← Contents Psalm 72 ←→

Psalm 72

1Endow the king with your justice, O God,

the royal son with your righteousness.

2He will judge your people in righteousness,

your afflicted ones with justice.

3The mountains will bring prosperity to the people,

the hills the fruit of righteousness.

4He will defend the afflicted among the people

and save the children of the needy;

he will crush the oppressor.

5He will endure as long as the sun,

as long as the moon, through all generations.

6He will be like rain falling on a mown field,

like showers watering the earth.

7In his days the righteous will flourish;

prosperity will abound till the moon is no more.

8He will rule from sea to sea

and from the River to the ends of the earth.

9The desert tribes will bow before him

and his enemies will lick the dust.

10The kings of Tarshish and of distant shores

will bring tribute to him;

the kings of Sheba and Seba

will present him gifts.

11All kings will bow down to him

and all nations will serve him.

12For he will deliver the needy who cry out,

the afflicted who have no one to help.

13He will take pity on the weak and the needy

and save the needy from death.

14He will rescue them from oppression and violence,

for precious is their blood in his sight.

15Long may he live!

May gold from Sheba be given him.

May people ever pray for him

and bless him all day long.

16Let grain abound throughout the land;

on the tops of the hills may it sway.

Let its fruit flourish like Lebanon;

let it thrive like the grass of the field.

17May his name endure forever;

may it continue as long as the sun.

All nations will be blessed through him,

and they will call him blessed.

18Praise be to the LORD God, the God of Israel,

who alone does marvelous deeds.

19Praise be to his glorious name forever;

may the whole earth be filled with his glory.

Amen and Amen.

20This concludes the prayers of David son of Jesse.

Original Meaning

The Heading (72:0)

THE PSALM IS simply entitled lišlomoh (NIV “Of Solomon”). The simplicity of the heading emphasizes the ambiguity of these kinds of titular attributions to specific persons. Some commentators understand the psalm to represent David’s blessing on his successor, in which case the heading means something like “To/For Solomon.” Others understand the psalm as the utterance of Solomon himself and take the heading to mean “By Solomon.” Those who suspect neither David nor Solomon are behind this psalm interpret the heading as “About Solomon.”

There is nothing in the text of the psalm to resolve this issue. Regardless, the clear intent of the heading is to associate Solomon in some fashion with the vision of enduring kingship articulated in the psalm. The traditional connection with Solomon is perhaps seen as a response to the reference in 72:1 to “the king [David?]” and the “royal son [Solomon?].” In addition, the petitionary tone of the psalm seeking righteous and enduring rule for the king has some resonance with the tone of Solomon’s prayer for wisdom and righteous rule in 1 Kings 3:6–15.

Bridging Contexts

MESSIANIC EXPECTATION. At the end, Psalm 72 passes subtly from a description of hoped-for grandeur of human kingship into what can only be described as a universalizing messianic expectation. The groundwork has already been laid with the hyperbolic description of the universal sovereignty of the monarch (72:8–11) and the exaggerated hopes for the abundance of crops (72:16). But the shift begins most decisively in 72:17a with the jussive entreaty: “May his name endure forever, may it continue as long as the sun.”

While this plea is ostensibly directed toward the long life of the righteous king and shares much in common with the similar expression in 72:5—“He will endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations”—the introduction of the phrase “his name” links back to the growing theme of the universal authority and dominion of Yahweh that has marked the sequence of Psalms 56–72. Throughout these psalms it has been the name of God that has focused the praise of the psalmists.23 The king has appeared in these psalms as well, but his name—the king’s name—is never the object of praise.24

Here at the end of Psalm 72, however, at the end of Book 2 of the Psalter (the book that in combination with the first constitutes the collection of “the prayers of David son of Jesse”), the line between this king and God are becoming blurred. This king will so rule that the reign of God will be extended to the earth, and the earth will respond with abundant produce. This king will be the source of blessing, not only for Israel but for all the nations of the earth (72:17). This king, then, will provide the resolution to the age-old division that has separated nation from nation and humanity from God. This king will usher in the blessing of Israel and of all the families of the earth that was promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.25

With this last promise (or entreaty) we have clearly passed over into messianic expectation. What is subtly implied by the reference to “his name” in 72:17a–b is now driven home in 72:17c–d. Sandwiched between the hopes for the king’s name in 72:17a and the blessing of the “glorious name of Yahweh” forever in the concluding doxology (72:19), the promise of blessing couched in terms so similar to the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 12 has the effect of universalizing the preceding discussion and catapulting it eschatologically to the culmination of God’s intention for all humanity.

Much of the expectation of future fulfillment expressed in this psalm rests on the exploitation of the ambiguity allowed by the imperfect verb forms used throughout. The tendency in translation to opt for the imperfect, with its implication of prophetic actualization (this will happen!) rather than the less certain jussive (O, how I want this to happen!), demonstrates the powerful draw these promises have on the reader for hopeful fulfillment.

In the few instances (72:15, 16, 17) where a distinct jussive form exists, the passage consistently uses the jussive rather than the imperfect. That could be taken to imply that the other indistinguishable forms should also be taken as jussives in this context. In those instances where the jussive is unambiguously used, it is clear that these verbs express the hopeful pleas of the psalmist for the benefits of righteous rule. The ambiguity in the largest portion of the passage, however, allows these unfulfilled hopes for the existing monarch to be powerfully projected into the future to rest on God’s Messiah, who is to come to usher in God’s rule and kingdom. That is an option that few interpreters are able to resist.

Contemporary Significance

THE KINGDOM of God on earth. What right do we have to measure our own political leadership against the call to righteous rule that Psalm 72 presents? Our national leadership—regardless to what nation we trace our citizenship—is far different from God’s people embodied in the nation of Israel. Ideally Israel was understood as a theocracy—a nation ruled over by God. The kings in this understanding were leaders placed before the people as representatives of God. There is even some evidence in the election of Saul and David that God titled his human leaders nagid (“one placed before”)26 rather than the traditional term “king” (melek) used by the people.27 Kings led Israel with the understanding that they would meet certain expectations set down by God: dependence on Yahweh alone rather than the traditional forms of kingly power,28 worshiping Yahweh to the exclusion of other pagan gods, and maintaining justice and equity. The right of leadership could be removed from a rebellious or disobedient king, as Solomon’s descendants and the later monarchs discovered.

By contrast, our modern nations generally make no claims to being ruled by God.29 They may appeal to religious values or ideals but work hard to maintain a clear separation between state and religion. When “religion” is acknowledged, it is usually in a pluralistic sense, which includes all religions. How then can we hold secular states and leaders up to the scrutiny of the theocratic state of ancient Israel? Isn’t that foolish? Or even wrong?

It would be, if we were simply measuring our contemporary leaders against ancient Israel. But that is not what Psalm 72 is calling us to do. The picture of leadership/rulership given in this psalm is idealized by its subtle shifting to an eschatological hope for the messianic kingdom of God. As such, it actually judges the ancient monarchy of Israel for its many failures to meet the expectations of God for justice, equity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and so on. As a result, it stands not as a description of Israel’s human kingship but as God’s standard for leadership that unites the whole world under the kingship of Yahweh himself.

Former President Jimmy Carter understood this in his inaugural address when he adopted Micah’s vision of divine expectation as a standard for humane governance that would underlie his own administration: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). How ridiculous, we might say, to hold unbelieving politicians to this standard. How impossible to conform pragmatic decision-making to such an idealistic rule!

But that is exactly what God does. He has made us, we are his, and he holds us—all of us, believer or unbeliever alike—to his standard. Paul claimed that all humans can see the nature and purposes of God writ large in the universe and are therefore without excuse when it comes to living up to God’s standard: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse” (Rom. 1:32–2:1).

While we may need to modify our strident, religiously oriented rhetoric in order to gain a hearing from secular politicians and leaders, we need not sacrifice God’s standards of justice, equity, compassion, and truth to the modern “god” of pragmatism. God calls us, Psalms 72 calls us, not only to pray for the well-being of our leaders but for their wisdom to see that all justice is ultimately God’s justice and that righteousness is not measured by what works but by the character of God, who empowers leaders and who will ultimately set all things right “from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Original Meaning

Opening Entreaty (72:1)5

THE PSALM OPENS with a direct entreaty for God to empower “the king” with the necessary resources for just and righteous rule. The verb ntn (“give”; NIV “endow”) is the only imperative form in the psalm and emphasizes God as the ultimate source of the king’s ability to rule rightly. It is God’s “justice” (mišpaṭ)6 and God’s “righteousness” (ṣedaqah) that the psalmist seeks—divine righteousness mediated through the earthly rule of the human king. That this entreaty has in mind the continued blessing of right rule through the Davidic dynasty rather than any one particular monarch is implied by the balanced reference to the “king” and the “royal son.”

Bridging Contexts

MESSIANIC EXPECTATION. At the end, Psalm 72 passes subtly from a description of hoped-for grandeur of human kingship into what can only be described as a universalizing messianic expectation. The groundwork has already been laid with the hyperbolic description of the universal sovereignty of the monarch (72:8–11) and the exaggerated hopes for the abundance of crops (72:16). But the shift begins most decisively in 72:17a with the jussive entreaty: “May his name endure forever, may it continue as long as the sun.”

While this plea is ostensibly directed toward the long life of the righteous king and shares much in common with the similar expression in 72:5—“He will endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations”—the introduction of the phrase “his name” links back to the growing theme of the universal authority and dominion of Yahweh that has marked the sequence of Psalms 56–72. Throughout these psalms it has been the name of God that has focused the praise of the psalmists.23 The king has appeared in these psalms as well, but his name—the king’s name—is never the object of praise.24

Here at the end of Psalm 72, however, at the end of Book 2 of the Psalter (the book that in combination with the first constitutes the collection of “the prayers of David son of Jesse”), the line between this king and God are becoming blurred. This king will so rule that the reign of God will be extended to the earth, and the earth will respond with abundant produce. This king will be the source of blessing, not only for Israel but for all the nations of the earth (72:17). This king, then, will provide the resolution to the age-old division that has separated nation from nation and humanity from God. This king will usher in the blessing of Israel and of all the families of the earth that was promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.25

With this last promise (or entreaty) we have clearly passed over into messianic expectation. What is subtly implied by the reference to “his name” in 72:17a–b is now driven home in 72:17c–d. Sandwiched between the hopes for the king’s name in 72:17a and the blessing of the “glorious name of Yahweh” forever in the concluding doxology (72:19), the promise of blessing couched in terms so similar to the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 12 has the effect of universalizing the preceding discussion and catapulting it eschatologically to the culmination of God’s intention for all humanity.

Much of the expectation of future fulfillment expressed in this psalm rests on the exploitation of the ambiguity allowed by the imperfect verb forms used throughout. The tendency in translation to opt for the imperfect, with its implication of prophetic actualization (this will happen!) rather than the less certain jussive (O, how I want this to happen!), demonstrates the powerful draw these promises have on the reader for hopeful fulfillment.

In the few instances (72:15, 16, 17) where a distinct jussive form exists, the passage consistently uses the jussive rather than the imperfect. That could be taken to imply that the other indistinguishable forms should also be taken as jussives in this context. In those instances where the jussive is unambiguously used, it is clear that these verbs express the hopeful pleas of the psalmist for the benefits of righteous rule. The ambiguity in the largest portion of the passage, however, allows these unfulfilled hopes for the existing monarch to be powerfully projected into the future to rest on God’s Messiah, who is to come to usher in God’s rule and kingdom. That is an option that few interpreters are able to resist.

Contemporary Significance

THE KINGDOM of God on earth. What right do we have to measure our own political leadership against the call to righteous rule that Psalm 72 presents? Our national leadership—regardless to what nation we trace our citizenship—is far different from God’s people embodied in the nation of Israel. Ideally Israel was understood as a theocracy—a nation ruled over by God. The kings in this understanding were leaders placed before the people as representatives of God. There is even some evidence in the election of Saul and David that God titled his human leaders nagid (“one placed before”)26 rather than the traditional term “king” (melek) used by the people.27 Kings led Israel with the understanding that they would meet certain expectations set down by God: dependence on Yahweh alone rather than the traditional forms of kingly power,28 worshiping Yahweh to the exclusion of other pagan gods, and maintaining justice and equity. The right of leadership could be removed from a rebellious or disobedient king, as Solomon’s descendants and the later monarchs discovered.

By contrast, our modern nations generally make no claims to being ruled by God.29 They may appeal to religious values or ideals but work hard to maintain a clear separation between state and religion. When “religion” is acknowledged, it is usually in a pluralistic sense, which includes all religions. How then can we hold secular states and leaders up to the scrutiny of the theocratic state of ancient Israel? Isn’t that foolish? Or even wrong?

It would be, if we were simply measuring our contemporary leaders against ancient Israel. But that is not what Psalm 72 is calling us to do. The picture of leadership/rulership given in this psalm is idealized by its subtle shifting to an eschatological hope for the messianic kingdom of God. As such, it actually judges the ancient monarchy of Israel for its many failures to meet the expectations of God for justice, equity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and so on. As a result, it stands not as a description of Israel’s human kingship but as God’s standard for leadership that unites the whole world under the kingship of Yahweh himself.

Former President Jimmy Carter understood this in his inaugural address when he adopted Micah’s vision of divine expectation as a standard for humane governance that would underlie his own administration: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). How ridiculous, we might say, to hold unbelieving politicians to this standard. How impossible to conform pragmatic decision-making to such an idealistic rule!

But that is exactly what God does. He has made us, we are his, and he holds us—all of us, believer or unbeliever alike—to his standard. Paul claimed that all humans can see the nature and purposes of God writ large in the universe and are therefore without excuse when it comes to living up to God’s standard: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse” (Rom. 1:32–2:1).

While we may need to modify our strident, religiously oriented rhetoric in order to gain a hearing from secular politicians and leaders, we need not sacrifice God’s standards of justice, equity, compassion, and truth to the modern “god” of pragmatism. God calls us, Psalms 72 calls us, not only to pray for the well-being of our leaders but for their wisdom to see that all justice is ultimately God’s justice and that righteousness is not measured by what works but by the character of God, who empowers leaders and who will ultimately set all things right “from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Original Meaning

Just Rule (72:2–4)

IF THE KING takes God’s righteous judgments to heart, the result will be continued evidence of just rule over his people by their human monarchs. Most of the verb forms used in the rest of this psalm are of a type that can be understood as either imperfects (indicating description of anticipated future events) or as jussives (expressing the desire of the speaker). The difference is between statements of almost absolute assurance (as in the NIV’s translation of vv. 2–14: “He will judge. . . . All kings will bow down to him and . . . serve him. . . . He will rescue them”) and of hopeful but less certain affirmations of desire (as in the NIV’s rendering of vv. 15–17: “Long may he live! . . . Let grain abound. . . . May his name endure”).

Only a few Hebrew verbs of this type take a distinctive form for the jussive, and only three such distinctive forms occur in Psalm 72, all in verses 15–17 (“may he live,” 72:15; “let [grain] be [abundant],” 72:16; and “let [his name] be [forever],” 72:17). Depending on how one takes the remaining forms in the psalm, either the psalmist is anticipating with confidence the fulfillment of the hopes for righteous rule expressed in the psalm (taking the forms as imperfects), or he is pleading with God to make such righteous rule a reality (considering the forms as jussives). Since either interpretation is possible, translations of this psalm vary considerably. The NIV has chosen to take the ambiguous forms as confident affirmations (or prophetic declarations) of an anticipated fulfillment, while noting the alternative in a textual note. This treatment lends itself to a messianic reading of this passage as speaking prophetically to a future descendant of David who will completely fulfill these hopes. I will return to this issue in the Bridging Contexts section.

Regardless of how the verbs are understood, the message is plain: God is the source of right rule, and those monarchs who allow themselves to be so empowered will rule so that the defenseless7 are protected, the oppressor crushed, and the whole land experiences šalom (“prosperity”) and ṣedaqah (“righteousness”). While šalom can have the sense “prosperity” as the NIV suggests, it usually has the nuance of “wholeness, completeness” and in this context seems to intend the type of restoration of relational wholeness and balance that God intended in creation.

Bridging Contexts

MESSIANIC EXPECTATION. At the end, Psalm 72 passes subtly from a description of hoped-for grandeur of human kingship into what can only be described as a universalizing messianic expectation. The groundwork has already been laid with the hyperbolic description of the universal sovereignty of the monarch (72:8–11) and the exaggerated hopes for the abundance of crops (72:16). But the shift begins most decisively in 72:17a with the jussive entreaty: “May his name endure forever, may it continue as long as the sun.”

While this plea is ostensibly directed toward the long life of the righteous king and shares much in common with the similar expression in 72:5—“He will endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations”—the introduction of the phrase “his name” links back to the growing theme of the universal authority and dominion of Yahweh that has marked the sequence of Psalms 56–72. Throughout these psalms it has been the name of God that has focused the praise of the psalmists.23 The king has appeared in these psalms as well, but his name—the king’s name—is never the object of praise.24

Here at the end of Psalm 72, however, at the end of Book 2 of the Psalter (the book that in combination with the first constitutes the collection of “the prayers of David son of Jesse”), the line between this king and God are becoming blurred. This king will so rule that the reign of God will be extended to the earth, and the earth will respond with abundant produce. This king will be the source of blessing, not only for Israel but for all the nations of the earth (72:17). This king, then, will provide the resolution to the age-old division that has separated nation from nation and humanity from God. This king will usher in the blessing of Israel and of all the families of the earth that was promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.25

With this last promise (or entreaty) we have clearly passed over into messianic expectation. What is subtly implied by the reference to “his name” in 72:17a–b is now driven home in 72:17c–d. Sandwiched between the hopes for the king’s name in 72:17a and the blessing of the “glorious name of Yahweh” forever in the concluding doxology (72:19), the promise of blessing couched in terms so similar to the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 12 has the effect of universalizing the preceding discussion and catapulting it eschatologically to the culmination of God’s intention for all humanity.

Much of the expectation of future fulfillment expressed in this psalm rests on the exploitation of the ambiguity allowed by the imperfect verb forms used throughout. The tendency in translation to opt for the imperfect, with its implication of prophetic actualization (this will happen!) rather than the less certain jussive (O, how I want this to happen!), demonstrates the powerful draw these promises have on the reader for hopeful fulfillment.

In the few instances (72:15, 16, 17) where a distinct jussive form exists, the passage consistently uses the jussive rather than the imperfect. That could be taken to imply that the other indistinguishable forms should also be taken as jussives in this context. In those instances where the jussive is unambiguously used, it is clear that these verbs express the hopeful pleas of the psalmist for the benefits of righteous rule. The ambiguity in the largest portion of the passage, however, allows these unfulfilled hopes for the existing monarch to be powerfully projected into the future to rest on God’s Messiah, who is to come to usher in God’s rule and kingdom. That is an option that few interpreters are able to resist.

Contemporary Significance

THE KINGDOM of God on earth. What right do we have to measure our own political leadership against the call to righteous rule that Psalm 72 presents? Our national leadership—regardless to what nation we trace our citizenship—is far different from God’s people embodied in the nation of Israel. Ideally Israel was understood as a theocracy—a nation ruled over by God. The kings in this understanding were leaders placed before the people as representatives of God. There is even some evidence in the election of Saul and David that God titled his human leaders nagid (“one placed before”)26 rather than the traditional term “king” (melek) used by the people.27 Kings led Israel with the understanding that they would meet certain expectations set down by God: dependence on Yahweh alone rather than the traditional forms of kingly power,28 worshiping Yahweh to the exclusion of other pagan gods, and maintaining justice and equity. The right of leadership could be removed from a rebellious or disobedient king, as Solomon’s descendants and the later monarchs discovered.

By contrast, our modern nations generally make no claims to being ruled by God.29 They may appeal to religious values or ideals but work hard to maintain a clear separation between state and religion. When “religion” is acknowledged, it is usually in a pluralistic sense, which includes all religions. How then can we hold secular states and leaders up to the scrutiny of the theocratic state of ancient Israel? Isn’t that foolish? Or even wrong?

It would be, if we were simply measuring our contemporary leaders against ancient Israel. But that is not what Psalm 72 is calling us to do. The picture of leadership/rulership given in this psalm is idealized by its subtle shifting to an eschatological hope for the messianic kingdom of God. As such, it actually judges the ancient monarchy of Israel for its many failures to meet the expectations of God for justice, equity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and so on. As a result, it stands not as a description of Israel’s human kingship but as God’s standard for leadership that unites the whole world under the kingship of Yahweh himself.

Former President Jimmy Carter understood this in his inaugural address when he adopted Micah’s vision of divine expectation as a standard for humane governance that would underlie his own administration: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). How ridiculous, we might say, to hold unbelieving politicians to this standard. How impossible to conform pragmatic decision-making to such an idealistic rule!

But that is exactly what God does. He has made us, we are his, and he holds us—all of us, believer or unbeliever alike—to his standard. Paul claimed that all humans can see the nature and purposes of God writ large in the universe and are therefore without excuse when it comes to living up to God’s standard: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse” (Rom. 1:32–2:1).

While we may need to modify our strident, religiously oriented rhetoric in order to gain a hearing from secular politicians and leaders, we need not sacrifice God’s standards of justice, equity, compassion, and truth to the modern “god” of pragmatism. God calls us, Psalms 72 calls us, not only to pray for the well-being of our leaders but for their wisdom to see that all justice is ultimately God’s justice and that righteousness is not measured by what works but by the character of God, who empowers leaders and who will ultimately set all things right “from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Original Meaning

Enduring Reign (72:5–7)

THE PSALMIST NOW describes (or entreats) the enduring reign of the just monarch just introduced. The “sun” and “moon,” established by God at creation, antedate humankind and often serve as symbols of longevity and endurance.8 The moon returns at the end of this section (72:7), once again as an example of endurance.

Longevity of just reign is the foundation of prosperity and blessing. The just king is like “rain falling on a mown field, like showers watering the earth” (72:6). In an arid environment such as Israel had, the rains were essential for crop production and were considered evidence of divine blessing. Because the monarch pours righteous judgment on the land, the “righteous” will “burst forth” (NIV “flourish”) and “prosperity” (šalom)9 will “abound.” The picture is of abundant crops as a response to the supply of water.

Bridging Contexts

MESSIANIC EXPECTATION. At the end, Psalm 72 passes subtly from a description of hoped-for grandeur of human kingship into what can only be described as a universalizing messianic expectation. The groundwork has already been laid with the hyperbolic description of the universal sovereignty of the monarch (72:8–11) and the exaggerated hopes for the abundance of crops (72:16). But the shift begins most decisively in 72:17a with the jussive entreaty: “May his name endure forever, may it continue as long as the sun.”

While this plea is ostensibly directed toward the long life of the righteous king and shares much in common with the similar expression in 72:5—“He will endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations”—the introduction of the phrase “his name” links back to the growing theme of the universal authority and dominion of Yahweh that has marked the sequence of Psalms 56–72. Throughout these psalms it has been the name of God that has focused the praise of the psalmists.23 The king has appeared in these psalms as well, but his name—the king’s name—is never the object of praise.24

Here at the end of Psalm 72, however, at the end of Book 2 of the Psalter (the book that in combination with the first constitutes the collection of “the prayers of David son of Jesse”), the line between this king and God are becoming blurred. This king will so rule that the reign of God will be extended to the earth, and the earth will respond with abundant produce. This king will be the source of blessing, not only for Israel but for all the nations of the earth (72:17). This king, then, will provide the resolution to the age-old division that has separated nation from nation and humanity from God. This king will usher in the blessing of Israel and of all the families of the earth that was promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.25

With this last promise (or entreaty) we have clearly passed over into messianic expectation. What is subtly implied by the reference to “his name” in 72:17a–b is now driven home in 72:17c–d. Sandwiched between the hopes for the king’s name in 72:17a and the blessing of the “glorious name of Yahweh” forever in the concluding doxology (72:19), the promise of blessing couched in terms so similar to the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 12 has the effect of universalizing the preceding discussion and catapulting it eschatologically to the culmination of God’s intention for all humanity.

Much of the expectation of future fulfillment expressed in this psalm rests on the exploitation of the ambiguity allowed by the imperfect verb forms used throughout. The tendency in translation to opt for the imperfect, with its implication of prophetic actualization (this will happen!) rather than the less certain jussive (O, how I want this to happen!), demonstrates the powerful draw these promises have on the reader for hopeful fulfillment.

In the few instances (72:15, 16, 17) where a distinct jussive form exists, the passage consistently uses the jussive rather than the imperfect. That could be taken to imply that the other indistinguishable forms should also be taken as jussives in this context. In those instances where the jussive is unambiguously used, it is clear that these verbs express the hopeful pleas of the psalmist for the benefits of righteous rule. The ambiguity in the largest portion of the passage, however, allows these unfulfilled hopes for the existing monarch to be powerfully projected into the future to rest on God’s Messiah, who is to come to usher in God’s rule and kingdom. That is an option that few interpreters are able to resist.

Contemporary Significance

THE KINGDOM of God on earth. What right do we have to measure our own political leadership against the call to righteous rule that Psalm 72 presents? Our national leadership—regardless to what nation we trace our citizenship—is far different from God’s people embodied in the nation of Israel. Ideally Israel was understood as a theocracy—a nation ruled over by God. The kings in this understanding were leaders placed before the people as representatives of God. There is even some evidence in the election of Saul and David that God titled his human leaders nagid (“one placed before”)26 rather than the traditional term “king” (melek) used by the people.27 Kings led Israel with the understanding that they would meet certain expectations set down by God: dependence on Yahweh alone rather than the traditional forms of kingly power,28 worshiping Yahweh to the exclusion of other pagan gods, and maintaining justice and equity. The right of leadership could be removed from a rebellious or disobedient king, as Solomon’s descendants and the later monarchs discovered.

By contrast, our modern nations generally make no claims to being ruled by God.29 They may appeal to religious values or ideals but work hard to maintain a clear separation between state and religion. When “religion” is acknowledged, it is usually in a pluralistic sense, which includes all religions. How then can we hold secular states and leaders up to the scrutiny of the theocratic state of ancient Israel? Isn’t that foolish? Or even wrong?

It would be, if we were simply measuring our contemporary leaders against ancient Israel. But that is not what Psalm 72 is calling us to do. The picture of leadership/rulership given in this psalm is idealized by its subtle shifting to an eschatological hope for the messianic kingdom of God. As such, it actually judges the ancient monarchy of Israel for its many failures to meet the expectations of God for justice, equity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and so on. As a result, it stands not as a description of Israel’s human kingship but as God’s standard for leadership that unites the whole world under the kingship of Yahweh himself.

Former President Jimmy Carter understood this in his inaugural address when he adopted Micah’s vision of divine expectation as a standard for humane governance that would underlie his own administration: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). How ridiculous, we might say, to hold unbelieving politicians to this standard. How impossible to conform pragmatic decision-making to such an idealistic rule!

But that is exactly what God does. He has made us, we are his, and he holds us—all of us, believer or unbeliever alike—to his standard. Paul claimed that all humans can see the nature and purposes of God writ large in the universe and are therefore without excuse when it comes to living up to God’s standard: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse” (Rom. 1:32–2:1).

While we may need to modify our strident, religiously oriented rhetoric in order to gain a hearing from secular politicians and leaders, we need not sacrifice God’s standards of justice, equity, compassion, and truth to the modern “god” of pragmatism. God calls us, Psalms 72 calls us, not only to pray for the well-being of our leaders but for their wisdom to see that all justice is ultimately God’s justice and that righteousness is not measured by what works but by the character of God, who empowers leaders and who will ultimately set all things right “from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Original Meaning

Worldwide Dominion (72:8–11)

THE PSALMIST ENVISIONS the right rule of the monarch as having effects far beyond the borders of Israel. Using a creation image, the psalmist describes the monarch as fulfilling the intended role of humanity: “he will rule” (72:8a). The verb for “rule” (rdh) is the same as used in Genesis 1:26 to describe the intended role of all humanity in creation. Rather than autocratic rule, however, the term most often means to bring under the authority of another—in this case, God.10 The monarch is here envisioned as establishing the intended creation order—God’s kingdom—throughout the whole earth: “from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”11

All nations will serve him. Like a concert organist, the psalmist pulls out all the stops and describes kings of distant nations coming to acknowledge the authority of the Israelite monarch. They come from the desert in the East (“desert tribes”), from the distant reaches of the Mediterranean Sea (“Tarshish and . . . distant shores”), and from the Arabian peninsula (“Sheba and Seba”). Ultimately “all kings . . . and all nations” (72:11) will submit to his authority.

It is unlikely that such worldwide recognition of and submission to the kings of Israel was ever a real possibility—even during its most golden period. These rather grandiose sentiments most likely were part of the official ideology of the Davidic dynasty in Jerusalem and represent the hopes of that group of monarchs, based on the promises of the Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7. While these hopes were clearly never completely fulfilled in any one of the historical kings, the language continued to express the hopes of the exilic community for restoration and fulfillment of God’s purposes for Israel. In this later context of exile, this language of hope in human kingship is transferred to a future “son of David”—the Messiah—who will usher in the kingdom of God (see the Bridging Contexts and Contemporary Significance sections, below).

A few of the terms and phrases used to describe those nations who will submit to the king need further explanation. The “desert tribes” (72:9) are likely the inhabitants of the desert regions to the east of Israel across the Jordan River in what is today modern Jordan. “Sheba” and “Seba” were kingdoms located in the southern Arabian peninsula and (perhaps) Ethiopia (Gen. 10:7; Isa. 43:3), respectively. From the former kingdom, the Queen of Sheba visited Jerusalem to inspect and test the wisdom of Solomon (1 Kings 10) and brought rich gifts of gold and precious stones. As for “Tarshish,” most scholars place this city to the extreme west, perhaps in Spain. It was to this distant port that Jonah was headed when God sent a storm to halt his flight (Jonah 1).

Bridging Contexts

MESSIANIC EXPECTATION. At the end, Psalm 72 passes subtly from a description of hoped-for grandeur of human kingship into what can only be described as a universalizing messianic expectation. The groundwork has already been laid with the hyperbolic description of the universal sovereignty of the monarch (72:8–11) and the exaggerated hopes for the abundance of crops (72:16). But the shift begins most decisively in 72:17a with the jussive entreaty: “May his name endure forever, may it continue as long as the sun.”

While this plea is ostensibly directed toward the long life of the righteous king and shares much in common with the similar expression in 72:5—“He will endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations”—the introduction of the phrase “his name” links back to the growing theme of the universal authority and dominion of Yahweh that has marked the sequence of Psalms 56–72. Throughout these psalms it has been the name of God that has focused the praise of the psalmists.23 The king has appeared in these psalms as well, but his name—the king’s name—is never the object of praise.24

Here at the end of Psalm 72, however, at the end of Book 2 of the Psalter (the book that in combination with the first constitutes the collection of “the prayers of David son of Jesse”), the line between this king and God are becoming blurred. This king will so rule that the reign of God will be extended to the earth, and the earth will respond with abundant produce. This king will be the source of blessing, not only for Israel but for all the nations of the earth (72:17). This king, then, will provide the resolution to the age-old division that has separated nation from nation and humanity from God. This king will usher in the blessing of Israel and of all the families of the earth that was promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.25

With this last promise (or entreaty) we have clearly passed over into messianic expectation. What is subtly implied by the reference to “his name” in 72:17a–b is now driven home in 72:17c–d. Sandwiched between the hopes for the king’s name in 72:17a and the blessing of the “glorious name of Yahweh” forever in the concluding doxology (72:19), the promise of blessing couched in terms so similar to the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 12 has the effect of universalizing the preceding discussion and catapulting it eschatologically to the culmination of God’s intention for all humanity.

Much of the expectation of future fulfillment expressed in this psalm rests on the exploitation of the ambiguity allowed by the imperfect verb forms used throughout. The tendency in translation to opt for the imperfect, with its implication of prophetic actualization (this will happen!) rather than the less certain jussive (O, how I want this to happen!), demonstrates the powerful draw these promises have on the reader for hopeful fulfillment.

In the few instances (72:15, 16, 17) where a distinct jussive form exists, the passage consistently uses the jussive rather than the imperfect. That could be taken to imply that the other indistinguishable forms should also be taken as jussives in this context. In those instances where the jussive is unambiguously used, it is clear that these verbs express the hopeful pleas of the psalmist for the benefits of righteous rule. The ambiguity in the largest portion of the passage, however, allows these unfulfilled hopes for the existing monarch to be powerfully projected into the future to rest on God’s Messiah, who is to come to usher in God’s rule and kingdom. That is an option that few interpreters are able to resist.

Contemporary Significance

THE KINGDOM of God on earth. What right do we have to measure our own political leadership against the call to righteous rule that Psalm 72 presents? Our national leadership—regardless to what nation we trace our citizenship—is far different from God’s people embodied in the nation of Israel. Ideally Israel was understood as a theocracy—a nation ruled over by God. The kings in this understanding were leaders placed before the people as representatives of God. There is even some evidence in the election of Saul and David that God titled his human leaders nagid (“one placed before”)26 rather than the traditional term “king” (melek) used by the people.27 Kings led Israel with the understanding that they would meet certain expectations set down by God: dependence on Yahweh alone rather than the traditional forms of kingly power,28 worshiping Yahweh to the exclusion of other pagan gods, and maintaining justice and equity. The right of leadership could be removed from a rebellious or disobedient king, as Solomon’s descendants and the later monarchs discovered.

By contrast, our modern nations generally make no claims to being ruled by God.29 They may appeal to religious values or ideals but work hard to maintain a clear separation between state and religion. When “religion” is acknowledged, it is usually in a pluralistic sense, which includes all religions. How then can we hold secular states and leaders up to the scrutiny of the theocratic state of ancient Israel? Isn’t that foolish? Or even wrong?

It would be, if we were simply measuring our contemporary leaders against ancient Israel. But that is not what Psalm 72 is calling us to do. The picture of leadership/rulership given in this psalm is idealized by its subtle shifting to an eschatological hope for the messianic kingdom of God. As such, it actually judges the ancient monarchy of Israel for its many failures to meet the expectations of God for justice, equity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and so on. As a result, it stands not as a description of Israel’s human kingship but as God’s standard for leadership that unites the whole world under the kingship of Yahweh himself.

Former President Jimmy Carter understood this in his inaugural address when he adopted Micah’s vision of divine expectation as a standard for humane governance that would underlie his own administration: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). How ridiculous, we might say, to hold unbelieving politicians to this standard. How impossible to conform pragmatic decision-making to such an idealistic rule!

But that is exactly what God does. He has made us, we are his, and he holds us—all of us, believer or unbeliever alike—to his standard. Paul claimed that all humans can see the nature and purposes of God writ large in the universe and are therefore without excuse when it comes to living up to God’s standard: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse” (Rom. 1:32–2:1).

While we may need to modify our strident, religiously oriented rhetoric in order to gain a hearing from secular politicians and leaders, we need not sacrifice God’s standards of justice, equity, compassion, and truth to the modern “god” of pragmatism. God calls us, Psalms 72 calls us, not only to pray for the well-being of our leaders but for their wisdom to see that all justice is ultimately God’s justice and that righteousness is not measured by what works but by the character of God, who empowers leaders and who will ultimately set all things right “from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Original Meaning

Compassionate Justice (72:12–14)

THE READER IS never allowed to let the extreme hopes and language of the preceding passage divert attention from the primary understanding of the king’s responsibility—to rule rightly over God’s people. This rule is now brought back to earth by linking the picture of world dominion just elaborated with the necessity of compassionate justice for the defenseless. Not only is the king a universal ruler, but he is also defender of the poor and needy. The link is provided in this context by the small Hebrew word ki (NIV “for”), with which this section begins. The nations of the world will submit to the king because (ki) he maintains the practice of delivering “the needy who cry out.”

Once again, as in 72:4, the king has the task of defending those who are unable to defend themselves in society. This defense is not the result of some cold, legalistic administration of law but flows from a true sense of compassion that mirrors the compassion of God. The king will “take pity”12 on “the weak and the needy . . . for precious is their blood in his sight” (72:13–14). The king will use his world power to “save” and “rescue” those who are oppressed by violence and on the verge of losing their lives. Two forms of oppression are envisioned: “oppression” and “violence” (ḥamas). The former emphasizes the exploitation of the powerless by the powerful, while the latter captures the ruthless disregard for life that characterizes such exploitation. In both cases the defenseless are in danger of losing their nepeš (“soul”; NIV “them” in 72:14)—that divinely animated core being that is the source of self-awareness and self-determination.13

Bridging Contexts

MESSIANIC EXPECTATION. At the end, Psalm 72 passes subtly from a description of hoped-for grandeur of human kingship into what can only be described as a universalizing messianic expectation. The groundwork has already been laid with the hyperbolic description of the universal sovereignty of the monarch (72:8–11) and the exaggerated hopes for the abundance of crops (72:16). But the shift begins most decisively in 72:17a with the jussive entreaty: “May his name endure forever, may it continue as long as the sun.”

While this plea is ostensibly directed toward the long life of the righteous king and shares much in common with the similar expression in 72:5—“He will endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations”—the introduction of the phrase “his name” links back to the growing theme of the universal authority and dominion of Yahweh that has marked the sequence of Psalms 56–72. Throughout these psalms it has been the name of God that has focused the praise of the psalmists.23 The king has appeared in these psalms as well, but his name—the king’s name—is never the object of praise.24

Here at the end of Psalm 72, however, at the end of Book 2 of the Psalter (the book that in combination with the first constitutes the collection of “the prayers of David son of Jesse”), the line between this king and God are becoming blurred. This king will so rule that the reign of God will be extended to the earth, and the earth will respond with abundant produce. This king will be the source of blessing, not only for Israel but for all the nations of the earth (72:17). This king, then, will provide the resolution to the age-old division that has separated nation from nation and humanity from God. This king will usher in the blessing of Israel and of all the families of the earth that was promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.25

With this last promise (or entreaty) we have clearly passed over into messianic expectation. What is subtly implied by the reference to “his name” in 72:17a–b is now driven home in 72:17c–d. Sandwiched between the hopes for the king’s name in 72:17a and the blessing of the “glorious name of Yahweh” forever in the concluding doxology (72:19), the promise of blessing couched in terms so similar to the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 12 has the effect of universalizing the preceding discussion and catapulting it eschatologically to the culmination of God’s intention for all humanity.

Much of the expectation of future fulfillment expressed in this psalm rests on the exploitation of the ambiguity allowed by the imperfect verb forms used throughout. The tendency in translation to opt for the imperfect, with its implication of prophetic actualization (this will happen!) rather than the less certain jussive (O, how I want this to happen!), demonstrates the powerful draw these promises have on the reader for hopeful fulfillment.

In the few instances (72:15, 16, 17) where a distinct jussive form exists, the passage consistently uses the jussive rather than the imperfect. That could be taken to imply that the other indistinguishable forms should also be taken as jussives in this context. In those instances where the jussive is unambiguously used, it is clear that these verbs express the hopeful pleas of the psalmist for the benefits of righteous rule. The ambiguity in the largest portion of the passage, however, allows these unfulfilled hopes for the existing monarch to be powerfully projected into the future to rest on God’s Messiah, who is to come to usher in God’s rule and kingdom. That is an option that few interpreters are able to resist.

Contemporary Significance

THE KINGDOM of God on earth. What right do we have to measure our own political leadership against the call to righteous rule that Psalm 72 presents? Our national leadership—regardless to what nation we trace our citizenship—is far different from God’s people embodied in the nation of Israel. Ideally Israel was understood as a theocracy—a nation ruled over by God. The kings in this understanding were leaders placed before the people as representatives of God. There is even some evidence in the election of Saul and David that God titled his human leaders nagid (“one placed before”)26 rather than the traditional term “king” (melek) used by the people.27 Kings led Israel with the understanding that they would meet certain expectations set down by God: dependence on Yahweh alone rather than the traditional forms of kingly power,28 worshiping Yahweh to the exclusion of other pagan gods, and maintaining justice and equity. The right of leadership could be removed from a rebellious or disobedient king, as Solomon’s descendants and the later monarchs discovered.

By contrast, our modern nations generally make no claims to being ruled by God.29 They may appeal to religious values or ideals but work hard to maintain a clear separation between state and religion. When “religion” is acknowledged, it is usually in a pluralistic sense, which includes all religions. How then can we hold secular states and leaders up to the scrutiny of the theocratic state of ancient Israel? Isn’t that foolish? Or even wrong?

It would be, if we were simply measuring our contemporary leaders against ancient Israel. But that is not what Psalm 72 is calling us to do. The picture of leadership/rulership given in this psalm is idealized by its subtle shifting to an eschatological hope for the messianic kingdom of God. As such, it actually judges the ancient monarchy of Israel for its many failures to meet the expectations of God for justice, equity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and so on. As a result, it stands not as a description of Israel’s human kingship but as God’s standard for leadership that unites the whole world under the kingship of Yahweh himself.

Former President Jimmy Carter understood this in his inaugural address when he adopted Micah’s vision of divine expectation as a standard for humane governance that would underlie his own administration: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). How ridiculous, we might say, to hold unbelieving politicians to this standard. How impossible to conform pragmatic decision-making to such an idealistic rule!

But that is exactly what God does. He has made us, we are his, and he holds us—all of us, believer or unbeliever alike—to his standard. Paul claimed that all humans can see the nature and purposes of God writ large in the universe and are therefore without excuse when it comes to living up to God’s standard: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse” (Rom. 1:32–2:1).

While we may need to modify our strident, religiously oriented rhetoric in order to gain a hearing from secular politicians and leaders, we need not sacrifice God’s standards of justice, equity, compassion, and truth to the modern “god” of pragmatism. God calls us, Psalms 72 calls us, not only to pray for the well-being of our leaders but for their wisdom to see that all justice is ultimately God’s justice and that righteousness is not measured by what works but by the character of God, who empowers leaders and who will ultimately set all things right “from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Original Meaning

Prosperous Kingdom (72:15–17)

THE PSALM DRAWS to a conclusion with a renewed expression of the desire for the enduring and prosperous reign of the king. Here the verbal forms leave no doubt of their jussive character as the psalmist leads the entreaty of the wider community in declaring: “Long may he live!” (72:15a); “let grain abound . . .” (72:16a); “may his name endure . . .” (72:17a).

The fervent hope of the psalmist and people—their confident expectation—is that the enduring reign of right rule will usher in a golden age akin to the opulence of the reign of Solomon, with whom the heading connects this psalm. The connection is supported by the appearance in these last verses of references to “gold from Sheba” (72:15b) and the abundance of Lebanon—both localities linked with the richness of Solomon’s reign.14 Such a king will be loved by his people, who will pray daily for his well-being (72:15c) and bless him (72:15d).15

All nations will be blessed through him. The psalm concludes on a note of universal benediction for and from the golden king of Israel. In a sense, this universal praise mirrors that received by the paradigmatic king of opulent glory, Solomon. Indeed, the whole psalm owes much to the description of Solomon’s wisdom, opulence, and world influence as described in 1 Kings 9–10. The visit of the admiring Queen of Sheba and her astonishment at Solomon’s wisdom, the account of his growing wealth through trade and political alliance, and the international reputation of this young king all provide the background from which Psalm 72 draws its impetus and thrust.

But even Solomon in all his glory fades in comparison to the golden king of Psalm 72. In a subtle interweaving of the covenantal promises to David and Abraham, the nations are said to “be blessed through him” at the same time they “call him blessed” (72:18). This is clearly a reworking of the original statement of the covenant with Abraham in Genesis 12:2–3:

I will make you into a great nation

and I will bless you;

I will make your name great,

and you will be a blessing.

I will bless those who bless you,

and whoever curses you I will curse;

and all peoples on earth

will be blessed through you.

The expectation begins to move here toward an eschatological restoration of God’s original creation intention through the agency of the coming one. We will look at the development of this idea in the Bridging Contexts section.

Bridging Contexts

MESSIANIC EXPECTATION. At the end, Psalm 72 passes subtly from a description of hoped-for grandeur of human kingship into what can only be described as a universalizing messianic expectation. The groundwork has already been laid with the hyperbolic description of the universal sovereignty of the monarch (72:8–11) and the exaggerated hopes for the abundance of crops (72:16). But the shift begins most decisively in 72:17a with the jussive entreaty: “May his name endure forever, may it continue as long as the sun.”

While this plea is ostensibly directed toward the long life of the righteous king and shares much in common with the similar expression in 72:5—“He will endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations”—the introduction of the phrase “his name” links back to the growing theme of the universal authority and dominion of Yahweh that has marked the sequence of Psalms 56–72. Throughout these psalms it has been the name of God that has focused the praise of the psalmists.23 The king has appeared in these psalms as well, but his name—the king’s name—is never the object of praise.24

Here at the end of Psalm 72, however, at the end of Book 2 of the Psalter (the book that in combination with the first constitutes the collection of “the prayers of David son of Jesse”), the line between this king and God are becoming blurred. This king will so rule that the reign of God will be extended to the earth, and the earth will respond with abundant produce. This king will be the source of blessing, not only for Israel but for all the nations of the earth (72:17). This king, then, will provide the resolution to the age-old division that has separated nation from nation and humanity from God. This king will usher in the blessing of Israel and of all the families of the earth that was promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.25

With this last promise (or entreaty) we have clearly passed over into messianic expectation. What is subtly implied by the reference to “his name” in 72:17a–b is now driven home in 72:17c–d. Sandwiched between the hopes for the king’s name in 72:17a and the blessing of the “glorious name of Yahweh” forever in the concluding doxology (72:19), the promise of blessing couched in terms so similar to the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 12 has the effect of universalizing the preceding discussion and catapulting it eschatologically to the culmination of God’s intention for all humanity.

Much of the expectation of future fulfillment expressed in this psalm rests on the exploitation of the ambiguity allowed by the imperfect verb forms used throughout. The tendency in translation to opt for the imperfect, with its implication of prophetic actualization (this will happen!) rather than the less certain jussive (O, how I want this to happen!), demonstrates the powerful draw these promises have on the reader for hopeful fulfillment.

In the few instances (72:15, 16, 17) where a distinct jussive form exists, the passage consistently uses the jussive rather than the imperfect. That could be taken to imply that the other indistinguishable forms should also be taken as jussives in this context. In those instances where the jussive is unambiguously used, it is clear that these verbs express the hopeful pleas of the psalmist for the benefits of righteous rule. The ambiguity in the largest portion of the passage, however, allows these unfulfilled hopes for the existing monarch to be powerfully projected into the future to rest on God’s Messiah, who is to come to usher in God’s rule and kingdom. That is an option that few interpreters are able to resist.

Contemporary Significance

THE KINGDOM of God on earth. What right do we have to measure our own political leadership against the call to righteous rule that Psalm 72 presents? Our national leadership—regardless to what nation we trace our citizenship—is far different from God’s people embodied in the nation of Israel. Ideally Israel was understood as a theocracy—a nation ruled over by God. The kings in this understanding were leaders placed before the people as representatives of God. There is even some evidence in the election of Saul and David that God titled his human leaders nagid (“one placed before”)26 rather than the traditional term “king” (melek) used by the people.27 Kings led Israel with the understanding that they would meet certain expectations set down by God: dependence on Yahweh alone rather than the traditional forms of kingly power,28 worshiping Yahweh to the exclusion of other pagan gods, and maintaining justice and equity. The right of leadership could be removed from a rebellious or disobedient king, as Solomon’s descendants and the later monarchs discovered.

By contrast, our modern nations generally make no claims to being ruled by God.29 They may appeal to religious values or ideals but work hard to maintain a clear separation between state and religion. When “religion” is acknowledged, it is usually in a pluralistic sense, which includes all religions. How then can we hold secular states and leaders up to the scrutiny of the theocratic state of ancient Israel? Isn’t that foolish? Or even wrong?

It would be, if we were simply measuring our contemporary leaders against ancient Israel. But that is not what Psalm 72 is calling us to do. The picture of leadership/rulership given in this psalm is idealized by its subtle shifting to an eschatological hope for the messianic kingdom of God. As such, it actually judges the ancient monarchy of Israel for its many failures to meet the expectations of God for justice, equity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and so on. As a result, it stands not as a description of Israel’s human kingship but as God’s standard for leadership that unites the whole world under the kingship of Yahweh himself.

Former President Jimmy Carter understood this in his inaugural address when he adopted Micah’s vision of divine expectation as a standard for humane governance that would underlie his own administration: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). How ridiculous, we might say, to hold unbelieving politicians to this standard. How impossible to conform pragmatic decision-making to such an idealistic rule!

But that is exactly what God does. He has made us, we are his, and he holds us—all of us, believer or unbeliever alike—to his standard. Paul claimed that all humans can see the nature and purposes of God writ large in the universe and are therefore without excuse when it comes to living up to God’s standard: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse” (Rom. 1:32–2:1).

While we may need to modify our strident, religiously oriented rhetoric in order to gain a hearing from secular politicians and leaders, we need not sacrifice God’s standards of justice, equity, compassion, and truth to the modern “god” of pragmatism. God calls us, Psalms 72 calls us, not only to pray for the well-being of our leaders but for their wisdom to see that all justice is ultimately God’s justice and that righteousness is not measured by what works but by the character of God, who empowers leaders and who will ultimately set all things right “from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Original Meaning

Doxology (72:18–19)

AS THE FINAL psalm in Book 2 of the Psalter, Psalm 72 concludes with a doxology, blessing Yahweh.16 Similar doxologies mark the conclusions of the first four books, while the conclusion of Book 5 and the whole Psalter is formed by the combined praise of Psalms 146–150.17 The doxology here is by far the most expansive of the concluding doxologies. In addition to the more basic elements shared by all the concluding doxologies,18 verse 20 includes phrases blessing Yahweh for his “marvelous deeds” (72:18b)19 and directs blessing to Yahweh’s “glorious name” (72:19a). In this sense the doxology ties in particularly well with the preceding emphasis on the “name” of God/Yahweh observed in the group of psalms from 56–71.20

The final word of the doxology is an entreaty that “the whole earth be filled with his glory” (72:19b). This sentiment is another one particularly well suited to bring to a close the developing theme of the preceding group of Psalms 56–72. In those psalms we have observed an increasing emphasis on the universal rule of God, in which the nations acknowledge his authority and submit to it, while joining in an ever-increasing chorus of praise to his “name.” In this group also, the phrases “the whole earth” and “the ends of the earth” repeatedly capture the universal bounds of God’s dominion. The appearance of these phrases and themes here suggests that the concluding doxology of Book 2 has been well adapted to its function. Thus, Book 2 comes to an end with a fitting pronouncement of blessing on the worldwide dominion of God.

Bridging Contexts

MESSIANIC EXPECTATION. At the end, Psalm 72 passes subtly from a description of hoped-for grandeur of human kingship into what can only be described as a universalizing messianic expectation. The groundwork has already been laid with the hyperbolic description of the universal sovereignty of the monarch (72:8–11) and the exaggerated hopes for the abundance of crops (72:16). But the shift begins most decisively in 72:17a with the jussive entreaty: “May his name endure forever, may it continue as long as the sun.”

While this plea is ostensibly directed toward the long life of the righteous king and shares much in common with the similar expression in 72:5—“He will endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations”—the introduction of the phrase “his name” links back to the growing theme of the universal authority and dominion of Yahweh that has marked the sequence of Psalms 56–72. Throughout these psalms it has been the name of God that has focused the praise of the psalmists.23 The king has appeared in these psalms as well, but his name—the king’s name—is never the object of praise.24

Here at the end of Psalm 72, however, at the end of Book 2 of the Psalter (the book that in combination with the first constitutes the collection of “the prayers of David son of Jesse”), the line between this king and God are becoming blurred. This king will so rule that the reign of God will be extended to the earth, and the earth will respond with abundant produce. This king will be the source of blessing, not only for Israel but for all the nations of the earth (72:17). This king, then, will provide the resolution to the age-old division that has separated nation from nation and humanity from God. This king will usher in the blessing of Israel and of all the families of the earth that was promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.25

With this last promise (or entreaty) we have clearly passed over into messianic expectation. What is subtly implied by the reference to “his name” in 72:17a–b is now driven home in 72:17c–d. Sandwiched between the hopes for the king’s name in 72:17a and the blessing of the “glorious name of Yahweh” forever in the concluding doxology (72:19), the promise of blessing couched in terms so similar to the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 12 has the effect of universalizing the preceding discussion and catapulting it eschatologically to the culmination of God’s intention for all humanity.

Much of the expectation of future fulfillment expressed in this psalm rests on the exploitation of the ambiguity allowed by the imperfect verb forms used throughout. The tendency in translation to opt for the imperfect, with its implication of prophetic actualization (this will happen!) rather than the less certain jussive (O, how I want this to happen!), demonstrates the powerful draw these promises have on the reader for hopeful fulfillment.

In the few instances (72:15, 16, 17) where a distinct jussive form exists, the passage consistently uses the jussive rather than the imperfect. That could be taken to imply that the other indistinguishable forms should also be taken as jussives in this context. In those instances where the jussive is unambiguously used, it is clear that these verbs express the hopeful pleas of the psalmist for the benefits of righteous rule. The ambiguity in the largest portion of the passage, however, allows these unfulfilled hopes for the existing monarch to be powerfully projected into the future to rest on God’s Messiah, who is to come to usher in God’s rule and kingdom. That is an option that few interpreters are able to resist.

Contemporary Significance

THE KINGDOM of God on earth. What right do we have to measure our own political leadership against the call to righteous rule that Psalm 72 presents? Our national leadership—regardless to what nation we trace our citizenship—is far different from God’s people embodied in the nation of Israel. Ideally Israel was understood as a theocracy—a nation ruled over by God. The kings in this understanding were leaders placed before the people as representatives of God. There is even some evidence in the election of Saul and David that God titled his human leaders nagid (“one placed before”)26 rather than the traditional term “king” (melek) used by the people.27 Kings led Israel with the understanding that they would meet certain expectations set down by God: dependence on Yahweh alone rather than the traditional forms of kingly power,28 worshiping Yahweh to the exclusion of other pagan gods, and maintaining justice and equity. The right of leadership could be removed from a rebellious or disobedient king, as Solomon’s descendants and the later monarchs discovered.

By contrast, our modern nations generally make no claims to being ruled by God.29 They may appeal to religious values or ideals but work hard to maintain a clear separation between state and religion. When “religion” is acknowledged, it is usually in a pluralistic sense, which includes all religions. How then can we hold secular states and leaders up to the scrutiny of the theocratic state of ancient Israel? Isn’t that foolish? Or even wrong?

It would be, if we were simply measuring our contemporary leaders against ancient Israel. But that is not what Psalm 72 is calling us to do. The picture of leadership/rulership given in this psalm is idealized by its subtle shifting to an eschatological hope for the messianic kingdom of God. As such, it actually judges the ancient monarchy of Israel for its many failures to meet the expectations of God for justice, equity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and so on. As a result, it stands not as a description of Israel’s human kingship but as God’s standard for leadership that unites the whole world under the kingship of Yahweh himself.

Former President Jimmy Carter understood this in his inaugural address when he adopted Micah’s vision of divine expectation as a standard for humane governance that would underlie his own administration: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). How ridiculous, we might say, to hold unbelieving politicians to this standard. How impossible to conform pragmatic decision-making to such an idealistic rule!

But that is exactly what God does. He has made us, we are his, and he holds us—all of us, believer or unbeliever alike—to his standard. Paul claimed that all humans can see the nature and purposes of God writ large in the universe and are therefore without excuse when it comes to living up to God’s standard: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse” (Rom. 1:32–2:1).

While we may need to modify our strident, religiously oriented rhetoric in order to gain a hearing from secular politicians and leaders, we need not sacrifice God’s standards of justice, equity, compassion, and truth to the modern “god” of pragmatism. God calls us, Psalms 72 calls us, not only to pray for the well-being of our leaders but for their wisdom to see that all justice is ultimately God’s justice and that righteousness is not measured by what works but by the character of God, who empowers leaders and who will ultimately set all things right “from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”

Original Meaning

Concluding Postscript (72:20)

THE VERY END of Psalm 72:20 is marked by the only appearance in the Psalter of an instructional postscript.21 This final comment remarks on the conclusion of “the prayers of David son of Jesse.” Standing as it does after the concluding doxology of Book 2, the postscript suggests a reference to the whole of the combined collection of Books 1 and 2, which are here understood as a collection of Davidic prayers. The reference is not a completely apt one. Although David is by far the dominant author cited in these books, a number of psalms are either unattributed (e.g., Pss. 10; 33; 44; 66; 67) or associated with persons other than David (Asaph in Ps. 50; Solomon in Ps. 72; Sons of Korah in Pss. 42; 44–49). This final comment has the effect of turning these first two books into a Davidic prayer book.

The term for “prayers” used here is the Hebrew tepillah/tepillot, which most commonly reflects petition or entreaty on behalf of the sufferer. As such the term is a fitting description of the primary emphasis of the first half of the Psalter, which is dominated by the lament form.22

Bridging Contexts

MESSIANIC EXPECTATION. At the end, Psalm 72 passes subtly from a description of hoped-for grandeur of human kingship into what can only be described as a universalizing messianic expectation. The groundwork has already been laid with the hyperbolic description of the universal sovereignty of the monarch (72:8–11) and the exaggerated hopes for the abundance of crops (72:16). But the shift begins most decisively in 72:17a with the jussive entreaty: “May his name endure forever, may it continue as long as the sun.”

While this plea is ostensibly directed toward the long life of the righteous king and shares much in common with the similar expression in 72:5—“He will endure as long as the sun, as long as the moon, through all generations”—the introduction of the phrase “his name” links back to the growing theme of the universal authority and dominion of Yahweh that has marked the sequence of Psalms 56–72. Throughout these psalms it has been the name of God that has focused the praise of the psalmists.23 The king has appeared in these psalms as well, but his name—the king’s name—is never the object of praise.24

Here at the end of Psalm 72, however, at the end of Book 2 of the Psalter (the book that in combination with the first constitutes the collection of “the prayers of David son of Jesse”), the line between this king and God are becoming blurred. This king will so rule that the reign of God will be extended to the earth, and the earth will respond with abundant produce. This king will be the source of blessing, not only for Israel but for all the nations of the earth (72:17). This king, then, will provide the resolution to the age-old division that has separated nation from nation and humanity from God. This king will usher in the blessing of Israel and of all the families of the earth that was promised to Abraham in Genesis 12:1–3.25

With this last promise (or entreaty) we have clearly passed over into messianic expectation. What is subtly implied by the reference to “his name” in 72:17a–b is now driven home in 72:17c–d. Sandwiched between the hopes for the king’s name in 72:17a and the blessing of the “glorious name of Yahweh” forever in the concluding doxology (72:19), the promise of blessing couched in terms so similar to the Abrahamic promise of Genesis 12 has the effect of universalizing the preceding discussion and catapulting it eschatologically to the culmination of God’s intention for all humanity.

Much of the expectation of future fulfillment expressed in this psalm rests on the exploitation of the ambiguity allowed by the imperfect verb forms used throughout. The tendency in translation to opt for the imperfect, with its implication of prophetic actualization (this will happen!) rather than the less certain jussive (O, how I want this to happen!), demonstrates the powerful draw these promises have on the reader for hopeful fulfillment.

In the few instances (72:15, 16, 17) where a distinct jussive form exists, the passage consistently uses the jussive rather than the imperfect. That could be taken to imply that the other indistinguishable forms should also be taken as jussives in this context. In those instances where the jussive is unambiguously used, it is clear that these verbs express the hopeful pleas of the psalmist for the benefits of righteous rule. The ambiguity in the largest portion of the passage, however, allows these unfulfilled hopes for the existing monarch to be powerfully projected into the future to rest on God’s Messiah, who is to come to usher in God’s rule and kingdom. That is an option that few interpreters are able to resist.

Contemporary Significance

THE KINGDOM of God on earth. What right do we have to measure our own political leadership against the call to righteous rule that Psalm 72 presents? Our national leadership—regardless to what nation we trace our citizenship—is far different from God’s people embodied in the nation of Israel. Ideally Israel was understood as a theocracy—a nation ruled over by God. The kings in this understanding were leaders placed before the people as representatives of God. There is even some evidence in the election of Saul and David that God titled his human leaders nagid (“one placed before”)26 rather than the traditional term “king” (melek) used by the people.27 Kings led Israel with the understanding that they would meet certain expectations set down by God: dependence on Yahweh alone rather than the traditional forms of kingly power,28 worshiping Yahweh to the exclusion of other pagan gods, and maintaining justice and equity. The right of leadership could be removed from a rebellious or disobedient king, as Solomon’s descendants and the later monarchs discovered.

By contrast, our modern nations generally make no claims to being ruled by God.29 They may appeal to religious values or ideals but work hard to maintain a clear separation between state and religion. When “religion” is acknowledged, it is usually in a pluralistic sense, which includes all religions. How then can we hold secular states and leaders up to the scrutiny of the theocratic state of ancient Israel? Isn’t that foolish? Or even wrong?

It would be, if we were simply measuring our contemporary leaders against ancient Israel. But that is not what Psalm 72 is calling us to do. The picture of leadership/rulership given in this psalm is idealized by its subtle shifting to an eschatological hope for the messianic kingdom of God. As such, it actually judges the ancient monarchy of Israel for its many failures to meet the expectations of God for justice, equity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and so on. As a result, it stands not as a description of Israel’s human kingship but as God’s standard for leadership that unites the whole world under the kingship of Yahweh himself.

Former President Jimmy Carter understood this in his inaugural address when he adopted Micah’s vision of divine expectation as a standard for humane governance that would underlie his own administration: “He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8). How ridiculous, we might say, to hold unbelieving politicians to this standard. How impossible to conform pragmatic decision-making to such an idealistic rule!

But that is exactly what God does. He has made us, we are his, and he holds us—all of us, believer or unbeliever alike—to his standard. Paul claimed that all humans can see the nature and purposes of God writ large in the universe and are therefore without excuse when it comes to living up to God’s standard: “Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. You, therefore, have no excuse” (Rom. 1:32–2:1).

While we may need to modify our strident, religiously oriented rhetoric in order to gain a hearing from secular politicians and leaders, we need not sacrifice God’s standards of justice, equity, compassion, and truth to the modern “god” of pragmatism. God calls us, Psalms 72 calls us, not only to pray for the well-being of our leaders but for their wisdom to see that all justice is ultimately God’s justice and that righteousness is not measured by what works but by the character of God, who empowers leaders and who will ultimately set all things right “from sea to sea and from the River to the ends of the earth.”