in authorship and many of them directly Messianic in import. In Acts 1:16 the 69th Psalm, in 2:25; Psalms 16, in 2:34; Psalms 110, in 4:25; Psalms 2, in Romans 4:6; Psalms 32, in 11:9; Psalms 69, and in Hebrews 4:7; Psalms 95 are ascribed to David. Psalms 16 is supposed to be the poetical embodiment of an astonishing vision granted to David, of the resurrection of his greater Son. In its original significance it was a cry for the deliverance or the writer from death and the expression of a serene hope that the prayer would be answered. St. Peter is struck by the parallel between the words of ‘the patriarch David’ and the experience of Christ, and instead of abstracting the eternal principle contained in the Psalm-that God cannot leave to destruction any holy one with whom He had made a covenant-and applying it to Christ, he assumes, as the exegetical methods of his time permitted him to do, that the Psalmist had the actual historical events directly in view a thousand years before their occurrence. In the same way Psalms 110, which ascribes to an ideal King the highest participation in the sovereignty of God, is interpreted, on the ground that David himself ‘ascended not into the heavens,’ as a prevision on his part of the Ascension of Christ (Acts 2:34). Historical criticism insists on the rigid separation of all the Psalms from their NT applications. Each of them had its own meaning in its own time and place. The words ‘his office let another take’ (Acts 1:20 ║ Psalms 109:8) were no doubt originally spoken regarding some traitor, but probably not by David, and certainly not concerning the betrayer of our Lord. Yet ‘the idea lying behind the parallel perceived … is usually profound, admitting of suggestive restatement in terms of our own more rigorous literary methods’ (J. V. Bartlet, Acts [ Century Bible, 1901], p. 145).
In Revelation 3:7 the Messiah is described as ‘he that hath the key of David.’ This is part of a message of comfort to the persecuted Church of Philadelphia. The whole verse is an adaptation of Isaiah 22:22 . The idea is that the steward who has the key of the house possesses the symbol of unlimited authority over the household. As the Scion of the house of David, Christ has supreme power in the Divine realm, admitting and excluding whom He will. ‘And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder’ (Isaiah 22:22) is synonymous with ‘And the government shall be upon his shoulder’ (9:6). Vested with that authority, possessing that key, the Messiah sets before the Jewish Christians of Philadelphia, who are shut out from the synagogue, the ever-open door of His eternal Kingdom.
Literature.-F. Weber, Jüdische Theologie, Leipzig, 1897, p. 382f.; C. A. Briggs, The Messiah of the Apostles, 1895, pp. 42, 74ff.; E. F. Scott, The Kingdom and the Messiah, 1911, p. 175ff.
James Strahan.
DAY AND NIGHT (figurative)* [Note: For ‘day’ and ‘night’ in the literal sense See art. Time.]
Besides their literal meanings, ‘day’ has frequently, and ‘night’ on two or three occasions, a figurative signification.
1. by a species of synecdoche, ‘day’ is often employed generally as an equivalent for ‘time’; cf. the similar use of יום in the OT (Genesis 47:26, Judges 18:30, Judges 18:2 S 21:1, etc.). ‘The day of salvation’ (2 Corinthians 6:2) is the time when salvation is possible; ‘the day of visitation’ (1 P 2:12), the time when God visits mankind with His grace, though some would make it equivalent to the day of judgment; ‘the evil day’ (Ephesians 6:13), the time of Satan’s assaults. In this use of the word the plural is much more common, and is illustrated by such phrases as ‘for a few days’ (Hebrews 12:10), ‘in the last days’ (2 Timothy 3:1), ‘good days’ (1 P 3:10). Sometimes ‘days’ is followed by the genitive either of a person or a thing. With the genitive of a person it denotes the period of his life or public activity. ‘The days of David’ (Acts 7:45) are the years of his reign; ‘the days of Noah’ (1 P 3:20), the time when he was a preacher of righteousness to the disobedient world. With the genitive of a thing, ‘days’ refers to the time of its occurrence, as ‘in the days of the taxing’ (Acts 5:37), ‘in the days of the voice’ (Revelation 10:7).
2. In Rev. ‘day’ is used as a mystical symbol for a certain period of time. As to the length of that time the interpreters of apocalyptic have widely differed. Some have taken the author to be using words in their literal meaning when he writes in 11:3; 12:6 of the 1260 days (with which cf. the corresponding 42 months of 13:5 and the ‘time and times and half a time,’ i.e. 3½ years, of 12:14). More commonly the ‘year-day principle’ (cf. Ezekiel 4:6) has been applied, so that the 1260 days have stood for the same number of years. Similarly the ‘ten days’ of tribulation (2:10), instead of being regarded as a round-number expression for a short and limited period (cf. Job 19:3, Daniel 1:12), has been taken to indicate a persecution of the Church at Smyrna lasting for 10 years.
3. In a specific sense ‘the day’ (Romans 13:12, 1 Corinthians 3:13, 1 Thessalonians 5:5, Hebrews 10:25, Hebrews 10:2 P 1:19) and ‘that day’ (1 Thessalonians 5:4, 2 Thessalonians 1:10, 2 Timothy 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:18, 2 Timothy 1:4 :8) are used metaphorically for the Parousia with all its glorious accompaniments, in contrast with which the present world of sin and sorrow appears as ‘the night.’ ‘The night is far spent,’ St. Paul exclaims, ‘the day is at hand’ (Romans 13:12). Elsewhere he conceives of Christ’s people as illumined already by the glorious light of that day’s dawn, so that, although they still have the night around them just as others have, they do not belong to it, but are ‘sons of light and sons of the day’ (1 Thessalonians 5:5), whose calling it is to ‘cast off the works of darkness’ and to ‘put on the armour of light’ (Romans 13:12; cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:8). In keeping with this metaphorical description of the glory of the Parousia as a shining day is the conception of the heavenly city, illumined by the presence of the Lamb (Revelation 21:23), as a city of unfading light: ‘for there shall be no night there’ (v. 25; cf. 22:4, 5). In this distinctive sense ‘the day’ is more fully described as ‘the day of the Lord’ (1 Thessalonians 5:2, etc.), ‘the day of our Lord Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 1:14), ‘the day of Jesus Christ’ (Philippians 1:6), ‘the day of Christ’ (v. 10), ‘the day of God’ (2 P 3:12), ‘the great day’ (Jude 1:6), ‘the great day of God Almighty’ (Revelation 16:14). It is further defined by a variety of epithets in which reference is made to its characteristic manifestations and events. Thus it is ‘the day of judgment’ (2 P 2:9; 3:7, 1 John 4:17), ‘of wrath’ (Romans 2:5, Revelation 6:17), ‘of slaughter’ (James 5:5), ‘of revelation of the righteous judgment of God’ (Romans 2:5); but also ‘the day of redemption’ (Ephesians 4:30), a day in which Christ’s people shall not only have boldness (1 John 4:17), but shall rejoice (Philippians 2:16), and whose coming they are to look for and earnestly desire (2 P 3:12).
J. C. Lambert.