Deeper Commentary
Yahweh says to my Lord, Sit at My right hand-
Biblically and historically, David’s immediate ‘Lord’ was Saul, but it
could also have reference to Solomon and even to himself. Psalm 72 is a
similar Psalm, imagining Solomon as the promised Messiah with a Messianic
Kingdom. So Ps. 110 was originally a revelation to David of the potential
possible for Solomon or Saul, who was an anointed ‘Messiah’ figure,
expressed as a coronation ode. But Solomon and Saul failed, and so the
fulfillment of the prophecy was rescheduled and reapplied to the Lord
Jesus. And so the Lord Jesus uses this passages about Himself in Lk.
20:40-44: "David therefore calls him Lord, so, how is he his son?".
Judaism’s concept of Messiah has always been vague and not commonly
agreed, but there was and is the idea that the likes of Abraham, Moses and
David are greater than Messiah. The Lord Jesus is pointing out that David
considered Messiah to be his “Lord”, just as Messiah was greater than
Abraham (Jn. 8:58). The “how” doesn’t imply that David’s Lord is not his
son, but rather is a rhetorical question. How is the Messianic son of
David, David’s “Lord”, to be his son or descendant? Mk. 12:37 says the
Lord reinforced the question by asking “From whence is He his
son?”. The answer had to be: ‘Through a woman in David’s direct line
giving birth to Him’. And the questioners were fully aware that Jesus was
in the direct line of David through Mary.
It seems that David became obsessed with the idea of Solomon being the
Messiah, building a physical house for God, and being king over the
eternal Messianic Kingdom. The words of Ps. 110:1 are applied by the NT to
Jesus, but there is no reason to think that they were not primarily spoke
by David with his eye on Solomon, whom he addresses as his Lord, such was
his obsession: “The Lord saith unto my Lord…” (RV), and the rest of the
Psalm goes on in the language of Ps. 72 to describe David’s hopes for
Solomon’s Kingdom. ‘Solomon’ was actually called ‘Jedidiah’ by God through
Nathan (2 Sam. 12:25). The ‘beloved of God’ was surely prophetic of God’s
beloved Son. When God said “This is my beloved Son”, He was surely saying
‘Now this is the Jedidiah, whom I wanted Solomon to typify’. But David
calls him Solomon, the man who would bring peace. I suggest that David was
so eager to see in Solomon the actual Messiah, that he chose not to use
the name which God wanted- which made Solomon a type of a future Son of
God / Messiah. And this led to Solomon himself being obsessed with being a
Messiah figure and losing sight of the future Messiah.
This is quoted in 1 Cor. 15:25 "For he must reign until He has put all his enemies under his feet". Having things and persons 'under the feet' doesn't necessarily mean they were to be killed or destroyed. It can mean simply submission before the one enthroned. "All things", a phrase often used for all God's people, are to be placed under the feet of the Lord Jesus (Ps. 8:6; Eph. 1:22; Heb. 2:8, which teach that it is the church who shall be under the Lord's feet. Rev. 12:8 may teach the same). I noted on Mt. 22:44 and Acts 2:35 that the making of the Lord's enemies His footstool means that they shall repentantly accept Him, rather than being destroyed by Him. "We were enemies" of God, but are now reconciled in grateful, humble submission (Rom. 5:10). This is the whole message of the preceding :24- that all things shall progressively be subjected under Christ's authority and Kingship, thereby becoming part of His Kingdom. To achieve this on a universal level, He shall have to come to earth and destroy those who refuse to submit. But the end in view is that the earth and all upon it shall be His Kingdom, under the dominion of His Kingship. And that process is to begin in the hearts of believers right now.
This is also quoted in
Acts 2:35. The context is Peter's appeal for those who crucified the Lord
to repent. They were His "enemies"; but once they became a footstool for
His feet, then He would return. Therefore Peter appealed for their
repentance, apparently understanding being 'a footstool for His feet' as
meaning they would put themselves at His feet in obeisance. The Lord's
footstool is the place where His worshippers come (Ps. 99:5; 132:7; Is.
66:1-3). The Father was willing to "make" His Son's enemies, those
responsible for His death, into His worshippers. But they had to do their
part, in repentance and acceptance of the activity of His Holy Spirit.
Heb. 10:13 adds the detail that the Lord Jesus is eagerly looking for [AV
"expecting"] His former enemies to become His footstool- and then He will
return. This is why witness to Jewish people is so deeply significant in
God's program.
Psa 110:2
This perhaps alludes to Hannah's words of 1 Sam. 2:10, where she
expected that Samuel would be both a ruler and a priest, although he was
not strictly a Levite: "He will give strength to His king and exalt the
horn of His anointed". This all sets the scene for this new leader being
presented as a king and non-Levitical priest (:4).
This is the scenario of Ps. 2:6,9. Zion, the temple mount, was also
to be the place of rulership. This sets up the expectation for a merger
between king and priest, which comes to term in the declaration in :4 that
this ruler would be after the order of Melchizedek, a king-priest. The
language of ruling in the midst of enemies is that used of Solomon (s.w. 1
Kings 4:24; Ps. 72:8), which was the characteristic of Messiah (Num.
24:19). The "rod" suggests judgment (Is. 10:24,26).
Psa 110:3
People offering themselves willingly is the language of soldiers
eager for battle in Jud. 5:2,9. But these willing soldiers are "in holy
attire", they are priests. This again sets up the expectation that the
leader as well as his followers are soldier-priests, priests who also have
another function- as soldiers, in this case. See on :2,4.
David imagines Solomon as being reborn as he is enthroned as the
Messianic king. The dew of youth would refer to the waters of birth which
come from the womb, also seen in a figurative sense at the dawn of this
new Messianic morning.
Psa 110:4
There was no 'change of the Divine mind' in the fact that Solomon didn't
live up to his Messianic potential, as discussed throughout Ps. 72. The
oath that would not be changed was made ultimately to the Lord Jesus. Here
in Ps. 110, the coronation ode declares the king to be not only king, but
also an eternal priest.
This is quoted in Heb. 5:6 "As also He said elsewhere: You are a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek". This spoken word of inauguration and appointment was likewise uttered in the "day" when the Lord was "begotten" in resurrection (Heb. 5:5). There is no evidence here for any personally pre-existent Christ. The Hebrew writer alludes to and subverts the defiant language of the Maccabees in repeatedly describing Christ as "priest for ever" (Heb. 5:6; 6:20; 7:3,17,21)- when this was the term applied to Simon Maccabaeus in 1 Macc. 14:41. See on Lk. 20:25. The nature of the priesthood was to be eternal; so although there were similarities with the Aaronic priests, the priesthood of Messiah was not identical with it. It was after the order of Melchizedek.
Sin brings death, so the eternal priest appointed by the word of God's oath in Ps. 110:4 had to be not only eternal but also sinless. There could therefore be no other candidate for this priest than the Lord Jesus.
Hebrews 7 interprets this statement at great length; I have discussed it in more detail on Heb. 7, but here is a reduced version:
Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchizedek, king of Jerusalem, priest of God Most
High, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed
him- There is no hint that Abraham and Melchizedek were personally
acquainted before this meeting, although they both were servants of the
true God. We might wonder why God didn't connect them earlier. In His
wisdom He doesn't always force believers to regularly fellowship with each
other, indeed He made Abraham travel all around Canaan rather than telling
him to settle near Melchizedek and form some kind of ecclesia or community
of believers. And clearly the implication is that Abraham maintained a
legitimate relationship with God without needing to use a human priest,
even one as good and exalted as Melchizedek. For more on Melchizedek, see
on 5:10.
Hebrews 7:2 To whom also Abraham divided a tenth part of all. He was
first, by interpretation, King of righteousness, and then also, King of
Jerusalem, which is, King of peace- "King of righteousness" connects
with Paul's appeal for the Hebrews to accept the word or Gospel of imputed
righteousness in Christ; see on Heb. 5:13, remembering that here in
chapter 7 Paul is picking up from Heb. 5:13 after the parenthesis of
chapter 6. The connection between righteousness and peace is a feature of
Messiah- in Him, they kiss each other (Ps. 85:10), and are the mainstay of
the Messianic Kingdom on earth (Ps. 72:3; Is. 32:17; Rom. 14:17).
Righteousness is emphasized before peace- "then also... king of peace".
"The work of righteousness shall be peace" (Is. 32:17). But in Paul's
theology, it is the righteousness of King Jesus which is imputed to us and
thereby creates peace with God. This is the much laboured message of
Romans 1-8. So we can understand his enthusiastic perception that
Melchizedek, a type of Messiah, was king of righteousness "and then
also... king of peace".
Hebrews 7:3 He was without recorded father or mother, without
genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life but presented
as being like the Son of God, abiding a priest continually- Without
doubt God frames the Biblical record in order to highlight certain facts.
Thus there is a marked lack of information concerning the father and
mother of Melchizedek in Genesis. God is providing us with an
interpretation of how He worded the account in Genesis, making the point
that Melchizedek typified Christ. But although we are not to read Hebrews
7:3 at face value, there is no explicit indication to this effect. The
objection that the New Testament does not warn us against reading the
‘casting out of demons’ language literally is therefore not valid. Hebrews
7:3 is one of many examples of where it is imperative to understand the
way in which God is using language if we are to correctly understand His
word, but there is no explicit warning about this in Hebrews 7:3!
Jesus has a Father (God) and a mother (Mary) and a genealogy (see Mt. 1,
Lk. 3 and cp. Jn. 7:27). ‘Melchizedek’ therefore cannot refer to Him
personally. Besides, Melchizedek was “made like unto the Son of
God” (Heb. 7:3); he was not Jesus himself, but had certain similarities
with Him which are being used by the writer for teaching purposes. “After
the similitude of Melchizedek there arises another priest”, Jesus (Heb.
7:15), who was ordained a priest “after the order of Melchizedek” (Heb.
5:5,6). The language of Hebrews about Melchizedek just cannot be taken
literally. If Melchizedek literally had no father or mother, then the only
person he could have been was God Himself; He is the only person with no
beginning (1 Tim. 6:16; Ps. 90:2). But this is vetoed by Heb. 7:4:
“Consider how great this man was”, and also by the fact that he was
seen by men (which God cannot be) and offered sacrifices to God. If he is
called a man, then he must have had literal parents. His being “without
father, without mother, without descent” must therefore refer to the fact
that his pedigree and parents are not recorded. Queen Esther’s parents are
not recorded, and so her background is described in a similar way.
Mordecai “brought up... Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither
father nor mother... whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead,
took for his own daughter” (Esther 2:7). The author of Hebrews was clearly
writing as a Jew to Jews, and as such he uses the Rabbinic way of
reasoning and writing at times. There was a Rabbinic principle that "what
is not in the text, is not" (See James Dunn, Christology In The Making
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980) p. 276 note 59)- and it seems that this
is the principle of exposition being used to arrive at the statement that
Melchizedek was "without father". Seeing no father is mentioned in the
Genesis text, therefore he was "without father"- but this doesn't mean he
actually didn't have a father. It's not recorded, and therefore, according
to that Rabbinic principle, he effectively didn't have one.
The book of Genesis usually goes to great lengths to introduce the family
backgrounds of all the characters which it presents to us. But Melchizedek
appears on the scene unannounced, with no record of his parents, and
vanishes from the account with equal abruptness. Yet there can be no doubt
that he was worthy of very great respect; even great Abraham paid tithes
to him, and was blessed by him, clearly showing Melchizedek’s superiority
over Abraham (Heb. 7:2,7). The writer is not just doing mental gymnastics
with Scripture. There was a very real problem in the first century which
the Melchizedek argument could solve. The Jews were reasoning: ‘You
Christians tell us that this Jesus can now be our high priest, offering
our prayers and works to God. But a priest has to have a known genealogy,
proving he is from the tribe of Levi. And anyway, you yourselves admit
Jesus was from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). Sorry, to us Abraham is our
supreme leader and example (Jn. 8:33,39), and we won’t respect this
Jesus’. To which the reply is: ‘But remember Melchizedek. The Genesis
record is framed to show that such a great priest did not have any
genealogy; and Messiah is to be both a king and a priest, whose priesthood
is after the pattern of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:6 cp. Ps. 110:4). Abraham was
inferior to Melchizedek, so you should switch your emphasis from Abraham
to Jesus, and stop trying to make the question of genealogies so important
(see 1 Tim. 1:4). If you meditate on how much Melchizedek is a type of
Jesus (i.e. the details of his life pointed forward to him), then you
would have a greater understanding of the work of Christ’.
Hebrews 7:4
Now consider how great this man was, to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave
a tenth of the spoils-
Melchizedek was a man, not a pre-existent God. The argument is that tithes
are given to someone greater. Hence Jacob offers to give tithes to his
father's God if He will preserve him (Gen. 28:22).
Hebrews 7:5 And they indeed of the sons of Levi that receive the
priest's office- Paul doesn't call them Aaronites because he wants to
make the point that the tribal head, Levi, was not the ancestor of
Melchizedek; and as one of the patriarchs, he as it were paid tithes in
Abraham to Melchizedek.
Have the commandment according to the law to take tithes from the people,
that is, of their brothers; even though they are also descendants of
Abraham-
Levi's sons could take tithes of their brothers, but this did not make
them 'greater' than their brothers. They were 'brothers' on the same level
as those who tithed to them. But payment of tithes to an unrelated person
was a more impressive evidence of the greatness of that person over the
tithe payers.
Hebrews 7:6 Melchizedek was not descended from Levi by genealogy-
There is no evidence that he was even from within the Abraham family; he
was effectively a Gentile, the king-priest of Jerusalem. But the fact he
was not a Levite is emphasized because this was a reason some were giving
for not accepting the priesthood of the Lord Jesus.
But he took tithes of Abraham and blessed him that had received the
promises-
The blessing was given from Melchizedek to Abraham in response to tithes.
Yet Abraham is the one who was to be a blessing in the land, according to
"the promises" received. But actually, the blesser had himself first to be
blessed. This definitely places Melchizedek on the level of manifesting
God to Abraham.
Hebrews 7:7 But without any dispute the less is blessed of the better-
To suggest anyone was "better" than Abraham was radical for Hebrews, who
considered Abraham the father of their race. And to rub the point in by
saying that he was "less" was to suggest that the entire metanarrative of
descent from Abraham being so important was being overwritten- and had in
fact been overwritten by any sensitive to the brief details given about
Melchizedek. That the ministry of the Lord Jesus was "better" than that of
the Mosaic law is stressed in Hebrews (1:4; 7:19,22; 8:6; 9:23; 12:24).
Hebrews 7:8 And here mortal men receive tithes; but there one received
them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives- The argument here might
appear somewhat forced, but it was all legitimate within the style of
Rabbinic midrash. Melchizedek "lives" in that there is no record of his
death; we noted on :3 the Rabbinic principle that "what is not in the
text, is not". And Paul goes on to reason that the priesthood of
Melchizedek continues still, in that Messiah was to have this priesthood
eternally. "That he lives" can also be understood as meaning that
Melchizedek had a lifelong priesthood, that was not replaced by others
because he had reached a certain age. McKnight observes that the Greek
verb zē here is not in the present, but the imperfect of the
indicative, and he translates "that he lives" as " lived, a priest all his
life, in contradistinction from those who ceased to be priests at a
certain age".
Hebrews 7:9 And, so to say,
when
Abraham paid the tithe, Levi, whose descendants receive the tithe, also
paid a tithe-
Abraham is seen as representing his descendant Levi. The Levitical priests
did indeed pay a tithe of their tithes- to God. But Paul argues here that
Levi, in Abraham, paid a tithe to Melchizedek, thus making him a
manifestation of God.
Hebrews 7:10 For Levi was yet in the loins of his ancestor Abraham when
Melchizedek met Abraham- This kind of argument may appear forced, but
it was quite legitimate within the milieu of Jewish midrash.
Hebrews 7:11 Now if there was perfection through the Levitical
priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need
was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and
not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?- The argument is that the
whole mention of Messiah having a priesthood after the order of
Melchizedek would have been unnecessary if the Levitical priesthood and
legal system could bring "perfection". Paul forces through the logic of
his position by reasoning that the "need" for the Melchizedek priesthood
meant that this new priest must actually not be "after the order of Aaron"
and therefore must not be a descendant of Aaron. I have previously noted
that this kind of apparently forced argumentation would have been
acceptable to those used to this kind of reasoning in the rabbinical
interpretations of the Old Testament. But it is all the same logically
forced, although from our Christian perspective it all makes good sense. I
suggested on expounding Paul's obsession with the Jerusalem Poor Fund in 2
Corinthians that he had an obsessive streak within him, whereby he
marshaled all possible evidence to support his positions and at points
his logic and reasoning bears the hallmark of the obsessive. It could well
be that we have a case of that here.
Hebrews 7:12 For the priesthood being changed requires also a change of
the law- This verse is a stubborn problem for those who consider that
the Mosaic law has not been changed nor abrogated. The reasoning here is
logically sound, but it depends upon the assumption that the Melchizedek
priest has in fact come; and only in that case could it be reasoned that
the priesthood had been changed from the Aaronic to that of Melchizedek,
this requiring a change of the law. The argument only had [and has] force
for those who accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. It is therefore highly
relevant to the Hebrew Christian audience but would lack logical power
with Hebrew non-Christians.
The whole Law of Moses is described as an everlasting covenant (Is. 24:5;
Dt. 29:29), but it has now been done away (Heb. 8:13). The feasts of
Passover and Atonement were to be “an everlasting statute unto you” (Lev.
16:34; Ex. 12:14); but now the Mosaic feasts have been done away in Christ
(Col. 2:14-17; 1 Cor. 5:7). The Levitical priesthood was “the covenant of
an everlasting priesthood” (Ex. 40:15; Num. 25:13), but “the priesthood
being changed (by Christ’s work), there is made of necessity a change also
of the law” (Heb. 7:12). There was an “everlasting covenant” between God
and Israel to display the shewbread in the Holy Place (Lev. 24:8). This
“everlasting covenant” evidently ended when the Mosaic Law was dismantled.
But the same phrase “everlasting covenant” is used in 2 Samuel 23:5
concerning how Christ will reign on David’s throne for literal eternity in
the Kingdom. In what sense, then, is God using the word olahm,
which is translated “eternal”, “perpetual”, “everlasting” in the Old
Testament? James Strong defines olahm as literally meaning “the
finishing point, time out of mind, i.e. practically eternity”. It was
God’s purpose that the Law of Moses and the associated Sabbath law were to
continue for many centuries. To the early Israelite, this meant a
finishing point so far ahead that he couldn’t grapple with it; therefore
he was told that the Law would last for ever in the sense of “practically
eternity”. For all of us, the specter of ultimate infinity is impossible
to intellectually grapple with. We may glibly talk about God’s eternity
and timelessness, about the wonder of eternal life. But when we pause to
really come to terms with these things, we lack the intellectual tools and
linguistic paradigms to cope with it. Therefore there is no Hebrew or
Greek word used in the Bible text to speak of absolute infinity. We know
that death has been conquered for those in Christ, therefore we have the
hope of immortal life in his Kingdom. But God speaks about eternity very
much from a human viewpoint.
Hebrews 7:13 For he of whom these things are said belongs to another
tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar- The "He" refers
to the Melchizedek priest who was to be Messiah. "Has ever" makes the
point that a new priesthood is now in view. The Lord Jesus serves at
the altar; this is the altar at which the Levitical priests have no
right to eat / fellowship, but we Christians do (Heb. 13:10), suggesting
that we in Christ are likewise there, serving at and eating at the
heavenly altar which features so strongly in Revelation, as part of the
Heavenly sanctuary which the tabernacle was a dim reflection of. The Lord
Jesus is actively 'serving' there; He is not passive in Heaven, just
waiting to return to earth.
Hebrews 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord originated from the tribe
of Judah. Regarding this tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood-
The Lord being descended from Judah was "evident" or obvious- presumably
from the genealogies which connected Mary to the tribe of Judah. But again
as noted on Hebrews 7:11, Paul's enthusiasm seems to be carrying him away,
for it was far from obvious that Jesus of Nazareth was from Judah. However
he may have meant instead that Messiah had to come from Judah; this much
was indeed "evident" from the Old Testament and undisputed.
Hebrews 7:15 And what we say is even more abundantly evident, if after
the likeness of Melchizedek there arises another priest- The
abundantly obvious argument was that the Melchizedek priest had to be
eternal (see Hebrews 7:16,17); and the only candidate was Jesus, whom
Christians believed had been resurrected and given eternal life. He was
the only person who had then been immortalized. But this argument again
was logically powerful only to a Hebrew Christian, and not to a Hebrew
non-Christian. The 'arising' of this 'other priest' may be a hint at His
resurrection to immortality.
Hebrews 7:16 Who has been appointed, not on the basis of a law about
physical descent, but according to the power of an endless life- The
Levitical priests became priests by reason of their age and descent,
whereas the Melchizedek Messiah priest had to be "appointed". The basis of
the Lord's appointment was His immortality- because the priest had to have
an eternal ministry, so it was necessary that he was immortal. And the
only immortalized human was Jesus of Nazareth.
Hebrews 7:17 For it is witnessed: You are a priest for ever after the
order of Melchizedek- "For ever" is being interpreted as meaning that
the priest would be immortal, making the resurrected, immortalized Jesus
the only possible candidate. The 'witnessing' by God in Ps. 110:4 is
understood as the priest being "appointed" (Hebrews 7:16).
Hebrews 7:18 On the other hand, there is an annulling of the former
commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness- This new
priesthood required a new law; a changed priesthood meant a changed law
(Hebrews 7:12). And this required an "annulling" of that law, and that was
because it was weak and unprofitable. Such language appears to deprecate
the law, although Paul elsewhere says that the law was "holy, just and
good" (Rom. 7:12); it was weak and not profitable because it was unable to
bring salvation or perfection to those under it. The strong language used
here about the law of Moses must be given its full weight by those who
argue that it should still be kept today.
Hebrews 7:19 (For the law made nothing perfect)- Likewise Hebrews
7:11 has argued that the Levitical priesthood had to be changed because it
could not bring "perfection". The law convicted men of sin and offered
some mechanism of patching up the broken relationship caused by it. But it
did not enable moral perfection. By being in Christ, we can be counted as
Him, the only perfect human. Faith in Christ could therefore make perfect
in that the Lord Jesus was 'made perfect' by His sufferings, particularly
on the cross (Hebrews 5:7-9).
And a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, through which we draw near
to God-
By being counted as in Christ, having His perfection as ours due to our
status in Him, we have the sure hope of future salvation. The elpis
or hope in view is a solid expectation regarding the future, not a mere
hoping for the best. And it is by having this hope that we find strength
against materialism and "draw near to God". The Hebrew readership would
have understood this as meaning 'drawing near in priestly service' (cp.
Ex. 19:22). The Hope we have compels us to God's service.
Hebrews 7:20 And the Melchizedek priesthood was not without the taking
of an oath- The oath taken was by God (Ps. 110:4), vowing by Himself
to honour the eternally powerful priesthood of Messiah. Such Divine
underwriting was not given to the Levitical priesthood.
Hebrews 7:21 The Levitical priests were made priests without an oath,
but he with an oath: The Lord swore and will not change His mind; you are
a priest for ever- The eternal nature of the Lord's Melchizedek
priesthood is at the basis of the certainty of our hope for future
salvation (Hebrews 7:19). God Almighty guarantees that the Lord Jesus will
be our eternal priest. Our standing before Him is therefore eternal; we
have such a priest who is not simply a mediator between God and men, a
conduit allowing us to offer to Him and approach Him, but a priest who on
His own agenda eternally secures our salvation.
Hebrews 7:22 By this also has Jesus become the surety of a better
covenant- The sure hope of Hebrews 7:19 is underpinned by the way the
Lord is the surety or guarantor of the better covenant. The Greek for
"surety" occurs only here in the NT and LXX. The idea is of a guarantor
who promises his self sacrifice in the case that the party to the covenant
is unfaithful. It literally means 'the pledge of a limb'. The "surety"
could offer his own limbs, or himself into bondage as a slave, if the
person being guaranteed somehow failed. The Lord's death confirmed God's
promises as being for real. But did God's side of the covenant need such a
surety? Perhaps we are better to think of the Lord's being a surety as
being a guarantee for our faithfulness to the covenant. But we have not
been faithful to it; and so He died, gave His all, His limbs, and became
the preeminent servant of Yahweh on the cross. This was to the end that
the new covenant between God and us might still stand, despite our
infraction of it.
Hebrews 7:23 And they indeed have been made priests many in number,
because that by death they are hindered from continuing- The eternal
priesthood required for the Messianic Melchizedek priest could not be
attained by mortal priests.
Hebrews 7:24 But he, because he abides for ever, has his priesthood unchangeable- The eternal priesthood of the Melchizedek priest meant that His priesthood can never be changed. He has obtained eternal redemption for us, and that can never be liable to any renegotiation. Our hope for eternity is therefore sure (Hebrews 7:19) because the One who obtained it is immortal, and His work for us is in this sense eternal.
Psa 110:5
The Lord now sits at the Father’s right hand. But Ps. 110 describes God
as being at Christ’s right hand. The confusion of the idioms surely
demonstrates the mutuality between them. And the relationship between
Father and Son is openly offered to us in John 17.
This is the word used of the crushing of the kings in the eretz
promised to Abraham which will happen at the hands of Messiah in the last
day (Num. 24:8,17; Dt. 33:11). I noted on :3 the allusions to the
destruction of the nations within the eretz at the tie of Deborah
and Barak. And in line with that, we find the same word for "crush" used
in Jud. 5:26 of how Jael crushed or pierced the head of Sisera. Hence :6
uses the same word of how the heads of all Yahweh's enemies would likewise
be pierced or crushed. This was what Yahweh did to those in Canaan at the
time when Israel first entered the land as a nation (Hab. 3:13). See on
:7. These things will come to full term in the final "day of His wrath" at
the return of the Lord Jesus.
Psa 110:6
This is the judgment of the latter day of His wrath (:5). "The
nations" in view are specifically those within the eretz promised
to Abraham. The heaping up of dead bodies is the latter day
scenario of Ez. 39, and we have noted allusions to Ez. 38 in this Psalm.
"Crush" is the word just used in :5 of how Jael pierced or crushed
the head of Sisera, an image used for how all the kings in the land
promised to Abraham were to be crushed by the Messianic ruler in the final
"day of His wrath" (:5; see notes there). The implication is that there
will be a singular "ruler of the whole earth", the eretz promised
to Abraham; this is the antichrist figure which occurs in so many
prophecies. He is the "man of sin" of 2 Thess. 2, the individual known as
Gog who will be the head or rosh of the confederacy which
overruns Israel (Ez. 38:2). I noted on :5 that the phrase "day of His
wrath" is also used in Ez. 38:18. Here, "ruler" likewise translates
rosh.
Psa 110:7
The simple idea may be that the victorious but exhausted victor drinks
from the brook, and lifts up his head in triumph. But we have seen on :3,5
the allusions to the victory of Jael, so
Previous Chapter
