2006 Jan-March: Issue no.5; PAGE 1

Issue no. 5: 2006 1^st Quarter; article overview:

Page 1:First Article;The Messianic context of Psalm 110 -exegesis part two
Page 2:Second Article;Samson Option, Samson as national allegory in Deuteronomistic theology
Page 3:Third Article;Qohelet and the background to Ecclesiastes
Page 4:Fourth Article;Nathaniel under the Bo-tree - Buddhism and the problem of suffering
Page 5:Fifth Article;The Spirit in the latter days-Part four
Page 6:Sixth Article;Book review of the writings of Santala
For the PDF version of this article click here

The messianic context of Psalm 110

A two part examination of Psalm 110 (part two)

Exegesis of Psalm 110

110:1    110:2    110:3   110:4    110:5    110:6    110:7

That the background to psalm 110 is formed by the Davidic covenant is immediately obvious, as the first few verses paraphrase the prophetic blessing given to Judah in Genesis 49:10 (itself a proleptical version of the covenant);

PSALM 110                                                                  GENESIS 49                           

Thine enemies thy footstool                        - thy hand on the neck of thy enemies

Send (shelach) forth                                 - Shiloh (cf. Shelah)

The rod of thy strength                             - the rulers staff

Thy people are freewill offerings [RVmg]      - having the obedience of the people[RVmg]

The psalm speaks of enthronement and victory, but above all it speaks to us of the resurrection, which is a major theme of this psalm and it’s twin, psalm 2;

Psalm 110                                                                   Psalm 2

Send the rod of thy strength out of Zion (v.2).         Break them with a rod of iron (v.9).

                                                  …upon my holy hill of Zion (v.6)

            The Lord hath sworn and will not repent (v.4).          I will declare the decree (v.7).

            Thou art a priest (v.4).                                         Thou art my Son (v.7).

            I have begotten thee (LXX v.7)                              This day I have begotten thee (v.7).

            In the day of his wrath (v.5).                                 He shall speak to them in his wrath (v.5).

            Until I make thine enemies thy footstool (v.1).          The heathen for  thine inheritance (v.8).

The ark (’^arôn)of the covenant contained the tokens of resurrection (’^arôn is rendered coffin in Gen.50:26), Aaron’s rod that budded (symbol of new life and priestly authority), the incorruptible manna (bread of the Sabbath) and the second tablet of the law or ten words (the first was destroyed by Moses).  This psalm also mentions the rod [v.2], alludes to the word [v.4 see note 26] and the incorruptible, everlasting priesthood [v.4].  It is fitting therefore that the psalm commences with an allusion to the Ark of the Covenant or the Ark of the testimony (LXX martyriou from which the English martyr or witness):

110:1 The LORD (YHWH) said to my lord (’^adōnî), sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

The ark was the footstool for the shekinah glory, the presence rested on the mercy seat, which was overshadowed by the two cherubs – some may understand this as an allusion to the cherubim (Yahweh and ’^adōnî ) [53] with the footstool (mercy seat) being formed by the messiah’s enemies. He is pictured here as ruling despite opposition (see v.2). The enemies as “footstool” sounds very much like vanquishment and abject humiliation. Comparisons can be made with Josh.10: 24, where the men of Israel put their feet on the neck of their enemies, or to Psalm 2:12; “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way.” There is obviously an element of conquest implicit in the psalm; “He shall fill the places with dead bodies” (v.6), but the “footstool” is also the place of worship (Ps.132: 7)- it is possible that this verse also implies the conversion of Gentile enemies, who become a visible example of God’s mercy, for the footstool is also known as the mercy seat.

Sitting at the right hand symbolises finding favor, for the right hand epitomises strength (Ex.15: 6; Ps.20: 6; 63:8; 118: 15,16), righteousness (Ps.48: 10), authority (Is.62: 8), honor (Gen.48: 13-18; 1 Kings 2:19), salvation (Ps.17: 7; 60:5), and fellowship (Ps.16: 11). The Aaronic priesthood was never allowed to sit in the divine presence, the only occurrence of anyone sitting before the ark is king David when he received the covenant in 2 Samuel 7: 18 while acting as a Melchizedek priest.

The Targum of Jonathan has “the Lord said to his word”, [54] this Midrash probably originates from the unusual expression ’al-dibrah that we have already discussed.

110:2 The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

Again, this is similar to Psalm 2 where the anointed is installed at Zion and rules God’s enemies with a rod of iron (see also Isa.11: 1,4; Dan.2: 35,36). Compare Num.17: 10 where Aaron’s rod is exalted above all the rods of the other tribal princes. Both Psa.110 and Num.17: 10 have: (1) priesthood, (2) divine presence, and (3) a rod. Similar language is employed by the prophet Joel, which the present writer believes was prophetic of the defeat of the Assyrians during the reign of king Hezekiah:

“The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and earth shall shake: but the Lord will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel” (Joel 3:16).

Zion means a “dry place” but this arid place will be inundated with the “dew of youth” (v.3);

“As the dew of Hermon, [and as the dew] that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the blessing, [even] life for evermore.” (Psa.133: 3)

Psalm 133 compares the joy of brethren dwelling together in unity with the inauguration of the Aaronic priesthood. The anointing of the high priest, expressed fellowship between man and God, true fellowship with God ultimately leads to eternal life. How much more the anointing of a better priesthood, anticipated by the Aaronic; the prophet Micah understood this verse as partially fulfilled during the reign of Hezekiah:

“And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the Lord, as showers upon the grass, that tarieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.” (Mic.5: 7)  

The deliverance from Assyria, restoration of the captives and the recovery of king Hezekiah were seen as a national resurrection and re-affirmation of Davidic covenant hope. Isaiah, another contemporary of Hezekiah, also used this psalm as his inspiration.

110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

The RV margin translates nedebah (willing) as “freewill offerings” signifying a voluntary offering made out of gratitude; not one commanded by the law (Ex.36: 3). So Deborah (cf. nedebah and ’al-dibrah) and Barak sang of those who volunteered to fight against Jabin and Sisera (Judg.5: 2,18).  In the day of thy power hints at a preceding “day of weakness” when the people were not so willing.

In the beauties of holiness- “Upon the holy mountains” (RSV; RVmg.). This confusion arises from the similarity between “beauty” (hadar) and “mountain” (harar)-in the Hebrew alphabet, the letters d and r are very similarly shaped. “Beauty of holiness” occurs, however, in four other passages (1 Chron.16: 29; 2 Chron.20: 21; Psa.29: 10; 96: 9), and on that account should probably be accorded the higher probability here. The traditio-historic background of the first quote (1 Chron.16: 29) is of particular significance as it forms part of the psalm (see also Psalm 105:1-15) delivered by David to Asaph on the occasion of setting the ark in the tent (v.1). In the beauties of holiness is rendered “in holy array” (RVmg 1Chron.16: 29) “in holy attire” (Ps.110: 3 RVmg), alternatively “holy splendor” (Darby) or “arrayed in holy majesty” (NIV).  This is a reference to priestly garments, for the high priest wore a diadem, engraved with the words “HOLINESS TO THE LORD” (Ex.28: 36), these people have therefore been clothed with “rich apparel” and left behind their “filthy garments” (Zech.3: 4). The theme of this verse is resurrection and regeneration, which is probably more apparent in the Septuagint version; “I have begotten thee from the womb before the morning.” [55] Under the law the firstborn of everything that came from the womb was dedicated to God:” Sanctify, unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb…” (Ex.13: 2). In the Septuagint the enigmatic “womb before the morning” (womb of the morning AV) has the Greek   (arche).  Arche is variously translated as the beginning, first or origin. It is associated in both Testaments with the creative purpose as expressed by the divine will. [56]

The allusion to birth (womb) beginnings (arche) refreshing (dew) and renewal (youth) are all poetic references to the resurrection. The prophet Isaiah used this verse as his inspiration for his prophetic utterance in Isa.26: 19;

“Thy dead [men] shall live, [together with] my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust: for thy dew [is as] the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out her dead.”

“…from the womb of the morning thou hast the dew of thy youth” (Ps.110: 3)

The remarkable recovery of Hezekiah from his mortal illness coincided with the destruction of the Assyrian and the revival of the nation.

110:4 The Lord (YHWH) hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

The Lord hath sworn -the three great and quite immutable oaths of God: to Abraham (Gen.22: 16; Luke 1: 73; Heb.6: 13-18); to Israel (Num.14: 2: the land has not yet been filled with the Glory); and to David (Psa.89: 35-37). Psalm 132 refers to the oath given to David in 2 Sam.7 as follows:

“The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David, He will not turn from it; of the fruit of thy body [Hebrew; belly or womb] will I set upon thy throne.” (132:11)

And will not repent - the oath held out the promise of becoming “God’s son.”  It is in the Pentateuch that we first encounter the “sons of God”, who saw that the “daughters of men were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” (Gen.6: 1). We are informed, that; “it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart” (6:6). The oath saw an initial (partial) fulfillment in Solomon as a “son of God”, who failed, because like the Nephilim in the Pentateuch “he loved many strange women” (1 Kings 11:1) who turned his heart away. [57] For reasons of political expedience, Solomon married into the royalty of the surrounding nations. The Deuteronomist attributes the rebellion of the ten tribes under Solomon’s descendant, Rehoboam, to the unfaithfulness of Solomon. However, despite this unfaithfulness God would not repent as he had done on former occasions. Nor would he withdraw his covenant mercy as he had done from Saul; “It repented me that I have set up Saul to be king” (I Sam.15: 11).

Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek - a new dimension is added to the decree of Psalm 2:7; the declaration of son-ship includes an everlasting priesthood – a royal priest. Regarding the unique quality of the Melchizedek priesthood see THE ETERNAL PRIESTHOOD?

110:5  The Lord (’^adônāy) at thy right hand, shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.    

We have already mentioned that Thirtle understands v.5-7 as a later addition at the hand of Hezekiah. He observes the change in pronouns and remarks that ’^adônāy is now at the right hand of the speaker in contrast to v.1 where ’^adônāy is at the right hand of Yahweh. A closer examination of the chiastic structure makes this apparent: 

It seems then that verses 5-7 are an addition to the psalm by Hezekiah. The themes of victory, punishment and restoration complement the sitz im leben of Hezekiah’s reign.

110:6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with dead bodies; he   shall wound the heads over many countries.

“And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the Lord went out and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose in the morning, behold they were all dead corpses” (2 Kings 19: 35).

He shall wound the heads – he shall strike through the head (RVmg) this is a reference to Sennacherib (Isa.37: 38), it was not unusual for the ancient kings to confer such titles upon themselves as “Lord of all dominions” and therefore “head of many (or great RVmg) countries” is an apt description. The connection with Judges 5 has already been observed (see note 26) as has the messianic reference to the proto-evangelum of Gen.3: 15.

110:7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift   up the head.

The theme of this verse is the restoration of Hezekiah to favor. It is based on the Absalom rebellion during the reign of David:

“The king also himself passed over the brook Kidron…toward the way of the wilderness…..and wept as he went up, and had his head covered”(2 Sam.15: 23-30).

The brook Kidron functioned as the boundary for banishment from Jerusalem (compare banishment from the divine presence in Eden): 

“For it shall be that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thy own head” (1 Kings 2: 37). On this occasion the ark was sent to David by the loyal Zadokite priest, but David refused to have the ark accompany him during his flight:

“Carry back the ark of God into the city: if I shall find favour in the eyes of the Lord, he will bring me again, and shew me both it, and his habitation” (2 Sam.15:25).

Hezekiah’s city was surrounded by external enemies, (there is also evidence of internal treachery) he was mortally ill, and about to die childless. His death would mean that YHWH had reneged on the Davidic covenant. However, instead of death, the suffering servant and the people experienced a personal and national resurrection: 

“Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord” (2 Kings 20: 5).

Hezekiah was raised on the third day and brought to the “habitation” and shown the same favor as his ancestor David, the place of the ark – brought to the symbol of God manifestation and to the tokens of eternal life and everlasting priesthood. We can conjecture that Hezekiah “welded” his psalm to the Davidic content because he saw his own experience as a continuation and expression of Davidic covenant hope.

The third person masculine singular pronoun “He” that we encounter in v.5-7, refers to the Lord (’^adônāy) at the right hand of Hezekiah – ’^adônāy is in fact the “Holy one of Israel” who slaughtered the Assyrians.[58] The verse should be understood as follows: “He (’^adônāy) shall drink from the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.”  The ellipsis should be supplied: He shall drink out of the brook on the way: on this account he shall lift up the head [of the saints].Hezekiah perceived that ’^adônāy was a type of the victorious messiah, he also understood that his own experience as the “suffering servant” typified the priestly work of the messiah in the day of his weakness.

Not only would this “suffering servant”  be exalted, and lifted up, and shall be very high (Isa.52:13), he would also “justify many” (Isa.53: 11) “on this account they would lift up the head.” They would no longer be exiled but would be brought back into fellowship, “he will bring me again, and shew me both it, and his habitation” by the one who was rejected, and who, like David with strong crying and tears (Heb.6:7; Lk.22:41-44) passed over Kidron (John 18:1) and prepared himself to be “lifted up”(John 12:32).

Psalm 110 and the sin of David

Dr. Michael A. Grisanti comments as follows; “that David’s sin with Bathsheba (2 Sam 11–12) closely follows the presentation of the Davidic Covenant is contextually significant in showing the unconditionality of the covenant.” He is certainly right in this observation, but the present writer believes that  the chronology regarding the Bathsheba incident is historically correct and not merely a theological device to emphasise the unconditionality of the covenant.

Divine mercy and faithfulness are not limited by man’s unfaithfulness, but   “David’s sin” has wider implications for our understanding of covenant hesed.  The Bathsheba incident not only highlights the unconditionality of the covenant, it shows the outworking of the covenant in the lives of sinful humanity. Under the Mosaic covenant there was no forgiveness for adultery or murder, as they were capital sins. 

It was not the law that saved David, indeed the law condemned David to death. Once the implication of his sin had been comprehensively driven home, David came to the realisation that no legal or ritual solution could restore fellowship with his God.

“For thou desirest not sacrifice; else I would give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.”  (Ps.51:16-17)

There was no sacrifice proscribed under the Mosaic covenant to atone for the sins that David had committed. He could only express heart felt remorse, but he could not nullify the consequences of his sin. For the first time in his life he experienced estrangement from God, his sin had created a barrier that he could not remove. Psalm 51 appeals to God for forgiveness and cleansing, but the psalmist realises that law and atonement rituals can only deal with violation of the law (the symptoms), and not with the disease itself (sin).  He understands that he needs to be transformed and that he cannot accomplish this by his own means;

“Create in me a clean heart, O God, a new and right (steadfast) spirit within me” (51: 10)

Only God can forgive him, but more importantly only God can transform him into a new creation.  It was from the depths of despair that the psalmist was brought to a new insight into his own humanity and into the covenant delivered to him in 2 Sam 7 (and into vision he saw on that occasion  as described in Psalm 110). The full impact of the apotheosis of Christ in Psalm 110 was brought home to him; the law was ineffectual for establishing a relationship with God, ultimately it could only result in condemnation.  A new relationship was required, not established through the law but by an oath (Ps.110: 4). It is not insignificant that the prototype of the “suffering servant” in Isaiah 53 draws on Psalm 51.

Justified by faith: a new creation in Christ

The apostle Paul contrasts the unconditional faithfulness of God, as established in the Davidic (and Abrahamic) covenant with the unbelief of those who relied on the law. Paul argued that the function of the law was to establish the righteousness of God, not the righteousness of man. In order to prove his argument he cites Psalm 51:4;

“Let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written,

That thou mightest be justified in thy words, and mightest prevail when thou comest into judgement”  (Rom.3:4 RV).

According to Paul, the law exists in order to bring the whole world under the judgement of God (v.19) and to exclude human pride;

“Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? Of works? Nay: but by a law of faith.We reckon therefore that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law” (Rom.3:27 RV).

The phrase “By what manner of law?”  is an allusion to 2 Sam.7: 19:

        dia poios nomos (Rom.3:27)

      de ho nomos  (2 Sam.7:19 LXX)  [59]

The full force of the apostles argument is brought to bear by his allusion to 2 Sam.7: 19. There was no law that allowed David, a non Levite, to sit before the ark; similarly, there was no law that could justify him.  What manner of law? Of works? 

David was justified by his faith in the messiah. Although he saw a vision of the risen Christ when he received the covenant of 2 Samuel 7 (recorded in Psalm 110), he never fully understood the reconciliation achieved by his royal-priestly descendant until he was brought low by sin. 

“Behold thou desirest truth in the inward parts: And in the hidden part (inmost place NIV) thou shalt make me to know wisdom” (Ps.51: 6). [60]

The Psalmist is contrasting his natural conception; “shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me (warm me RV)” (v.5) with his supernatural experience. He had been “hidden” in the womb but Yahweh had brought him into the “inmost place” (NIV) [hidden place] and made him know wisdom.

“For in the time of trouble he shall hide me in his pavilion: In the secret (covert) of his tabernacle shall he hide me” (Ps.27: 5).

“Thou shalt hide them in the secret of thy presence…” (Ps.31: 20)

“Thou art my hiding place; thou shalt preserve me…” (Ps.32: 7) [61]

David is transformed from a position where he is sheltered in the uterus and warmed by sin, to one where he is hidden with God and taught wisdom. However, he could not comprehend or internalise the “truth” (Semitic idiom for the covenants of promise) that had been revealed to him until he had experienced the human capacity for sin. The theophany of truth that he had seen and heard in the darkness of the cloud needed to penetrate the darkness of his heart.

Accordingly, the apostle Paul understood Christ crucified as the “the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor.1:24), this wisdom was “hidden with God” and is revealed to men by the Spirit of God (1 Cor.2: 7, 12). 

“If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” (Col.3: 2)

Paul alludes here to Psalm 110 (sitting on the right hand of God) and Psalm 51 (hidden), he continues (v.5) by listing the sins that need to be “mortified” (put to death) which include the sins of David; “passion, evil desire and covetousness.”

Dispensationalism –the power and the glory

Psalm 110 raises important questions about dispensationalism.  If the messiah is currently at the right hand of power and glory, does he now reign?  Is sitting at the right hand of God the same as sitting on the Davidic throne?  Is the “new covenant” only applicable to Israel (Jer.31: 31-34) or only to the Church, or to both? Is replacement theology correct in assuming that the Church has replaced Israel in God’s affections?  Is the eschaton embodied in the present “age of the Church” or is it literal? Before we attempt to answer these complex questions we need to remind ourselves of two important facts:

(1)        The nation of Israel was Yahweh’s kingdom and He was their king, the Davidic king ruled only by proxy. The nation was a theocracy; “but I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom forever: and his throne shall be established for evermore”(1 Chron.17: 14).

(2)        The more general point that, “The most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men” (Dan.4: 17).

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the above points is that:

(a)The kingdom is literal and encompasses both the land and the people of    Israel.

(b)God already rules in the kingdom of men and so does his Christ.

In what sense does Christ presently rule?  Psalm 2 has the following to say about the messiah:

“Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession” (Ps.2: 8).

This promise was given to the messiah after his exaltation and has already been partially fulfilled as the book of Acts makes clear:

“But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7: 55-56).

Stephen saw a vision of the risen Christ, not sitting but standing on the right hand of God in order to ask for his inheritance.  The Jews had comprehensively turned away from Christ and murdered his martyr Stephen. As a consequence of this act of defiance (the charges brought against Stephen were very similar to those made against Christ) the gospel message would henceforth be preached to the Gentiles. Stephen prayed that his death not be laid to their charge, in so doing he had a particular person in mind – Saul, who was both a witness and a judge at his trial. 

His prayer was answered by the most remarkable confrontation and conversion in history – Saul became the apostle Paul – the apostle to the Gentiles.  No longer would Christianity remain an obscure Jewish sect, but the chief protagonist would himself become a martyr in bonds, thus ensuring that Christianity would conquer the Gentile world.The early Christians were assured of the messiah’s overarching authority and control of earthly circumstances. Indeed, they had been warned:

“See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven” (Heb.12: 25).

They were instructed to listen to Christ by none other than God himself (2 Pet.1: 17-18 see Mtt.17: 5 par.Mk.9: 7; Lk.9: 35) and the warning that they were to heed was the book of Revelation. The “Revelation of Jesus Christ” was the final warning from “him that speaketh from heaven” to the seven Churches (Rev.1-2). The author to the Hebrews and also 2 Peter reinforced this message:  repent for the present Mosaic dispensation is about to pass away (Heb.12: 27-29; 2 Pet.3: 10-11). [62] This culminated in the removal of the temple in AD 70 and the dispersal of the Jews.

Jesus Christ presided over the divine activity surrounding these events when, following his resurrection, he broke all the seals on the scroll. This initiated the sequence of first century events, from the victorious riding forth of the gospel (Rev.6: 1-2), the Herodian persecution (Rev. 6:3-4; Acts 12: 1-4; James 4: 2), the famine (Rev.6: 5-6; Acts 11:27-30), general civil breakdown (Rev.6: 7-8; 2 Tim.3: 1-8) to the Nero persecution (Rev.6: 9-11; 1 Pet.5:8), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem (Rev.6: 12-17).

The heart felt cry of the persecuted saints “How long?” (uttered during the Nero persecution Rev.6: 9-11) was answered by the giving of the book of Revelation to John.  The saints could look back to the cross in the knowledge that all the hardship that they had endured (and which Jesus had predicted in the Olivet prophecy) was under their messiah’s control.  They could look forward with confidence, knowing that although the great tribulation would cost them their lives, they would be vindicated by the fall of Jerusalem (and civil war in Rome), and raised to glory at the last day like their Lord. Where then is the promised kingdom?  It will not be restored to Israel until the trumpets have sounded. After two millennia of “divine inactivity” (2 Pet.3: 3-9) the nation of Israel has returned to the land and is about to face another great tribulation. The saints can rest assured that God and his Christ still rule in the kingdom of men, this can possibly be understood as a form of “present or realized eschatology” but in the final analysis the early Church always understood the kingdom as a literal event, inaugurated by the return of the messiah, when he will take up his rightful place on the throne of David.

A distinction must be made between the “Church” and “Israel” but not along the lines of replacement theology, as both entities are related and inter dependant.  A Church is defined as a group of people that share the same beliefs, practice the same rites of worship and recognize the same ecclesiastical authority. As such the nation of Israel can be considered the “Old Testament Church” with it’s own distinctive liturgy. It was the natural olive tree into which the “wild branches” of the “New Testament Church” were grafted in. It represents continuity and unity with the believing part of Israel, it still contains natural branches, and wild branches and places were branches have been completely removed (Rom.11: 17). Progressive revelation necessitated that shadow and type were replaced by substance and that the covenants of promise became increasingly focused. This catalysed changes in ritual but not changes in principles. It was, and always will be, one body, past, present and future: “the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven” (Heb.12: 23)

In reality, the ancient nation of Israel (“Old Testament Church”) and the Christian Church only contain  a faithful remnant, “for they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”(Rom.9: 6). On the other hand, modern, secular Israel is a completely different entity, but is still subject to the divine redemptive purpose, even though it is hostile to that purpose. The nation will suffer another “great tribulation” but will not ultimately perish, for although Israel is intransigent and unfaithful, God will save them for the sake of his own holy name (Ezek.36: 22).

An eternal priesthood

Volumes have been written about the use of Melchizedek in Hebrews. It is perhaps useful to quote the summary given by Maarten J. Paul in NIDOTTE (vol.4 p.935):

“Many exegetes regard Ps 110:4 as the affirmation that the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek differs from the Levitical priesthood in the possibility that a priest can be also a king. This interpretation does not identify the peculiar characteristics of the priesthood. This peculiarity is no more expressed in the qualification “eternal,” for that attribute is also used to define Aaron’s priesthood (Ex.29: 9).”

This is most certainly correct, for the qualification “eternal” does not necessarily mean “forever” but “for a long time” or more appropriately “for an age.” [63]

A priest is an intermediary between God and man, as such the messiah’s priestly work is only necessary during the millennial age when the earth still contains a mortal, human population. Psalm 110 clearly states that Christ will sit at the right hand of God until Yahweh makes all his enemies his footstool. The apocalyptic literature understood the last enemy to be  death itself (Rev.20:12-15). Once the  last judgement has occurred there will no longer be a mortal population on earth as death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire, the millennium itself is therefore only temporary, and so also any priesthood associated with it.[64] 

The Melchizedek priesthood may be of limited duration, but the effects of  Christ’s priestly work are everlasting. The author to the Hebrews contrasts the limitations of the Aaronic priesthood, which derived authority from descent and law, with the Melchizedek which owed authority to an endless life and an oath. The achievements of the former priesthood was limited by death (of the priest) and sin (of the priest). Priestly intercession was therefore dependant on the longevity of the priest, the Melchizedek priesthood was not prone to such an interruption. [65]  

The strength of the latter lay in having a perfect intermediary, who in contrast to the law did not have to offer continually, but never the less achieved continuing, lasting results, whose benefits are experienced in perpetuity by those who are saved. In this sense he ‘abideth a priest continually’ unhindered by human frailty, until the end of the millennial age, when he shall have accomplished his task and intercession is no longer necessary, for God will be all in all.

Maarten J. Paul concludes his article on Melchizedek as follows:

“Heb.7:3 says with regard to Melchizedek, “without father or mother, without genealogy.” This is not an argument derived from the silence of Gen. 14 with respect to the line of descent. It may best be explained in the same way as the rabbinic statement concerning a heathen who turned to the Jewish belief: “a heathen does not have a (legal) father.” Although a heathen had a natural father, for Jewish law there was no legal father. In this light Heb.7: 3 would be understood as a statement that Melchizedek had parents, but not the required ones to become a priest or king. That he did not derive his rights to be priest and/or king from his parents, because of hereditary rights. The only possibility was to receive these functions by appointment (with an oath; v.21). Jesus, who is from the line of Judah (v.14), could not be a priest according to the order of Aaron. Therefore, it is likely that Ps.110: 4, in the expression “the order of Melchizedek,” presents a qualification of the priesthood in that it was not obtained by inheritance (from father or mother) but by oath.”

Conclusions

1.    The context of Psalm 110: 1-4 is the covenant given to David in 2 Samuel 6-7 when he acted the role of a Melchizedek king-priest on the occasion of installing the ark in Jerusalem. The first four verses describe the vision that David saw on that occasion.

2.    The context of Psalm 110:5-7 is the deliverance from death and destruction experienced by Hezekiah (the suffering servant) and the subsequent blessing of progeny, thus reaffirming Davidic hope.

3.    The Psalm is not Trinitarian; the Trinity is a dogma that was alien to the early church and anathema to the Jewish faith.

4.    Psalm 110 is clearly messianic, the second “lord” in verse one is Jesus Christ the Son of God. David saw the risen exalted Christ.

5.    Jesus Christ will return and take up his rightful place as king of the Jews.

Resources

The resource links do not necessarily mean complete endorsement of the views expressed on those sites.

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/regal1.htm An Early Text for Later Messianic Conceptions: A Look at Genesis 49:8-12, by Greg Herrick, Ph.D.

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/regal2.htm“A Star Will Come out of Jacob”: Early Regal Images in Numbers 24:15-19, by Greg Herrick, Ph.D.

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/regal3.htm Regal/Messianic Hope in Deuteronomy, 1, 2 Samuel, and 1, 2 Kings, by Greg Herrick, Ph.D.

.http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/regal4.htm Conceptions of Davidic Hope in Psalms 2, 45, and 72, by Greg Herrick, Ph.D

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/regal5.htm Conceptions of Davidic Hope in Psalms 89, 110, and 132, by Greg Herrick, Ph.D.

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/regal6.htm Conceptions of Davidic Hope in Ezekiel, Zechariah, Haggai, and the Chronicles, by Greg Herrick, Ph.D.

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/christ/regal7.htm Conceptions of Davidic Hope in the Greek Psalter and Apocrypha, by Greg Herrick, Ph.D.

http://www.ot-studies.com/Documents/hanson.htm Israelite Religion in the Early Postexilic Period, by Hanson:

http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/BD86.htm  Comments on the use of YHWH, ADON, ADONI, AND ADONAI and the translators error in Psalm 110:1(anti-Trinitarian)

http://www.cresourcei.org/psa51.html The language of transformation in Psalm 51 –A Biblical perspective on holiness.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/ps110.html  Jewish anti-Trinitarian perspective on Psalm 110

http://www.bsw.org/?l=71811&a=Ani01.html Melchizedek in the MT, LXX, and the NT (J.A. Fitzmeyer)

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/int_otnt.html The interpretation of scripture: use of the O.T. in the N.T.

http://www.shasta.edu/articles/ggunn/psalm110_article_dispensationalism.htm#The Psalm 110 and Progressive Dispensationalism by George Gunn and Jerry Neuman.

http://www.lasttrumpet.com  see In defense of Progressive Dispensationalism by Tim Warner and Mark Harris

http://www.shma-israel.org/trouble-psalm110.html Comments on the title: “For David or regarding David?”

Notes

[53] The first common singular suffixed form ’^adōnî (my lord, my master) is frequently used in a full address with a personal name: Abraham (Gen.24:12, 27,42 ,48), Esau (32:5, 19), Moses (Num.11:28), Saul (2 Sam.2:7; 1 Chron.12:20), Joab (2 Sam.11:11), David (1 Kgs. 1:11; 2 Chron.2:13), Elijah (1 Kgs.18: 7), Ahab (2 Kgs.9: 7), Hadadezer (1 Kgs.11:23), Sennacherib (2 Kgs.19:4 =Isa.37: 4), and Hanun (2 Sam.10: 3).  The nom. ’ādôn (lord, master) occurs 334x in the O.T. It is most often used in reference to human lords and masters (over 300x). [NIDOTTE vol.1p.256-261]  Sir Anthony Buzzard, Bt.Ma. argues in ‘The Doctrine of the Trinity (Christianity’s self-inflicted wound)’, that whereas ’^adōnî is only ever used for human superiors, ’^adônāy is reserved in Hebrew scripture only for God himself:

http://www.mindspring.com/~anthonybuzzard/adoni.htm  Buzzard presents a strong case that deserves to be critically examined, but  the relationship between ’ādôn and ’^adônāy appears to be more complex than suggested, especially when the theology of God manifestation and the language of agency are considered (see note 58). In this context it is interesting to note that one M.S. seems to have read Yahweh said unto Yahweh (De Rossi) instead of Yahweh said to ’^adōnî (my lord). This is not well enough attested to draw any firm conclusion, never the less it is known that the sopherim substituted  ’^adônāy for Yahweh on at least 134 occasions. [This is from the official list given in the Massorah – see http://www.therain.org/appendixes/app32.html Ginsburg’s edition 107-15]. The Greek (LXX) makes no distinction and has kyrios (Lord). It is thought that some of the force of the argument used by Christ based on psalm 110:1 would be lost if no distinction is made between Lord and lord, but that is not necessarily the case, for it is possible that the original read; The Yahweh said to my Yahweh. We have other similar expressions such as psalm 16:2 which reads: “I have said unto the Lord (Yahweh) thou art my Lord (’^adônāy), which could just as easily read (without compromising the meaning) “I said to Yahweh, thou art myYahweh.” If this was the case, it is understandable that within the confines of monotheism and in order to avoid confusion this underwent a revision during the exile.

The Philistines thought that the two cherubs were the “gods” of Israel: “who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty gods?” (1 Sam.4:8)   The cherubim were of course not gods, the Israelite faith was strictly monotheistic and they were forbidden to make idols. The cherubim represented God’s glory in both his natural and spiritual creation – they were made facing each other and looking downwards at the mercy seat (footstool), the place where the shekinah glory dwelt. The seraphim (another word used to describe the cherubim) in the vision seen by Isaiah declared God’s glory: “And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the fullness of the whole earth is his glory” (6:3 RVmg). In the first instance they represented the glory of God in the natural creation, in the second instance they represent the glory of God in the nation of Israel, God’s spiritual creation – it is likely that the cherubim on the ark had the face of an ox, which probably explains the golden calf incident in Exodus (32:4 see also 1 Kings 12:28). The nation of Israel was divided into four camps surrounding (looking towards) the tabernacle in the wilderness, with the chief  tribe in each camp bearing an ensign representing a face (Ezek.1:10) of the cherubim. (For example it can be concluded that Judah bore the ensign of the lion -see Gen.49:9). Crucial to understanding the symbolism of the cherubim is the theology of God manifestation; the progressive revelation of the divine purpose in creation. The first  man is created in God’s image, as the divine agent and steward over the creation, but man falls because of his desire to be “god-like”,  then  a nation is called into existence to function as kings and priests, who again fail because of their compulsion to achieve god-like status through their own efforts. Finally God redeems the old creation with the new creation, another man (the messiah) is formed who is utterly dependant on and obedient to his God, one who refuses to grasp at equality. Another means of access has now been opened between God and man, by faith and grace God establishes a people for his name. The YHWH covenant name is based on a verb that portrays the divine purpose. He is the self-existent one – the one who is, but also the one who was and will be. The divine purpose is to be manifest in his creation, as such the messiah will bear “a name which is above every name” (Philip.2:9; Heb.1:4; Eph.1:21). Isaiah saw Yahweh, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple (6:1) – this is the same suffering servant who would be exalted, and lifted up, and shall be very high (52:13). Furthermore, the word “train” is used elsewhere of the hem of the robe of the High Priest (Ex.28: 33). A priest upon hi