Psalm 2, Psalm 89, and the Davidic Covenant in Luke–Acts

Psalm 2 and Psalm 89 reflect different developments within Israel’s royal theology. Psalm 2 presents an idealized royal installation: despite opposition from the nations, YHWH declares the Davidic king as son (Ps 2:7). As P. C. Craigie (Psalms 1–50) and others note, this adoption formula corresponds to ancient Near Eastern royal ideology in which divine sonship language functions as legitimation and enthronement.

Psalm 89, however, develops the Davidic tradition in a different direction. After rehearsing the covenant oath to David (89:3–4, 19–37), the psalm turns to lament over royal humiliation: the crown is defiled, the throne cast down, and enemies rejoice (89:38–45). Hossfeld and Zenger and John Goldingay emphasize that Psalm 89 sustains a tension between the permanence of the oath and the apparent collapse of the monarchy. Importantly, the psalm explicitly affirms that the oath itself will not be revoked (“I will not lie to David,” 89:35), even as the throne appears publicly undone. The psalm concludes without narrating restoration, leaving the covenant promise and royal disgrace unresolved.

Luke–Acts explicitly cites Psalm 2. Acts 4:25–26 applies Psalm 2:1–2 to opposition against Jesus, and Acts 13:33 cites Psalm 2:7 in connection with the resurrection. Much discussion of Lukan use of the Psalms has focused on how Psalm 2 functions in Acts, whether primarily in terms of enthronement, resurrection, or messianic legitimation, as discussed by Richard Bauckham and C. Kavin Rowe.

Acts 2, however, frames the resurrection in explicitly covenantal language. In Acts 2:30, Peter appeals to the oath sworn to David, arguing that God had promised to seat one of his descendants on the throne. The argument therefore turns on the integrity of that sworn promise, not merely on general messianic expectation.

This invites a structural comparison. Psalm 89 leaves the Davidic oath intact but in tension with royal humiliation. Luke 23 likewise depicts a Davidic claimant publicly mocked (23:35–38). In Acts 2, at the point where humiliation appears final, the Davidic oath is reintroduced and the resurrection is presented as vindicating that promise.

Could Luke–Acts be engaging, at a narrative level, the unresolved covenantal tension voiced in Psalm 89, rather than simply citing Psalm 2? If so, Acts 2 might be read as narratively addressing the unresolved problem of the Davidic throne expressed in Psalm 89.