King and Messiah as Son of God, Chapter 1, Part 1

In the first chapter of King and Messiah as Son of God, John J. Collins tackles the fundamental topic, “The King as Son of God.” He begins this chapter by reminding readers that the transliterated messiah comes from a Hebrew word that “means simply ‘anointed’ and is not used in the Hebrew bible in an eschatological sense.” Collins then frames his discussion in terms of the ongoing debate concerning whether biblical references in the Psalms and elsewhere to the king as “son of God” represent an indebtedness to Egyptian belief in the ruler’s divinity or rather reflect a metaphorical acknowledgment of God’s appointment of the king.

Before examining views of the king in Ancient Judah, Collins analyzes evidence from other ancient societies which shed light on how kings were portrayed in relation to the divine.

Egypt
To portray the Pharaoh’s ascension, some Egyptian texts use terms like “dew” or “fragrance” to conjure up images of sexual intercourse. The following exchanges refer to the god Amon-Re and the Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut (ca. 1479–1458 BCE):

Utterance of Amon-Re, lord of Thebes, presider over Karnak: “He made his form like the majesty of this husband . . . he found her as she slept . . . he imposed his desire on her, he caused that she should see him in his form as a god.”

Utterance by the king’s wife and king’s mother Ahmose in the presence of the majesty of this august god, Amon, Lord of Thebes: “How great is thy fame! It is splendid to see they front; thou hast united my majesty with thy favors, thy dew is in all my limbs.” After this, the majesty of the god did all he desired with her.

Even when such graphic imagery is absent, it is quite common to find in Egyptian texts the language or idea of begetting. There is, according to Collins, some real sense in which Egyptian rulers were projected as the offspring of the gods.

Collins cautions, however, against on over literal reimagining of actual Egyptian beliefs, asserting that it “may be that ancient Egyptians were more conscious of the metaphorical character of such language than modern scholars have often assumed.” It seems that the factor which is most important in granting divine status is the office of king (i.e., pharaoh), such that it is only upon becoming king that the ruler is then portrayed—retrospectively—as born of gods. Despite this caveat, Collins concludes that “there is no doubt that the claims of the pharaoh to divine status were taken seriously in ancient Egypt, in the sense that he was not regarded as an ordinary mortal.”

Ancient Mesopotamia
Divine kingship as belief was less common in ancient Mesopotamia. It did, however, persist for a short span under the rule of Naram-Sin “at the end of the third millennium in ancient Sumer.” Again at points during the Neo-Assyrian periods there is the representation of the king “as a son of a god,” though the language is less explicit than the Egyptian inscriptions in blatantly calling the king a god. Nonetheless, “the divine-like character of the Assyrian king is meant to be taken seriously.”

Ancient Canaan
Little evidence exists from Canaanite sources to draw a direct parallel to the Egyptian deification of the king. Collins does note that in “the Ugaritic king list, each of the names of the dead kings are preceded by the word il, “god,” but recognizes not much can be drawn from this title. In facts, dead kings were not deified but dwelt in the underworld, even if among more respected company. Collins speculates that “Egyptian conceptions of monarchy were mediated to Israel through ancient Canaan, which had been under Egyptian control for much of the second millennium B.C.E.”