Melchizedek: Another View

[ischus]

DRA ? I just wanted to make sure you knew that I replied to your post. I know that sometimes it doesn't show up in the user CP. I thought I saw you reading just after I posted last, but perhaps I am mistaken.

 

[- DRA -]

DRA ? I just wanted to make sure you knew that I replied to your post. I know that sometimes it doesn't show up in the user CP. I thought I saw you reading just after I posted last, but perhaps I am mistaken.

Sorry for the delay in responding. Busy week. Sick too. Feel better now. I'll try to get a response posted in the next day or so.

 

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

I did not say that there is one type of prophecy: a direct 1-1 correlation with a single fulfillment. I'm not sure where and how you came up with that idea.

I apologize for making this assumption. I should not have taken that leap. Thank you for clearing this up. If you don't mind, could you give some Scriptural examples of a couple other types of Prophesy-Fulfillment just so I can see where you are coming from?

An example of a Psalm that I consider having a minor and major fulfillment is Psalm 22:1. Its minor fulfillment would be David's plea to God, and its major fulfillment would be Jesus' plea on the cross (see the gospel accounts). This type of example is relevant to our discussion. I don't see that all the specific passages in the Psalms that are fulfilled in Jesus fall into this category. I think your position fails to fully consider the specific points the N.T. makes based on certain O.T. passages (see discussion that follows).

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

What I am saying is that Jesus is the sole fulfillment of some O.T. prophecies. Simply stated, in some -- not all -- prophecies there can me no minor and major fulfillment, but only one fulfillment. Psalm 16:10 is an example of a prophecy of this nature. Neither David or Solomon were minor fulfillments of this passage. The passage was solely prophetic of Jesus. See Acts 2:27.

Psalm 110:1,4 are passages that I consider to be solely fulfilled in Jesus. Your original post and continuing reasoning infers that David and Solomon were also priests after the order of Melchizedek. That simply won't "fly" in light of Hebrews 7:13-14 and 8:4. Bottom line. The passages in Hebrews clearly tell us that Jesus couldn't be a priest on earth because He was from the wrong tribe. The same is true for David and Solomon. They couldn't be priests on earth for the same reason. Jesus, however, is seated at God's right hand in heaven, where He acts as our High Priest today ... a priest after the order of Melchizedek -- not Aaron or Levi.

This will just expand our discussion too far because I see Ps.16 in the same way that I see Ps.110. I don't think either one is a direct prophesy only about Jesus without any OT purpose. I don't see Ps.16 as having an OT "fulfillment" either--it is solely fulfilled by Jesus in the NT as you say. But in the OT context it is David's meditations on God. But this will only bring about the same argument from another verse, so we might as well not go into this one in this thread about Melchizedek.

Somehow, we just can’t seem to connect our thoughts. I referred only to Psalm 16:10 – one specific verse in the Psalm – not to the whole 16th Psalm. Frankly, I don’t see any possible way this passage had any type of fulfillment in anyone other than Jesus. Acts 2:27-31 declares it was Jesus. What “O.T. purpose” do you see in the passage? Specifically, who else did NOT stay in the realm of the dead (in Hades) and did NOT have their body decay? I can’t envision any other possibilities than Jesus. What am I missing?

As for Heb.7:13-14; 8:4 I don't see how that does anything other than support my case. The point is that the Priesthood of Melchizedek was not from the tribe of Levi, but from Judah, just as these verses point out. I think you may have missed the whole point that the Melchizedek Priesthood was a second Priesthood alongside the Levitcal Priesthood. I am not saying that David, Solomon, or Jesus were Levitical Priests from the line of Aaron. I am saying that they were Melchizedekan (is that a word?) Priests from the line of Judah and from the Order of Melchizedek.

Don’t have a clue how you determined from the text of Hebrews 7:13-14 and 8:4 “that the Priesthood of Melchizedek was not from the tribe of Levi, but from Judah.” The passage says that Jesus descended from Judah – not the priesthood of Melchizedek. Big difference. In the NKJV, Hebrews 7:13-14 reads, “For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” The pronoun “He” at the beginning of the passage refers to Jesus – not Melchizedek. Melchizedek didn’t belong to any tribe. How in the world could he have descended from Judah? Melchizedek was a contemporary with Abraham. How could he have been from the tribe of one of Abraham’s great-grandsons?

The point the Hebrew writer is making in 7:13-14 is that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah – from which NO ONE was authorized to serve as priests. Note the preceding verses (11-12). Jesus being called after the order of Melchizedek proves that “perfection” (NKJV) didn’t come through the Levitical priesthood. It also necessarily infers a change in the law since the priesthood and the law were linked. If David and Solomon were also Melchizedekan (?) priests, then the reasoning of this passage would mean that the law of Moses ended when they became priests. Now, which way is it? Did the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses end when David and Solomon became priests (assuming they did), or did those things end when Jesus became a priest? The text reasons that it was when Jesus became priest, which also agrees with the ending of the law of Moses i.e. Colossians 2:14 – which totally leaves David and Solomon OUT of the picture. Hebrews 7:13-14 & 8:4 also leave them out of the picture. They, like Jesus, were from the tribe of Judah and not authorized to be priests on earth. That is not a problem for Jesus; He is a priest while seated at God’s right hand in heaven. Is the same true for David and Solomon? Bottom line. They weren’t authorized to be priests on earth. Therefore, that takes care of whether or not Psalm 110:4 applied to them. If they were priests after the order of Melchizedek, then according to Hebrews 7:13-14 and 8:4, they couldn’t be priests until after they departed this life.

Originally Posted by: - DRA -

The speaker of the Psalm 110 is identified in Matthew 22:43 as David. The passage (verses 42-45) also identifies the Christ as being David's Lord.

Hebrews 1:13 offers another perspective about Psalm 110:1. God (the Father) is speaking to Jesus in the passage. That means, "The Lord said to my Lord," is referring to the Father speaking to Jesus.

Two different Hebrew words are used in the expression, "The Lord [Yhwh] said to my Lord [adonai]." However, there is more to consider. Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6 to show that God called His Son (Jesus) God. And, Isaiah referred to the Son (Jesus )as the "Everlasting Father" i.e. 9:6.

Now, what Scriptural evidence do you have that I should consider in my in-depth study of Psalm 110:1-4. Would you have me ignore the texts of the New Testament passages that are inspired commentaries on the O.T. passage?

I would not have you ignore the NT texts. I would have you see them as a different type of fulfillment.

So, you are saying that David is quoting Yahweh (LORD), who is speaking to Jesus (Lord) ? I don't see how that can make sense in the OT context. Help me out here:

vv1-3 Yahweh (Father) tells Jesus (referred to as "you"/"your" or adonai) to sit at his right hand as a ruler.

v4 Yahweh (Father) tells Jesus ("you" or adonai) that he is a Priest forever

v5 Yahweh (still the speaker) tells Jesus ("your") that the adonai ("Lord" or "he" in the ff vv) is at his ("your" or Jesus') right hand. [And this is where I have the trouble. Who is the adonai at the right hand of Jesus?]

vv6-7 This other adonai ("he") who is at the right hand of Jesus ("you" and "your") will bring judgment.

I don't see how adonai can be the same person throughout the Psalm in light of vv5ff, unless you are trying to say that the speaker changes between v4 and v5. If so, how and why can you say that?

And I would still like you to address the questions of my former post: "...how would you interpret Zion and the enemies of v2, the people, power/army, and youth of v3, the Lord and the kings of v5, the nations, rulers, corpses, and country/earth of v6, and the brook of v7 ?..."

Let’s start off with what we can determine for a certainty. Psalm 110:1 begins with, “The Lord [Yhwh] said to my Lord [adonai].” I trust that we both readily agree that YHWH is referring to God. Matthew 22:42-45 makes a point about “my Lord.” Jesus is showing that this was referring to the Christ – who David called, “My Lord.” The point is that the Christ would be more than just a son to David – He would also be David’s Lord. This very point is also made in Acts 2:34-35 (a quote from Psalm 110:1). The point? Jesus was raised from the dead and the apostles were witnesses of His resurrection (verse 32). The coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles is evidence that Jesus is exalted at God’s right hand (verse 33). Note verses 34-35. David did not ascend to heaven, therefore Psalm 110:1 wasn’t speaking about him. Rather, David was speaking of someone else – the Christ, who is also his Lord. Therefore (in light of this point and the previous ones), a conclusion is drawn in verse 36. Now, can you go through this text and its reasoning and show us how Solomon (or someone else) fits into the picture? Specifically, do you think Solomon is now seated at God’s right hand and is both Lord and Christ? And, for the sake of time, I won’t elaborate too much on Hebrews 1:13. The passage agrees with the thought in Matthew 22 – God was speaking to Jesus in Psalm 110:1. It proves that Jesus is better than (superior to) the angels – the point that is being made in Hebrews chapter 1. Do you see Solomon meeting this description? To summarize, we have briefly looked at Psalm 110:1 from three different angles in the N.T. And, unless you can show me otherwise, I am firmly convinced that this passage can apply to no one else but Jesus.

Psalm 110:4 is also fulfilled in Jesus. And, I believe solely in Jesus. Note Hebrews 5:4-10 and 7:1-25. Although there are many points that I could discuss, I’ll just focus on one … 7:23-24. The Levitical priests were limited in their service by death. However, Jesus’ priesthood – after the order of Melchizedek – is not limited in this way. Note the point made in verse 3 -- “nor end of life.” Verses 23-24 are expanding on this point. There is no record of Melchizedek’s death, therefore His priesthood remained open i.e. Psalm 110:4. On the same note, Jesus, having overcome death, “continues forever” (Heb. 7:24). The question for us to consider is whether or not David or Solomon fit this description. I don’t believe either one did. Therefore, I see no reason nor justification for saying they were also priests after the order of Melchizedek.

And, as for a more detailed study of Psalm 110 and for time’s sake (mine), I suggest the following website:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/JamiesonFaussetBrown/jfb.cgi?book=ps&chapter=110

 

[ischus]

Don’t have a clue how you determined from the text of Hebrews 7:13-14 and 8:4 "that the Priesthood of Melchizedek was not from the tribe of Levi, but from Judah.” The passage says that Jesus descended from Judah – not the priesthood of Melchizedek. Big difference. In the NKJV, Hebrews 7:13-14 reads, “For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood.” The pronoun “He” at the beginning of the passage refers to Jesus – not Melchizedek. Melchizedek didn’t belong to any tribe. How in the world could he have descended from Judah? Melchizedek was a contemporary with Abraham. How could he have been from the tribe of one of Abraham’s great-grandsons?



The point the Hebrew writer is making in 7:13-14 is that Jesus was from the tribe of Judah – from which NO ONE was authorized to serve as priests. Note the preceding verses (11-12). Jesus being called after the order of Melchizedek proves that “perfection” (NKJV) didn’t come through the Levitical priesthood. It also necessarily infers a change in the law since the priesthood and the law were linked. If David and Solomon were also Melchizedekan (?) priests, then the reasoning of this passage would mean that the law of Moses ended when they became priests. Now, which way is it? Did the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses end when David and Solomon became priests (assuming they did), or did those things end when Jesus became a priest? The text reasons that it was when Jesus became priest, which also agrees with the ending of the law of Moses i.e. Colossians 2:14 – which totally leaves David and Solomon OUT of the picture. Hebrews 7:13-14 & 8:4 also leave them out of the picture. They, like Jesus, were from the tribe of Judah and not authorized to be priests on earth. That is not a problem for Jesus; He is a priest while seated at God’s right hand in heaven. Is the same true for David and Solomon? Bottom line. They weren’t authorized to be priests on earth. Therefore, that takes care of whether or not Psalm 110:4 applied to them. If they were priests after the order of Melchizedek, then according to Hebrews 7:13-14 and 8:4, they couldn’t be priests until after they departed this life.

To clarify, I understand that Melchizedek was not from the tribe of Levi or Judah. I didn't mean that he was. I meant that his Priesthood was. First comes Melchizedek, the Priest. Then comes his Priesthood. I only meant that those who carried on this Priesthood were from the tribe of Judah, not of Levi.



I think I am seeing more clearly now where we differ, and I don't know that this discussion will make any progress. There is a sense in which Jesus was fulfilling a Levitcal sacrifice within the Levitical Priestly system. He was a sin offering, after all. There is another sense in which Jesus was fulfilling a Melchizedekan Priesthood.



The problem we run into in our discussion is simply our view of prophesy in this text. I don't mean to say that David or Solomon were the ultimate fulfillement of the Priesthood. If they were, the Hebrew-writer would have no purpose in writing. Type-antitype is what I am saying. In the OP I pointed out that David and his sons were priests, though not Levitical priests. The tribe of Judah was not authorized to act in place of the Levitical priests. Yet David and his sons were priests. This Priest-King motif was put in place by God, starting (at least) with Melchizedek. It was not a priesthood to Israel. It was a priesthood to the Gentiles. That is why they co-exist. God has always been interested in the Gentiles, just as he was with Israel. God has always called both into his presence, and both have always has a Priesthood. Jesus fuses the two together by becoming the ultimate Levitcal Sacrifce and the Ultimate Melchizedekan Priest.

Let’s start off with what we can determine for a certainty. Psalm 110:1 begins with, “The Lord [Yhwh] said to my Lord [adonai].” I trust that we both readily agree that YHWH is referring to God. Matthew 22:42-45 makes a point about “my Lord.” Jesus is showing that this was referring to the Christ – who David called, “My Lord.” The point is that the Christ would be more than just a son to David – He would also be David’s Lord. This very point is also made in Acts 2:34-35 (a quote from Psalm 110:1). The point? Jesus was raised from the dead and the apostles were witnesses of His resurrection (verse 32). The coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles is evidence that Jesus is exalted at God’s right hand (verse 33). Note verses 34-35. David did not ascend to heaven, therefore Psalm 110:1 wasn’t speaking about him. Rather, David was speaking of someone else – the Christ, who is also his Lord. Therefore (in light of this point and the previous ones), a conclusion is drawn in verse 36. Now, can you go through this text and its reasoning and show us how Solomon (or someone else) fits into the picture? Specifically, do you think Solomon is now seated at God’s right hand and is both Lord and Christ? And, for the sake of time, I won’t elaborate too much on Hebrews 1:13. The passage agrees with the thought in Matthew 22 – God was speaking to Jesus in Psalm 110:1. It proves that Jesus is better than (superior to) the angels – the point that is being made in Hebrews chapter 1. Do you see Solomon meeting this description? To summarize, we have briefly looked at Psalm 110:1 from three different angles in the N.T. And, unless you can show me otherwise, I am firmly convinced that this passage can apply to no one else but Jesus.

I agree with you and the NT about Ps.110. I know it was about Jesus. I don't know how to say it more clearly. But you only went up to v4. Please answer these questions that I asked (several times now) you about the text. These are the things in the text that I want you to explain to me in your next post:

""v5 Yahweh (still the speaker) tells Jesus ("your") that the adonai ("Lord" or "he" in the ff vv) is at his ("your" or Jesus') right hand. [And this is where I have the trouble. Who is the adonai at the right hand of Jesus?]

vv6-7 This other adonai ("he") who is at the right hand of Jesus ("you" and "your") will bring judgment.

I don't see how adonai can be the same person throughout the Psalm in light of vv5ff, unless you are trying to say that the speaker changes between v4 and v5. If so, how and why can you say that?

And I would still like you to address the questions of my former post: "...how would you interpret Zion and the enemies of v2, the people, power/army, and youth of v3, the Lord and the kings of v5, the nations, rulers, corpses, and country/earth of v6, and the brook of v7 ?...""

Psalm 110:4 is also fulfilled in Jesus. And, I believe solely in Jesus. Note Hebrews 5:4-10 and 7:1-25. Although there are many points that I could discuss, I’ll just focus on one … 7:23-24. The Levitical priests were limited in their service by death. However, Jesus’ priesthood – after the order of Melchizedek – is not limited in this way. Note the point made in verse 3 -- “nor end of life.” Verses 23-24 are expanding on this point. There is no record of Melchizedek’s death, therefore His priesthood remained open i.e. Psalm 110:4. On the same note, Jesus, having overcome death, “continues forever” (Heb. 7:24). The question for us to consider is whether or not David or Solomon fit this description. I don’t believe either one did. Therefore, I see no reason nor justification for saying they were also priests after the order of Melchizedek.

Your argument here depends on the definition of "forever" in both the Hebrew and Greek Languages. You are also putting unnecessary burden on the OT by insisting that the OT Psalm must carry the exact same meaning as its NT application. This is the definition of 1-1 fulfillment. Answer my questions about the psalm and you will see more fully what I mean. Once again, this psalm is a dual-fulfillment. In the OT especially, olam does not typically communicate the "forever" that we often have in view. Even the Greek idea of aion/aionios is somewhat split, though it does usually carry with it the meaning of "forever" that we are more familiar with.


My point is, Hebrews takes the word and rightfully applies it to Jesus, though the word was not required to mean "forever" in the Greek/Western sense. It could have (and did, IMO) simply referred to an indefinite period of time, or the lifetime of an individual, just as olam usually did. The word can easily refer to the lifetime of Solomon, and at the same time speak to the eternal life of Christ. So you see, all OT priests were Priests “forever” (olam), but only Jesus was a Priest “forever” (aiona) because his death was not the end and he continues on as a Priest. Therefore, he is the ultimate fulfillment of both priesthoods (though there were previous priests, both Levitical and Melchizedekan), and there will never again be a new Levitical Priest or Melchizedekan Priest.

 

[- DRA -]

Let’s approach things from a general perspective first. Let’s start with the OP. It presents Melchizedek as a Gentile priest. However, the Jewish/Gentile distinction did not come about until centuries later. Placing this distinction on Melchizedek is not essential at this point. The Gentile designation slants things in a predetermined direction.

Next, 2 Samuel is used to suggest that David and his sons were priests after the order of Melchizedek. However, this understanding contradicts Hebrews 7:11-12, which says (NKJV), “11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.” This passage points out that a change in the priesthood -- one arising after the order of Melchizedek in Psalm 110:4 -- means a change in both the priesthood and the law (of Moses). Therefore, when the priest spoken of in Psalm 110:4 arose, the Levitical priesthood and the law of Moses would end. Did those things occur during the days of David and his sons? Nope. They did not. They ended when Jesus nailed the law to the cross (Colossians 2:14). Therefore, this shows the premise about David and his sons being priests after the order of Melchizedek to NOT be harmony with the Scriptures. That conclusion suggests that you go back and rethink the conclusion you drew in 2 Samuel. Here is a place you might start: Judges 2:4-5. Were all the Israelites priests? Or, did they offer their sacrifices through the priests (a necessary inference)?

Next, Solomon is declared to be the king and priest under discussion in Psalm 110:4. However, the New Testament declares that Jesus is the fulfillment of both Psalm 110:1 (Matthew 22:43-44, Acts 2:34-35, & Hebrews 1:13) and Psalm 110:4 (Hebrews 5:6,10; 6:20; & 7:17,21). These New Testament passages also show us that Jehovah is speaking to Jesus in Psalm 110:1,4. Can you show how Solomon could also have fulfilled the points the New Testament writers make from Psalm 110:1,4? And, don’t forget about Hebrews 7:11-12.

Zechariah is written in apocalyptic language e.g. like portions of Daniel and Revelation. Zechariah 6 describes the combining of the king and priest into one role (verses 12-13). This would be accomplished in the BRANCH (a more detailed description is given in Isaiah 11), who would build the temple (see Ephesians 2:11-22 and Acts 15:14-17). Ultimately, the prophecy is pointing to Jesus – not Zerubbabel. Don’t forget about Hebrews 7:11-12 – unless you think that God intended for the priesthood and law to change about 520 B.C.

Your comment, “It [the Order of Mechizedek] began with Melchizedek (or before?), and was entrusted to the line of David, warrants a brief comment. Like I pointed out before, Hebrews 7:3 says, “without genealogy.” Your reasoning concludes that genealogy was involved. It wasn’t. This is the second place in Hebrews 7 we’ve noted that shows the reasoning being presented is not in agreement with the points being made in that chapter.

And, to conclude my basic summary of the OP, I want to once again emphasize Hebrews 7:13-14 & 8:4. Jesus couldn’t be a priest on earth. He was from the tribe of Judah – and only the Levites were authorized to be priests. Therefore, the only conclusion that we can draw is that the Levitical priesthood and the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek could NOT coexist. If they could have, He could have been a priest on earth – just not a Levitical priest. But, He couldn’t. So, that takes care of David, his sons including Solomon, and Zerubbabel. They couldn’t have been priests after the order of Melchizedek either while on earth.

Now, concerning post # 35 …

Your statement about Psalm 110 was, “My view is that David (who is near death) is talking about Solomon who has been annointed by Zadok as the new King and has now taken his seat on his father's throne. Because Solomon has taken the throne, he has become David's lord in that respect.” However, as I have pointed out before, Matthew 22:43-44, Acts 2:34-35, & Hebrews 1:13 clearly show us who is speaking and who is being addressed in Psalm 110:1. Consider the reasoning of Matthew 22: 42-45 and Luke 20:41-44. Jesus asks the Pharisees about whose son the Christ was. The answer was, “David.” Jesus’ response was to ask about how the Christ could be both David’s son and David’s Lord (point taken from Psalm 110:1). The Pharisees could NOT answer Jesus’ question. Why NOT? Because they understood the implication/inference that Jesus was making. It wasn’t that Jesus (or Solomon as you propose) would rule on David’s throne. They understood that the Christ would sit on David’s throne i.e. 2 Samuel 7, but there was another aspect of the Christ that they hadn’t quite come to acknowledge nor accept. Consider the thoughts of Albert Barnes: “If he was, then, David's Lord; if he was his superior; if he had an existence at that time, how could he be descended from him? They could not answer him. Nor is there any way of answering the question but by the admission that the Messiah was Divine as well as human; that he had an existence at the time of David, and was his Lord and Master, his God and King, and that as man he was descended from him.” On the other hand, let’s answer Jesus’ question with the response that you propose – Solomon was David’s Lord because he sat on David’s throne. However, we have to decide if Jesus would have agreed with this understanding. If this is true, and Jesus said this passage (Psalm 110:1) referred to the Christ, which He did – this would mean that Solomon was the Christ. Yep. That’s where the line of reasoning takes us. Don’t know about you, but I do NOT accept that Solomon was the Christ i.e. Acts 2:36. Note the previous two verses in Acts 2. They quote Psalm 110:1. Can you show us EXACTLY how Solomon fits into that discussion (please be specific)? And, last but certainly not least, Hebrews 1:13 is a quote from Psalm 110:1. Can you help us see how Solomon connects with the thought of this passage?

Your request was:
“I would be curious to hear your explanation of Ps.110 if adonai is in fact referring to Jesus Christ. For example, how would you interpret Zion and the enemies of v2, the people, power/army, and youth of v3, the Lord and the kings of v5, the nations, rulers, corpses, and country/earth of v6, and the brook of v7 ? Feel free to go into as much depth as you like.”

My response is:
Matthew 22/Luke 20, Acts 2, and Hebrews 1 reveal to us who the LORD and the Lord are in Psalm 110:1. And, several passages in Hebrews declare to us who Psalm 110:4 is speaking about. That should be sufficient to settle the matter. If it isn’t, I don’t really know how I am supposed to be able to help you with the other verses. I posted a website address with a good commentary of Psalm 110 (see last part of post # 43), but you didn’t even acknowledge it in the post that followed. Frankly, if we can’t agree on what the N.T. says about Psalm 110:1 and 110:4, then I see no profit in spending time discussing the other verses in the Psalm. However, feel free to go into as much depth as you like regarding the N.T. verses that discuss Psalm 110 so you can help me see what I am missing in those passages.

Now, concerning post # 37 …

You acknowledge that there is a 1-1 fulfillment of O.T. prophecy. Can you share an example or two of what you consider to be a prophecy of this type?

You said, “Ps.110 is a type-antitype fulfillment, where Solomon was a type of Christ (as were Melchizedek and David).” I agree that Melchizedek is presented as a type of Christ in Hebrews 7, but NOT that David and Solomon are included in this comparison. I have noted some verses that rule this out i.e. Heb. 7:3 & 11-12.

In response to your statement: “You will have to answer these questions and the questions of my previous post in order for your view to make sense,” I wonder why you fail to see to consider Psalm 110 from the perspective the N.T. puts on that particular psalm. It shows me that you have an angle that you want to present, and are not fully considering the points the N.T. makes about Psalm 110:1,4. That explains why things don’t make sense.

 

[- DRA -]

Now, concerning post # 40 …

Your questions were:
So, you are saying that David is quoting Yahweh (LORD), who is speaking to Jesus (Lord) ? I don't see how that can make sense in the OT context. Help me out here:

vv1-3 Yahweh (Father) tells Jesus (referred to as "you"/"your" or adonai) to sit at his right hand as a ruler.

v4 Yahweh (Father) tells Jesus ("you" or adonai) that he is a Priest forever

v5 Yahweh (still the speaker) tells Jesus ("your") that the adonai ("Lord" or "he" in the ff vv) is at his ("your" or Jesus') right hand. [And this is where I have the trouble. Who is the adonai at the right hand of Jesus?]

vv6-7 This other adonai ("he") who is at the right hand of Jesus ("you" and "your") will bring judgment.

I don't see how adonai can be the same person throughout the Psalm in light of vv5ff, unless you are trying to say that the speaker changes between v4 and v5. If so, how and why can you say that?

And I would still like you to address the questions of my former post: "...how would you interpret Zion and the enemies of v2, the people, power/army, and youth of v3, the Lord and the kings of v5, the nations, rulers, corpses, and country/earth of v6, and the brook of v7 ?..."


My response is:
First off, you have to accept what the N.T. tells us about Psalm 110:1,4 – God is speaking to Jesus in those verses.

In your comments above, I think you did just fine with your comments on verses 1 and 4. I see where verse 5 causes you problems. You are viewing it as if God is continuing to speak to Jesus. Obviously, that would cause problems. However, what if the quote stops at the end of verse 4, and starting with verse 5 the Psalmist (David) begins commenting on the Lord who is at the LORD’s right hand? Wouldn’t that help clear things up for you? Try it that way and see if it doesn’t make sense.

How can I say that the speaker changes between verses 4-5? Acts 2:33-36 works for me. It tells us when and where Jesus was exalted in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. Therefore, if “another” Lord is under discussion in the Psalm 110 (as you imply), then Acts 2 would establish the when and where this “other” Lord would be at Jesus’ right hand. That would eliminate Solomon from the picture. It would also leave you with trying to explain FROM THE SCRIPTURES who this other Lord is. I can’t do it, because I don’t think the reasoning is correct. Therefore, I’ll leave it up to you to work out. In the meantime, I can find is that Jesus in on God’s right hand i.e. Acts 5:31, Acts 7:56, Romans 8:34, Hebrews 8:1, Hebrews 10:12, Hebrews 12:2, & 1 Peter 3:22. These passages influence how I view Psalm 110:5. I see a shift in God speaking to Jesus in Psalm 110:1-4, and the Psalmist speaking to God about Jesus in verses 5-7. It works for me. And, I can harmonize it with other Scriptures.

Now, concerning post # 44 …

You said, “The problem we run into in our discussion is simply our view of prophesy in this text. I don't mean to say that David or Solomon were the ultimate fulfillement of the Priesthood. If they were, the Hebrew-writer would have no purpose in writing. Type-antitype is what I am saying. In the OP I pointed out that David and his sons were priests, though not Levitical priests. The tribe of Judah was not authorized to act in place of the Levitical priests. Yet David and his sons were priests. This Priest-King motif was put in place by God, starting (at least) with Melchizedek. It was not a priesthood to Israel. It was a priesthood to the Gentiles. That is why they co-exist. God has always been interested in the Gentiles, just as he was with Israel. God has always called both into his presence, and both have always has a Priesthood. Jesus fuses the two together by becoming the ultimate Levitcal Sacrifce and the Ultimate Melchizedekan Priest.”

My response is:
Hebrews 7 discusses the type-antitype. It is solely between Melchizedek and Jesus. Solomon and David are NOT a part of that discussion.

You seem to be mixing the type/antitype discussions in Hebrews together to get the answer you are looking for. Bottom line. Jesus was a priest, but only a priest after the order of Melchizedek. He was NOT a Levitical priest. While many things under the Levitical system typified Christ, that doesn’t mean that He merged or fused the two priesthoods. The Levitical priesthood met the same fate as the law of Moses (Hebrews 8:13) -- because they were connected (Hebrews 7:12).

Originally Posted by: - DRA –

Psalm 110:4 is also fulfilled in Jesus. And, I believe solely in Jesus. Note Hebrews 5:4-10 and 7:1-25. Although there are many points that I could discuss, I’ll just focus on one … 7:23-24. The Levitical priests were limited in their service by death. However, Jesus’ priesthood – after the order of Melchizedek – is not limited in this way. Note the point made in verse 3 -- “nor end of life.” Verses 23-24 are expanding on this point. There is no record of Melchizedek’s death, therefore His priesthood remained open i.e. Psalm 110:4. On the same note, Jesus, having overcome death, “continues forever” (Heb. 7:24). The question for us to consider is whether or not David or Solomon fit this description. I don’t believe either one did. Therefore, I see no reason nor justification for saying they were also priests after the order of Melchizedek.

Your response was:
Your argument here depends on the definition of "forever" in both the Hebrew and Greek Languages. You are also putting unnecessary burden on the OT by insisting that the OT Psalm must carry the exact same meaning as its NT application. This is the definition of 1-1 fulfillment. Answer my questions about the psalm and you will see more fully what I mean. Once again, this psalm is a dual-fulfillment. In the OT especially, olam does not typically communicate the "forever" that we often have in view. Even the Greek idea of aion/aionios is somewhat split, though it does usually carry with it the meaning of "forever" that we are more familiar with.

My point is, Hebrews takes the word and rightfully applies it to Jesus, though the word was not required to mean "forever" in the Greek/Western sense. It could have (and did, IMO) simply referred to an indefinite period of time, or the lifetime of an individual, just as olam usually did. The word can easily refer to the lifetime of Solomon, and at the same time speak to the eternal life of Christ. So you see, all OT priests were Priests “forever” (olam), but only Jesus was a Priest “forever” (aiona) because his death was not the end and he continues on as a Priest. Therefore, he is the ultimate fulfillment of both priesthoods (though there were previous priests, both Levitical and Melchizedekan), and there will never again be a new Levitical Priest or Melchizedekan Priest.

My response is:
Let’s give credit to who credit is due. I am confident that the writings in the book of Hebrews are inspired (God breathed). And, I am confident that God knows the various meanings of the Hebrew and Koine Greek words contained in His word. Therefore, I am confident that the meaning He has assigned to the word “forever” as explained in Hebrews 7 is the one that He wants us to accept. That gives me the confidence I need to rule out the other possible meanings for the word “forever” in Psalm 110:4. And, the context of the discussion in Hebrews 7 shows me who “forever” applies to – and it is NOT Solomon.

Like I have pointed out several times before, if there were Melchizedekan (?) priests that preceded Jesus e.g. David or his sons, then the Levitical priesthood and law of Moses ended when this occurred according to Hebrews 7:11-12, which means the two priesthoods could NOT coexist.

Enough said. Starting to repeat myself too often.

 

[ischus]

DRA,

I don't know what else there is to say. We are coming from completely different perspectives, and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that Ps.110 was applicable to the those it was written by and for.

I did look at the site you linked, and it didn't address the questions I was asking you. You won't address my simple questions about Ps.110. Why does the NT only comment on two of the verses? What is the NT view of the rest of the Psalm?

I appreciate your thoughful posts, but we are getting nowhere. I have said over and over that I agree with you that the psalm is about Jesus and that this is clearly pointed out in the NT. Please do not dodge my questions anymore. It does not help your case. I would either like to hear your explanation of why the NT does not address the other verses in the psalm, or I would like to hear your explanation of the other verses, since they are referring to Christ.

You are free to disagree with the OP. That is how I see things. I don't think we will see eye to eye on the issue. We can't seem to agree on much of anything for that matter. For instance, you mentioned Col.2:14 as a major proof for your view, stating that "Jesus nailed the law to the cross ". Paul is not talking about the law here. He is talking about the certificate of debt that we owe because of sin. It is this "IOU" that is being nailed to the cross and torn up. We no longer owe the debt to Sin because Jesus paid it for us on the cross. It says nothing about Jesus nailing the OT law to the cross.

Anyway, I will be happy to here the your NT interpretation of the rest of Ps.110 whenever you feel ready to answer my questions:

"For example, how would you interpret Zion and the enemies of v2, the people, power/army, and youth of v3, the Lord and the kings of v5, the nations, rulers, corpses, and country/earth of v6, and the brook of v7 ?"

 

[- DRA -]

DRA,

I don't know what else there is to say. We are coming from completely different perspectives, and you don't seem to want to acknowledge that Ps.110 was applicable to the those it was written by and for.

I did look at the site you linked, and it didn't address the questions I was asking you. You won't address my simple questions about Ps.110. Why does the NT only comment on two of the verses? What is the NT view of the rest of the Psalm?

I appreciate your thoughful posts, but we are getting nowhere. I have said over and over that I agree with you that the psalm is about Jesus and that this is clearly pointed out in the NT. Please do not dodge my questions anymore. It does not help your case. I would either like to hear your explanation of why the NT does not address the other verses in the psalm, or I would like to hear your explanation of the other verses, since they are referring to Christ.

You are free to disagree with the OP. That is how I see things. I don't think we will see eye to eye on the issue. We can't seem to agree on much of anything for that matter. For instance, you mentioned Col.2:14 as a major proof for your view, stating that "Jesus nailed the law to the cross ". Paul is not talking about the law here. He is talking about the certificate of debt that we owe because of sin. It is this "IOU" that is being nailed to the cross and torn up. We no longer owe the debt to Sin because Jesus paid it for us on the cross. It says nothing about Jesus nailing the OT law to the cross.

Anyway, I will be happy to here the your NT interpretation of the rest of Ps.110 whenever you feel ready to answer my questions:

"For example, how would you interpret Zion and the enemies of v2, the people, power/army, and youth of v3, the Lord and the kings of v5, the nations, rulers, corpses, and country/earth of v6, and the brook of v7 ?"

Bottom line. We have several inspired commentaries on Psalm 110:1,4 in the New Testament. You say you accept that the Psalm is about Jesus, but haven't shown that you acknowledge and/or understand the specific points the N.T. makes about Jesus being David's Lord and being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. These points leave room for no other application than to Jesus alone. You have shown no interest in discussing these verses. Therefore, what makes me even remotely suspect that you are interested in an uninspired commentary on the Psalm (namely, mine)? Frankly, the time and effort is just NOT worth it. Your reasoning crumbles in light of Hebrews 7:3,11-12 whether you admit it or not. Accepting what the N.T. verses say will have a greater influence on how you view verses 2-3 and 5-7 that anything I say. And, that is my final answer.

Speaking of dodging questions, how about repeated efforts to get you to acknowledge the specifics of the N.T. passages that comment on Psalm 110:1,4? You keep wanting to put David and/or Solomon into the picture, but haven't shown how it is possible considering the specific points the N.T. makes.

Just a brief comment on Colossians 2:14 before I depart. "The handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us" is indeed referring to the law of Moses. Because Jesus nailed it to the cross, judgments can no longer be made based on requirements under the law of Moses (verse 16). From a type/antitype perspective, the end of the law of Moses can be seen at Jesus' death ... when the veil in temple was torn into from top to bottom (see Matthew 27:51 and Hebrews 9:12; 10:19-20).

 

[nb_christseeker]

well you'll see him some day. wait til then to find out

 

[ischus]

Bottom line. We have several inspired commentaries on Psalm 110:1,4 in the New Testament. You say you accept that the Psalm is about Jesus, but haven't shown that you acknowledge and/or understand the specific points the N.T. makes about Jesus being David's Lord and being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. These points leave room for no other application than to Jesus alone. You have shown no interest in discussing these verses. Therefore, what makes me even remotely suspect that you are interested in an uninspired commentary on the Psalm (namely, mine)? Frankly, the time and effort is just NOT worth it. Your reasoning crumbles in light of Hebrews 7:3,11-12 whether you admit it or not. Accepting what the N.T. verses say will have a greater influence on how you view verses 2-3 and 5-7 that anything I say. And, that is my final answer.

This is the same post you have been making for a while now. You had no problem giving me a brief synopsis of Ps.22 in its OT context and then applying it to Jesus. Why can't you seem to do that with this verse?

Speaking of dodging questions, how about repeated efforts to get you to acknowledge the specifics of the N.T. passages that comment on Psalm 110:1,4? You keep wanting to put David and/or Solomon into the picture, but haven't shown how it is possible considering the specific points the N.T. makes.

You have done more than enough commenting on the NT verses. I said I agreed with you. What more do you want? I just don't limit my perspective on God's word. Your reasoning is circular. You are asking me to have Solomon fulfill the NT view of Jesus, and then you go and prove that he doesn't. Think about how silly that is. I am asking you to look at the text in the OT context, but you refuse and debate based upon how Solomon doesn't fit the NT application of the verse. Think about that too.

Just a brief comment on Colossians 2:14 before I depart. "The handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us" is indeed referring to the law of Moses. Because Jesus nailed it to the cross, judgments can no longer be made based on requirements under the law of Moses (verse 16). From a type/antitype perspective, the end of the law of Moses can be seen at Jesus' death ... when the veil in temple was torn into from top to bottom (see Matthew 27:51 and Hebrews 9:12; 10:19-20).

Once again, I respectfully disagree. cheirographon is a handwritten record of one's debts. This document stood "against us" and was "opposed to us." That is not Paul's view of the Law, that is not the OT view of the Law, and I think that "law" is a poor reading of the text here. A decent study of Colossians will give you an overview of what is being discussed here, as well as in vv16ff. These verses are easier to understand if you are familiar with the Colossian heresy and with Jewish Apocalyptic literature. I don't have time to explain it, but it is there to learn if you seek it out.

There are other issues that I have with your above statement, but I don't see how a discussion of them would be beneficial to either one of us based on our discussion so far.


I have tried to be gracious with you, DRA. I hope that has been evident. I enjoy our discussion as brothers, but we are at an impasse.

 

[bertie]

I AM lost now but does this make any sense?I ran across a web site_Christian Answers _that claims Mel is the son of Shem,and Noahs grandson.does that make sense?
Then old Mel would indeed have a dad ........

 

[bertie]

http:www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/nimrod.html

I was checking out the possibility that Mel might be nimrod ora contempoary,-use the search for M and youll find ol mel there pre looked up on a handy list