NT Use of OT Part 19: Psalm 110:4 and Contextual Fulfillment

The focus of my last two blogs has been on the use of Psalm 110:1 in the NT. The reason for this is because Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted OT verse in the NT. But there are also four uses of Psalm 110:4 which reads:

The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
“You are a priest forever
According to the order of Melchizedek.”

Psalm 110:4 is referenced four times in Hebrews:

just as He says also in another passage,
“YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.” (Heb 5:6)

being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek. (Heb 5:10)

For it is attested of Him,
“YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.” (Heb 7:17)

(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
“THE LORD HAS SWORN
AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’”  (Heb 7:21)

The emphasis of these passages is on Messiah as Priest and the superiority of Christ’s priesthood in the order of Melchizedek over the Levitical priesthood. Since Psalm 110 is a messianic psalm in which David foretold of the coming King-Priest, and since Jesus is the fulfillment of this King-Priest, these are cases of contextual fulfillment of an OT verse. Or to be more specific, these are cases of Direct Prophetic Fulfillment of Psalm 110:4.

NT Use of OT Part 18: Psalm 110:1 and Contextual Fulfillment

With my last blog I offered my thoughts on the use of Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:33–35. I argued for a contextual understanding with Peter’s use of Psalm 110:1 being a case of Direct Literal Prophetic Fulfillment. With this blog I want to make some comments about Psalm 110 and verse 1 of this psalm in particular. Psalm 110:1 is the most quoted OT verse in the NT, with at least 22 separate references to this book in the NT. Psalm 110:1 states:

The LORD says to my Lord:
         “Sit at My right hand
         Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

As I argued earlier, Psalm 110 is an explicit prophetic messianic passage in which David consciously discussed the coming eternal King-Priest. Hebrews 1:13 also quotes Psalm 110:1:

           

            But to which of the angels has He ever said,
             “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
            UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES
            A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

Within the context of Hebrews 1, the writer of Hebrews is arguing that Jesus is superior to angels. The writer uses Psalm 110:1 to show that Jesus is God’s designated King, a role that no angel has ever possessed nor ever will possess. Thus, he is making the point that Jesus is superior to angels since He has a role and position that no angel could ever have.

With Matt 22:41–46 we see another reference to Psalm 110:1 by Jesus:

Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question: “What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying,

‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET”’?

“If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?” No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question.

Jesus uses Psalm 110:1 to stump the skeptical Pharisees. For our purposes, two things are worthy of note. First, Jesus viewed David as the author of Psalm 110. Second, Jesus uses this passage to establish both the humanity and deity of David’s “Lord.” David’s Lord is human because he is David’s son, but He is also divine since He is David’s Lord. Jesus clearly sees this Psalm as applying to himself even though the Pharisees would not admit it. Again, this appears to be another case of contextual use of Psalm 110:1.

References to Psalm 110:1 can also be seen with Matt 26:24; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42, 43; 22:69; Acts 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20; 2:6; Col 3:1; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12–13; 12:2; Rev 3:21. Most of these references indicate that Jesus is at the right hand of God.

My main point here is that when it comes to the most quoted OT verse in the OT, the uses are consistently contextual. Psalm 110 is an explicit messianic psalm and this psalm is applied to Jesus in the NT.

NT Use of OT Part 17: Acts 2:33-35/Psalm 110:1 and Literal Prophetic Fulfillment

In Acts 2, Peter has been making an argument for establishing the identity of Jesus as both Lord and Messiah. His argument continues in Acts 2:33–35 where he quotes Psalm 110:1:

Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: “THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, ‘SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.’”

Then immediately in 2:36 Peter makes his closing argument: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Peter had already declared that David was a “prophet” (2:30) and that David “looked ahead” to Christ (2:31). So when Peter quoted Psalm 110:1 in reference to Jesus, he clearly viewed Jesus as the literal fulfillment of what Psalm 110:1 says.

Peter’s use of Psalm 110:1 in Acts 2:34–25, therefore, is a case of direct literal fulfillment of an OT prophetic/messianic text. While it appears fashionable in more recent times to view none of the psalms as explicitly messianic, Psalm 110 is a clear instance where David himself had the coming Messiah explicitly in mind when he wrote the psalm. The reasons for this are several.

First, Jesus viewed Psalm 110 as a case where David was referring to Jesus. In Matt 22:41–46, Jesus stumped the Pharisees by showing that the Messiah was both the son of David and David’s Lord. Thus, this figure that David spoke of was both human and divine. Jesus viewed Psalm 110 as messianic and referring to himself.

Second, the figure in Psalm 110 is an eternal priest-king (Psalm 110:1, 4) like Melchizedek, the priest-king. This "forever" aspect fits the picture of the coming Messiah, Jesus, better than David.

Third, Peter, in Acts 2:33–35, explicitly states that David viewed Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of God as being the fulfillment of what David meant in Psalm 110:1. This is the case because the second “Lord” of Psalm 110:1 is at the right hand of God sharing Yahweh’s authority. But David, unlike Jesus, never ascended to the right hand of God. So like Acts 2:25–28 and its use of Psalm 16:8–11, we have an explicit case of inspired commentary from an apostle (Peter) on what an OT author (David) meant.

In sum, Acts 2:33–35 is a case of direct literal fulfillment of an OT prophetic text. Again, we see another contextual use of the OT by the NT persons.

NT Use of OT Part 16: Acts 2:25-28/Psalm 16:8-11 and the Resurrection of the Christ

Guys and Gals, I’m sorry for the delay in offering this post, but it has taken me several days to really think through this passage. This is a tough one.

Peter’s use of Psalm 16:8–11 in Acts 2:25–28 offers the interpreter significant challenges. The passage reads:

For David says of Him, “I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN. THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE; BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY. YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE; YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.”

As Peter is speaking to the “men of Israel” (Acts 2:22) he is trying to convince them of the resurrection of Jesus. Verse 24 states that God raised Jesus up since it was impossible for death to keep Him in its power. What is also significant is that Peter explicitly declares that David, the author of Psalm 16, explicitly wrote about the Messiah’s resurrection:

"Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. And so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.  This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses” (Acts 2:29–32)

However, many have noted that a plain reading of Psalm 16 seems to indicate that the whole psalm including verses 8–11 (which are quoted in Acts 2) appears to be the experiences of David—not a prediction of the Messiah. Also, some have noted that the context of Psalm 16 is deliverance from premature death while the context of Acts 2 is bodily resurrection from the dead. So what do we do here?

There are several options to explain the connection between Acts 2:25–28 and Psalm 16:8–11.

First, some see this is an example of pesher hermeneutics in which an OT passage is removed from its historical-grammatical context and applied to Jesus’ resurrection. In this case Peter is not using Psalm 16 contextually.

Second, others say that Peter may be using Psalm 16 typologically and in doing so shows a divine correspondence between David’s expectation that he would not experience premature death and Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead. But with this view David did not have the Messiah in mind.

Third, others claim that there is a TYPOLOGICAL–prophetic aspect in which “typology” is the primary emphasis with perhaps a hint of prophecy as well. But this approach would hold that David was primarily referring to himself in Psalm 16 although there are hints of his words going beyond himself to the Messiah.

Fourth, some hold that with Psalm 16 David is writing as if the Messiah is the author of the psalm. In this case, David would be specifically and explicitly referring to the Messiah throughout the psalm. Thus Peter uses Psalm 16 contextually.

Fifth, another view is that David, as the one to whom the eternal David covenant was given, consciously understood that the ultimate King and His resurrection were coming. Thus, David understood that his words ultimately referred to the coming Messiah although they had application to him as well. This approach could be classified as PROPHETIC-typological in which the prophetic element is primary although there are some typological implications as well.

Right now I find myself agreeing with the fifth approach. I think David had the coming Messiah in mind, thus Peter’s use of Psalm 16 in Acts 2 is contextual and indicates a literal fulfillment. Yet I also believe that what David wrote in Psalm 16 has implications for David as well.

I conclude that David had the Messiah in mind because Peter explicitly tells us that David “was a prophet” and that “he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ.” This is a case where an apostle tells us what an earlier writer of the Bible meant by what he said. In essence, what we have here is inspired commentary on an earlier passage. We do not have to guess what David meant because Peter explicitly tells us what he meant.

And not only does Peter tell us what David meant, he tells us why David said what he did. It was because David understood that God had promised that one of his descendants would sit on his throne. From the beginning, David knew that the Davidic Covenant included him but it also went beyond him since there was an eternal aspect to the covenant (see 1 Sam 7:16). Thus, we should not be surprised that David knew events in his life were related to a greater fulfillment with the coming Messiah. And this is what he expected when he wrote Psalm 16:8–11.

Thus, I see Acts 2:25–28 and its use of Psalm 16:8–11 as a case of contextual, literal fulfillment with implications for a divine correspondence between David and Jesus.

What are your thoughts on this passage?

An Update on Upcoming Publications and Conferences

I want to give an update on various writing and speaking projects I am involved with:

1.      The first printing of my book, Has the Church Replaced Israel, has sold out in four months and thus a second printing is necessary. I appreciate all who have been supportive of this effort and even those who do not agree but have given me a fair hearing.

2.       I am a contributor to a book to be released on June 1, 2011 called The Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective. My chapter is “Eschatology of the Pauline Epistles.” Others with chapters in this book include Jerry Vines, Paige Patterson, Craig Blaising, Danny Aiken, David Allen, and others. It is edited by David Allen and Steve Lemke and is published by Broadman & Holman. We were pleased to land a solid endorsement from John MacArthur for this book.

3.      I am contributing three chapters to an upcoming book put out by John MacArthur, Richard Mayhue, and other faculty members of The Master’s Seminary. The book, published by Moody Press, is a defense of Dispensationalism/Futuristic Premillennialism. Two of my chapters are an explanation of dispensational theology and the other is a rationale for the purpose of Israel in God’s plans. In sum, I argue that Christ’s role as True Israel includes the restoration of national Israel for His glory and purposes. This book will be released in 2012. I’ll give more updates on this as I become aware of them.

4.      Thomas Ice and the Pre-Trib Research Center have asked me to contribute a chapter to a book that will be released in time for the twentieth anniversary of the Pre-Trib Study Group Conference this December. My chapter is, “Israel and the Church and Why it Matters to the Rapture.” 

5.      This November 4–6 I will be speaking at Foothill Christian Fellowship in Meadow Vista, California on the topic of Biblical Prophecy.

6.      My long terms plans involve writing on the subject of New Testament use of the Old Testament. I will be teaching a Th.M. seminar this summer at The Master’s Seminary on this topic.

Let me know if you have any questions about any of these endeavors.

NT Use of OT Part 15: Matt 2:23 and Summation of an OT Truth or Principle

On occasion, the NT writers will appeal to the OT to summarize a general truth or principle that is found in multiple OT passages. The first example we will look at is Matt 2:23 which states:

and [Jesus] came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

The major problem for the interpreter of this verse is that there is no specific OT text that explicitly states that the Messiah would be called a “Nazarene.” Go to your concordance and look for “Nazarene” and you won’t find a reference that the Messiah would be a Nazarene. So what is going on here? Is Matthew playing fast and loose with the OT. Definitely not!

Three options (perhaps four) are possible for how Matthew can link Jesus being from Nazareth with the OT. First, Nazareth was small and insignificant and a very unlikely place to spawn anything or anyone significant. Remember when Nathanael asked, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth? (John 1:46). Nazareth hosted a Roman garrison and Jews who lived there were sometimes viewed as traitors for associating with the enemy Romans. So being called a “Nazarene” was a term of derision, kind of like being called a “backwoodsman” or “hillbilly” today. Thus, Matthew could be appealing to a truth of the OT that the Messiah would have humble origins and a humble ministry (see Isa 52 and 53). Perhaps being from lowly Nazareth encapsulates what the prophets predicted concerning the righteous Servant’s lowly origins.

A second option is to link Jesus being a Nazarene with the concept of “branch” discussed in the OT prophets.  The OT prophets presented the Messiah as being a branch of David. Isaiah stated that the Messiah would come from Jesse’s roots—a “branch” (11:1). Jeremiah told of a coming “Branch of David” (Jer 33:15; see also 23:5). The Hebrew term for “branch” is neser which has consonants like those found in “Nazarene.” Thus, Matthew, with a wordplay, may be connecting the “branch” prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah with Nazareth.

Third perhaps Matthew is linking Nazareth with the concept of the Nazirite (see Num 6:1-21) to emphasize Jesus’ full devotion to God. The Nazirites were to evidence strict devotion to God—something Jesus fulfills perfectly.

There actually is a fourth option which is that Matthew is purposely ambiguous and thus elements of the three views above could all be in play—humble beginnings, “branch”, and “Nazirite.” My view is that options 1 and 2 are most likely with a slight nod to view 1—Nazareth is linked with the predicted humble beginnings of God’s Servant.

It should be noted that Matthew refers to “prophets” in the plural to indicate that the point he is making is a collective summation of several OT prophets and not just one. This is why I call this use of the OT—“Summation of an OT Truth or Principle.” Whether Matt 2:23 is referring to the truth that God’s Servant would come from humble origins or that He was the “branch” of the OT prophets, both truths have support in multiple OT passages.

NT Use of OT Part 14: Matt 2:17-18/Jer 31:15 and Divine Correspondence between Israel and Jesus

With Matt 2:17-18 we come to another passage in Matthew’s gospel where an event in Israel’s history corresponds to an event in Jesus’ life. Matt 2:16 indicates that Herod was enraged and launched a massacre on all male children in Bethlehem. Matthew then links this occurrence with what Jeremiah discussed in Jer 31:15:

Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:
    "A VOICE WAS HEARD IN RAMAH,
         WEEPING AND GREAT MOURNING,
         RACHEL WEEPING FOR HER CHILDREN;
         AND SHE REFUSED TO BE COMFORTED,
         BECAUSE THEY WERE NO MORE."

Jeremiah 31 is a chapter of great hope for Israel. In fact, it is the chapter discussing the glorious new covenant that will be given to Israel some day (see Jer. 31:31-34). Yet sandwiched in the middle of this chapter is verse 15 which refers to the deportation of the sons of Israel during the Babylonian captivity (586 B.C.). Ramah, just north of Jerusalem, served as a place where the exiles were gathered before departing for Babylon. The women of Jerusalem who were not exiled wept over the deportation of their young men. But certain questions arise with Matthew’s use of Jer 31:15: (1) How can a first century A.D. event be a fulfillment of another event hundreds of years earlier?; (2) How can the slaughter of infants be a fulfillment of a deportation?; (3) How can an event in Ramah be a fulfillment of an event in Bethlehem?

Now certainly Matthew is not saying that Ramah is really Bethlehem or that the Babylonian deportation is the slaughter of infants in the first century. But like Matt 1:23 and 2:15, Matthew is showing a divinely intended correspondence between an event in Israel’s history and an event in Jesus’ life to show the solidarity between Jesus and Israel.

God intended for the deportation of the sons of Israel of Jeremiah’s day to correspond to the slaughter of infants in Jesus’ day and in this sense what happened in Jesus’ day heightens what Israel experienced earlier. Both events involve sorrow in lieu of a tragedy. But also, Jeremiah 31:15 is a lament in the context of future hope. Matthew may be drawing attention to the hope element found in Jeremiah in an analogous way to the hope that Jesus brings His people. Thus, we see another example of “Divine Correspondence between Israel and Jesus.”