I would also note that Jewish commentators are not very reliable sources in the realm of Messianic commentary. They have a vested interest in Jesus not being the Messiah, and even such obvious Messianic chapters as Isaiah 53 are regarded by them to refer to Israel, not the Messiah. And especially when Jesus refers to Himself as the "my Lord" of Psalm 110:1, they would all the more have reason to explain the Messianic implications away.
To me it seems obvious that we should go with Jesus' interpretation of the passage. I am curious to see your response.
Blessings in King Jesus,
ryan
Hebrews 7 - Is Melchizedek Jesus? Or a type?
-
_ryanfrombryan
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 2:27 pm
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Please don't get me started, RyanfromBryan. Christian commentators often have a "vested interest" in seeing Christ where that wasn't the historical meaning, so they can't really claim to be any more free from bias than Jewish commentators. In this case, they have no proof that Christ's interpretation of this verse wasn't an overlay to the original, historical meaning.
Jews and Christians often see two sides of the same coin. The trouble is, neither one of them can admit that the other side of the coin exists. I've run into this many times.
As far as Isaiah 53 goes, it does point towards the nation of Israel as a suffering servant, so the Jews aren't wrong about that. Historically, it was written about an individual who lived during the time of Isaiah. Prophetically, it was speaking of Jesus. ALL of these interpretations are correct!
It's important to look at the Hebrew of Psalm 110:1 to understand who is speaking to whom. We have "the Lord", translated from the Hebrew YHVH - the name of God - speaking to "my lord", translated from the Hebrew adonay. Adonay could refer to a human just as well as it could refer to God, so the Jews aren't forcing or twisting the text to make it refer to King David. Rather, it would be an assumption on a Christian commentator's part to think that it could only refer to the Father speaking to Christ.
Furthermore, you blew off the cultural precedent for interpreting this psalm as making God to be David's "father" as it were, establishing David's divine right to rule as king of Israel. How do you know that this interpretation isn't accurate? What evidence do you have, other than simply wanting to believe that this only points to Jesus?
Damon
PS. I just saw Rae's response to this thread. I thought I'd add a quotation from an ancient Egyptian source which has the god-as-king's-father motif to reinforce my point.
This is quoted from chapter 8 of "Ancient Egypt" by David P. Silverman:
"Kingship in ancient Egypt was an essential element in the proper functioning of both the state and the cosmos. The reigning pharaoh was the link between the world of the gods and the world of humankind...and in his position at the centre of the Egyptian state he embodied a divine power.
"...Like most monarchs, Pharaoh occupied a unique position at the top of the social and political hierarchy. However, the king in Egypt was more than just a head of state: he was a discrete and essential element within the cosmos. His unique position alongside the gods, humankind and the spirits of the deceased (akhs), was necessary to maintain ma'at, the divine order. Without Pharaoh, the cosmos would be in disarray and the world would descend into chaos. The king was an active participant in the mythology associated with kingship, fulfilling on earth the role of the god Horus, son of Osiris. His title Sa-Re ('Son of Re'), first attested in the Fourth Dynasty... clearly indicates that the monarch was also regarded as the living descendant of the sun god [emphasis mine]."
Understand that Israel wasn't totally culturally distinct from the other cultures around them simply because they had the Law of Moses. There were many cultural similarities! Among them, for instance, was Jacob's pillar stone in Genesis 28, based on the common tradition of "raising up a name" - that is, erecting a stone to mark a piece of land as belonging to oneself and one's family. And that's just one example.
Jews and Christians often see two sides of the same coin. The trouble is, neither one of them can admit that the other side of the coin exists. I've run into this many times.
As far as Isaiah 53 goes, it does point towards the nation of Israel as a suffering servant, so the Jews aren't wrong about that. Historically, it was written about an individual who lived during the time of Isaiah. Prophetically, it was speaking of Jesus. ALL of these interpretations are correct!
It's important to look at the Hebrew of Psalm 110:1 to understand who is speaking to whom. We have "the Lord", translated from the Hebrew YHVH - the name of God - speaking to "my lord", translated from the Hebrew adonay. Adonay could refer to a human just as well as it could refer to God, so the Jews aren't forcing or twisting the text to make it refer to King David. Rather, it would be an assumption on a Christian commentator's part to think that it could only refer to the Father speaking to Christ.
Furthermore, you blew off the cultural precedent for interpreting this psalm as making God to be David's "father" as it were, establishing David's divine right to rule as king of Israel. How do you know that this interpretation isn't accurate? What evidence do you have, other than simply wanting to believe that this only points to Jesus?
Damon
PS. I just saw Rae's response to this thread. I thought I'd add a quotation from an ancient Egyptian source which has the god-as-king's-father motif to reinforce my point.
This is quoted from chapter 8 of "Ancient Egypt" by David P. Silverman:
"Kingship in ancient Egypt was an essential element in the proper functioning of both the state and the cosmos. The reigning pharaoh was the link between the world of the gods and the world of humankind...and in his position at the centre of the Egyptian state he embodied a divine power.
"...Like most monarchs, Pharaoh occupied a unique position at the top of the social and political hierarchy. However, the king in Egypt was more than just a head of state: he was a discrete and essential element within the cosmos. His unique position alongside the gods, humankind and the spirits of the deceased (akhs), was necessary to maintain ma'at, the divine order. Without Pharaoh, the cosmos would be in disarray and the world would descend into chaos. The king was an active participant in the mythology associated with kingship, fulfilling on earth the role of the god Horus, son of Osiris. His title Sa-Re ('Son of Re'), first attested in the Fourth Dynasty... clearly indicates that the monarch was also regarded as the living descendant of the sun god [emphasis mine]."
Understand that Israel wasn't totally culturally distinct from the other cultures around them simply because they had the Law of Moses. There were many cultural similarities! Among them, for instance, was Jacob's pillar stone in Genesis 28, based on the common tradition of "raising up a name" - that is, erecting a stone to mark a piece of land as belonging to oneself and one's family. And that's just one example.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Damon,
I don't think that either Rae or RyanfromBryan were basing any of their comments on the opinions of "Christian commentators." The only authority they cited was Jesus Himself. Though Christian commentators can certainly be biased, yet, if we can't trust Jesus to get it right, we ought to change religions and rather embrace the antichrist (1 John 2:22) and accursed (1 Cor.16:22) religion of Talmudism, whose (presumably unbiased?) commentators provide the basis for your understanding.
The reason that these two posters did not deal with your analogy of Egyptian usage is that it bears little weight in determining the meaning of a passage that is clearly interpreted for us in the New Testament. The fact that Egyptians spoke of a father/son relationship between their gods and their kings does not necessarily mean that a Jewish writer, speaking "by the Holy Spirit" (Mark 12:36) would be compelled to follow that custom. Even if the Jews did sometimes write in this manner (as I believe they may have), this would not mean that this literary convention is being employed in any given passage of scripture under consideration. This device is not, in fact, employed in Psalm 110, since the language of father/son does not appear in this Psalm at all.
That Jesus may have been seeing a secondary meaning to the Psalm is possible. Unfortunately, though, for any who might wish to defend this postulate, we only have authoritative record of His "overlaid" interpretation, and no evidence in scripture for the existence of any other. If some rabbis did take the position that you consider to be the primary one, there is no reason to believe that they had divine inspiration in doing so, or that we should view their opinion as anything more than a human distortion of the divine revelation.
I am of the opinion that the Jews of Jesus' day did interpret this particular Psalm in the messianic sense in which Christ uses it. Otherwise they would have found no force in His argument and would not have been silenced by it. Jesus assumes their agreement on His statement that a) the speaker in the Psalm is David (not another writing about David), and b) that the one called "Adonay" is the messiah (not David, the writer). As I said, if the Jews disputed either of these points, Jesus' argument would have had no impact at all. Jesus was well-acquainted with the interpretations of the rabbis in His day, and apparently hit the nail on the head with His application of Psalm 110.
As for the order of Melchisedek, I have to disagree with you in your opinion that the writer of Hebrews was paralleling the orders of Aaron and Melchisedek. It seems to me that he was, rather, drawing contrasts, not parallels, between the two. This seems especially clear when he points out that there was a succession of Aaronic priests, but only one Melchisedek priest holding office eternally (Heb.7:23-25).
I look forward to deeing your book.
Blessings!
I don't think that either Rae or RyanfromBryan were basing any of their comments on the opinions of "Christian commentators." The only authority they cited was Jesus Himself. Though Christian commentators can certainly be biased, yet, if we can't trust Jesus to get it right, we ought to change religions and rather embrace the antichrist (1 John 2:22) and accursed (1 Cor.16:22) religion of Talmudism, whose (presumably unbiased?) commentators provide the basis for your understanding.
The reason that these two posters did not deal with your analogy of Egyptian usage is that it bears little weight in determining the meaning of a passage that is clearly interpreted for us in the New Testament. The fact that Egyptians spoke of a father/son relationship between their gods and their kings does not necessarily mean that a Jewish writer, speaking "by the Holy Spirit" (Mark 12:36) would be compelled to follow that custom. Even if the Jews did sometimes write in this manner (as I believe they may have), this would not mean that this literary convention is being employed in any given passage of scripture under consideration. This device is not, in fact, employed in Psalm 110, since the language of father/son does not appear in this Psalm at all.
That Jesus may have been seeing a secondary meaning to the Psalm is possible. Unfortunately, though, for any who might wish to defend this postulate, we only have authoritative record of His "overlaid" interpretation, and no evidence in scripture for the existence of any other. If some rabbis did take the position that you consider to be the primary one, there is no reason to believe that they had divine inspiration in doing so, or that we should view their opinion as anything more than a human distortion of the divine revelation.
I am of the opinion that the Jews of Jesus' day did interpret this particular Psalm in the messianic sense in which Christ uses it. Otherwise they would have found no force in His argument and would not have been silenced by it. Jesus assumes their agreement on His statement that a) the speaker in the Psalm is David (not another writing about David), and b) that the one called "Adonay" is the messiah (not David, the writer). As I said, if the Jews disputed either of these points, Jesus' argument would have had no impact at all. Jesus was well-acquainted with the interpretations of the rabbis in His day, and apparently hit the nail on the head with His application of Psalm 110.
As for the order of Melchisedek, I have to disagree with you in your opinion that the writer of Hebrews was paralleling the orders of Aaron and Melchisedek. It seems to me that he was, rather, drawing contrasts, not parallels, between the two. This seems especially clear when he points out that there was a succession of Aaronic priests, but only one Melchisedek priest holding office eternally (Heb.7:23-25).
I look forward to deeing your book.
Blessings!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hi Ben,
As for your follow-up question about the significance of this battle, I do not really know. That it was somehow uniquely significant seems evident from the encounter with Melchisedek, regardless whether we see him as Christ or not. Whoever he was, he was a very lofty character in the eyes of Abraham, and thought this a special occasion to come out and bless him.
Did Abraham then recognise Christ in Genesis 18? From having heard my tapes, you probably know that I do not think that Abraham recognised the Lord in his visitors until late in the interview. If he had recognised Christ in Melchisedek four chapters earlier, why would he not recognise Him this time? Again, I don't know the answer. It is not necessary, I suppose, that God would take on the same human appearance in every theophany. That's the best I can do, though it's not very good.
As for your follow-up question about the significance of this battle, I do not really know. That it was somehow uniquely significant seems evident from the encounter with Melchisedek, regardless whether we see him as Christ or not. Whoever he was, he was a very lofty character in the eyes of Abraham, and thought this a special occasion to come out and bless him.
Did Abraham then recognise Christ in Genesis 18? From having heard my tapes, you probably know that I do not think that Abraham recognised the Lord in his visitors until late in the interview. If he had recognised Christ in Melchisedek four chapters earlier, why would he not recognise Him this time? Again, I don't know the answer. It is not necessary, I suppose, that God would take on the same human appearance in every theophany. That's the best I can do, though it's not very good.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Hmm. I think we're getting to the end of laying out our respective positions. Rather than getting into a long, drawn-out argument, which will do no one any good, I'd just like to make a few final comments. I'd also like to say that I respect what you believe and that, although we'll probably end up agreeing to disagree, that's okay with me.
Like I said before, I believe that Jews and Christians see two sides of the same coin, but often neither side is willing to admit the possibility that the other side exists. I sincerely believe that the OT interpretations given in the New Testament have colored people's perceptions on how the OT should be properly interpreted, and often try to force a single meaning on a passage where one single meaning isn't necessary. I truly believe that that's what's going on here.
Damon
Yes, I know that. You also mentioned that you don't see any evidence for Jesus' own interpretation being an overlay. I can respect that. However, I must disagree.Steve wrote:Damon,
I don't think that either Rae or RyanfromBryan were basing any of their comments on the opinions of "Christian commentators." The only authority they cited was Jesus Himself.
The language itself might not appear in this psalm, but I believe that the idea does.Steve wrote:The reason that these two posters did not deal with your analogy of Egyptian usage is that it bears little weight in determining the meaning of a passage that is clearly interpreted for us in the New Testament. The fact that Egyptians spoke of a father/son relationship between their gods and their kings does not necessarily mean that a Jewish writer, speaking "by the Holy Spirit" (Mark 12:36) would be compelled to follow that custom. Even if the Jews did sometimes write in this manner (as I believe they may have), this would not mean that this literary convention is being employed in any given passage of scripture under consideration. This device is not, in fact, employed in Psalm 110, since the language of father/son does not appear in this Psalm at all.
Like I said before, I believe that Jews and Christians see two sides of the same coin, but often neither side is willing to admit the possibility that the other side exists. I sincerely believe that the OT interpretations given in the New Testament have colored people's perceptions on how the OT should be properly interpreted, and often try to force a single meaning on a passage where one single meaning isn't necessary. I truly believe that that's what's going on here.
I don't dispute that the Jews of Jesus' day understood this passage messianically. I submit that their interpretation was over and above the historical understanding of this passage, something the Jews themselves are famous for. (Seeking deeper meanings in a text besides the obvious meaning, that is.)Steve wrote:I am of the opinion that the Jews of Jesus' day did interpret this particular Psalm in the messianic sense in which Christ uses it. Otherwise they would have found no force in His argument and would not have been silenced by it. Jesus assumes their agreement on His statement that a) the speaker in the Psalm is David (not another writing about David), and b) that the one called "Adonay" is the messiah (not David, the writer). As I said, if the Jews disputed either of these points, Jesus' argument would have had no impact at all. Jesus was well-acquainted with the interpretations of the rabbis in His day, and apparently hit the nail on the head with His application of Psalm 110.
He was contrasting the two, yes. But the very word "order" is the same and refers to both, indicating (IMO) a basic similarity.Steve wrote:As for the order of Melchisedek, I have to disagree with you in your opinion that the writer of Hebrews was paralleling the orders of Aaron and Melchisedek. It seems to me that he was, rather, drawing contrasts, not parallels, between the two. This seems especially clear when he points out that there was a succession of Aaronic priests, but only one Melchisedek priest holding office eternally (Heb.7:23-25).
Thanks. And you.Steve wrote:I look forward to deeing your book.
Blessings!
Damon
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: