Mark W. Elliott on Texts that Speak of God Having a Justifiable Change of Mind and Those that Speak of God Not Changing His Mind

 

Commenting on texts that speak of God not changing and texts which present God as having a justifiable change of mind, Mark Elliot (professor of divinity and biblical criticism at the University of Glasgow) noted the following:

 

Yet God does repent, even if in a way unlike that of a human being (e.g. in Hosea 11:8-9; cf. Num. 23:19 and 1 Sam. 15:29). In a way similar to how God in Christ “suffered impassibly” on the cross (as per Cyril of Alexandria) (Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the Incarnation 35), God changes his mind yet does not change. Commenting on 1 Samuel 15:29, Alter finds a clever way of explanation: “What Samuel says here is that God will not change His mind about changing His mind” (Alter, David Story, 92). Or as Fretheim puts it: “Samuel bears witness to God’s ethical consistency” so as “to instill in the reader’s mind the measure of ethical seriousness” (Fretheim, Exodus, 488, 492).

 

Part of God’s changing his mind is tied to the nature of covenant. God repented after the creation, at the opening of the flood narrative (Gen. 6:6); after the Sinai covenant, in the golden calf narrative (Exod. 32:14); after the adoption of kingship, at the end of the Saul narrative (1 Sam. 15:35). Even if God is unchanging, the structure of the relationship between him and his people is changeable, such being the nature of relationships, which are necessarily complex through being (at least) bipartite. Whatever the composition of Israel (and one could argue, as Paul does, that the covenants with Abraham are predicated on a faith relationship), in the case of the Noachic covenant God guarantees the perseverance of creation in some shape or form, for all generations, for as long as these last. The gist of Genesis 9:8-17 is that God has a covenant that is ultimately with the earth, even if it is mediated through Noah as a sort of spokesperson.

 

In these cases all leads to an arrangement of which, God promises, he will never repent. “Covenant forever” is the phrase used in Exodus 31;16-17, “forever” on the condition that certain sacrificial specifications are observed in sacred time and space, and meaning “indefinitely” rather than “eternally.” In other instances as well God promises not to repent. In Jeremiah 33:20-22 he links the certainty of the covenant to that of day and night, comparing the certainty of the Davidic dynasty to that of night and day’s mutual succession. And in Isaiah 54:9-10 the certainty of the promise to remnant Zion is compared favorably to the certainty of creation remaining, even although one senses that it is in some ways mutable, in other ways immutable.

 

This is like the days of Noah to me:
Just as I swore that the waters of Noah
would never again go over the earth,
so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you
and will not rebuke you.
For the mountains may depart
and the hills be removed,
but my steadfast love shall not depart from you,
and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,
says the LORD, who has compassion on you.

 

God learns as well as knows, and so he dwells in the plot as well as above it, not least in the case of Abraham’s obedience (cf. “for now I know” [Gen. 22:12]). Yet very often God is in the plot so as to fix it. As Elias Bickerman put it, although sometimes people have the opportunity for repent and God then will “change his mind” (so-called fata conditionalia, conditional doom), at other times it will be a case of fata denunciativa (condemnatory doom), as at Amos 1:2, 6, 9, 11, where the same verb, ⁾ăšîb, is used each time but with a different word for “punishment” (Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Old Testament, 31-34). In such cases there will be no change of mind by God. In the case of Jonah, “herald of God’s wrath, Jonah declared the immutable and inevitable fata denunciativa—the sinfulness of Nineveh is described, as David Kimchi noted, in the same words as are used in Genesis about Sodom” (Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Old Testament, 32). Jonah was of course embarrassed, yet he was not wrong, for Nineveh would indeed be destroyed, as Tobit saw occur, for with judgment comes with the possibility of the postponement of severe decrees, as is patent in Hezekiah’s story in Isaiah 38. It was Jeremiah who introduced the idea of prophecy that announces God’s relenting, even where there is nothing more than lament on the side of the people, supremely in Jeremiah 29, before it was taken up in Ezekiel 38, and again by Joel (2:17), with its appeal to “pity,” and by Malachi 3:6-12; 4:1-6. (Mark W. Elliott, Providence: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Account [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2020], 120-21)

 

Addressing 1 Sam 15:29 and related texts and how they do not pose a problem for those who, like me, accept a form of Open Theism (NB: Elliot is not an Open Theist), Elliot wrote the following insightful commentary:

 

[I]n 1 Samuel 15, Saul gets rejected. “The verses [10, 29, 35] poses a theological problem about the character of God, who does not change and yet who changes” (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 116). Brueggemann will not resolve the aporia on either side, but prefers to let the tension (or mystery) be. Yet God’s “repentance,” as Jörg Jeremias observed (Jeremias, De Reue Gottes, 48-58), is not a primitive notion, nor does it indicate that God is weak, but with theological reflection it shows how he is responsible to save and that God can change his mind according to his self-control, as expressed to the uttermost in Hosea 11:8-9, where God considers destroying his people but recoils (v. 9: “I will not do [lō’ e’ĕśeh] the burning of my anger”), possibly because a long period of suffering can be substituted for repentance. Although God himself is said to have repented of crowning Saul (1 Sam. 15:10-11), and Saul then begs Samuel to help change YHWH’s mind, Saul is then told, “also the Glory of Israel will not lie nor repent, for he is not a man, that he should repent” (v. 29 AT) (at v. 35: נִחָ֔ם; LXX: μετεμεληθη). The Greek and 4QSam^a have “change mind” for the first verb, while the Masoretic Text has “play false.” As Graeme Auld puts it: “Both elements of MT’s distinctive text seem to belong together: it is the ‘glory’ or ‘durability’ (whatever exactly nēṣaḥ means) of Yahweh that would be impugned by any expression of deceit or falsehood. The point that Samuel makes, according to 4QSam^a and GT, is more local, which fits well into the argument of the whole dialogue: Yahweh may have regretted the original mistake over making Saul king but will neither turn from nor regret his decision to remove the kingship from this failed king” (Auld, I & II Samuel, 179). It is not simply that although God might repent he will not deceive (the MT’s way of trying to harmonize the two statements), but that he will simply not change a judgment other than on the basis of facts. The analogy of a retrial for new evidence comes to mind: there is to be no appeal on the basis of “law.” Even if 1 Samuel 15:29 (“does not change his mind”) is just Samuel’s view of the matter, nevertheless the views expressed there and in verse 35 (“regret”) are equally true (Bar-Efrat, Erste Buch Samuel, 213). One might compare with the Masoretic Text of Numbers 23:19, with its parallel of deceit and regret, which denies that God can ever be not true to his word. One might say that when Yahweh regrets, it is not as a human, even to the point that he can regret a past decision and change his approach thenceforth, but will not change his mind once he knows the human heart is not inclined to turn. (Ibid., 127-28)

 

Further Reading

 

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Selected Excerpts from Sidney Rigdon's 1845 Hymnal

 

Today I read the following:

 

Sidney Rigdon, A Collection of Sacred Hymns for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Pittsburgh: E. Robinson, 1845)

 

The following are some parts of this hymnal I found to be of interest:

 

The meaning and function of “Faith” (cf. the Lectures on Faith)

 

HYMN 31. C.M.

 

1 Mistaken souls that dream of heav’n,
And make their empty boast
Of inward joys and sins forgiv’n,
While they are slaves to lust!

 

2 Vain are our fancy’s airy flights,
If faith be cold and dead;
None but a living faith unites
To Christ the living head.

 

3 ‘Tis faith that changes all the heart;
‘Tis faith that works by love;
That bids all sinful joys depart,
And lifts the thoughts above.

 

4 ‘Tis faith that conquers earth and hell
By a celestial pow’r:
‘This is the grace that shall prevail
In the decisive hour.

 

5 [Faith must obey her Father’s will,
As well as trust his grace;
A pard’ning God is jealous still
For his own holiness.]

 

6 When from the curse he sets us free,
He makes our natures clean;
Nor would he send his Son to be
The minister of sin

 

[7 His Spirit purifies our frame,
And seals our peace with God:
Jesus and his salvation came
By water and by blood.]

 

HYMN 44. L.M.

 

1 We read that faith the assurance is
Of things the Lord is pleased to give,
If saints will ask in Jesus’ name,
The blessings ask’d they may obtain.

 

2 By faith Jehovah fram’d the world,
And many wonders yet untold,
In ancient days, by faith were wrought,
By men who sought the law of God.

 

3 By faith an Enoch sought the Lord;
By faith obtain’d a just reward;
By faith beheld his maker’s face,
And triumph’d o’er the powers of death.

 

4 By faith Elijah raised the dead;
And for three years the prophet said
It should not rain in all the land;
‘Twas done by Jesus’ great command.

 

5 By faith a Joshua could say,
Stand still thou glorious king of day,
Thou splendid orb of night be still
Till I Jehovah’s word fulfil.

 

6 By Faith the walls of Jericho
Met with a dreadful overthrow;
For Israel trusted in the Lord,
Believed he would fulfil his word.

7 But time would fail, the scriptures saith,
To mention all who liv’d by faith.
Some quench’d the violence of fire,
And others waxed strong in war.

 

8 While some were mocked, scourg’d and ston’d,
Some for the gospel lost their homes;
Others were in prison shut;
They kept the faith, denied it not.

 

9 And many wandered too and fro
As pilgrims on the earth below,
Knowing that they their Lord would see
On Zion’s mount from bondage free.

 

10 By faith proud Jordan’s wave was stay’d;
In years to come the Lord hath said,
He will roll back the mighty flood,
Israel pass through the sea dry shod.

 

11 Remember, saints, the scripture saith
The Lord doth work only by faith
Among the sons of men below,
By faith he doth his wonders show.

 

12 O then, ye saints of latter days,
Come, let us study wisdom’s ways,
Shake off the power of carnal sloth,
Obtain this glorious living faith.

 

13 Help us, O Lord, to fear thy name,
Help us this mighty faith to gain,
That we with ancient saints may stand,
When Christ shall reign on Zion’s land.

 

14 Then let our faith and works agree,
Until from all our sins we’re free;
O, may we practice peace and truth,
That we may dwell with Christ on earth.

 

 

Identification of Jesus with “Jehovah”

 

HYMN 36. L.M.

 

1 Jehovah speaks; let Israel hear,
Let all the earth rejoice and fear,
While God’s anointed Son proclaims
His sov’reign honors and his names

 

Distinction between Jesus and “Jehovah”

 

HYMN 147

 

4 The name of Jehovah is worthy of praising,
And so is the Savior an excellent theme . . .

 

HYMN 149

 

3. Down in old Jordan’s rolling stream,
The prophet led the holy Lamb,
And there did him baptize:
Jehovah saw his darling Son,
And was well pleas’d in what he’d done,
And own’d him from the skies.

 

4. The op’ning heav’n now complies,
The Holy Ghost like lighning flies,
Down from the courts above:
And on the holy heav’nly Lamb,
The Spirit lights and does remain,
In shape like a fair dove.

 

5. This is my Son, Jehovah cries,
The echoing voice from glory flies;
O, children, hear ye him;
Hark! ‘tis his voice, behold he cries,
Repent, believe, and be baptiz’d,
And wash away your sin.

 

Jesus’ Intercessory Work as Heavenly High Priest

 

HYMN 37

 

8 Jesus, my great High Priest, has died,
I seek no sacrifice beside;
His blood did once for all atone,
And now it pleads before the throne.

 

9 My Advocate appears on high;
The Father lays his anger by:
Not all that earth or hell can say
Shall turn my Father’s heart away.

 

HYMN 38

 

7 Jesus, my Great High Priest,
Offer’d his blood, and died;
My guilty conscience seeks
No sacrifice beside.
His pow’rful blood did once atone;
And now it pleads before the throne.

 

 

Eucharistic Theology

 

HYMN 159. C.M.

 

1 Here at thy table, Lord we meet,
To feed on food divine
Thy body is the bread we eat,
Thy precious blood and wine.

 

2 He, who prepares this rich repast,
Himself comes down and dies:
And then invites us to feast
Upon the sacrifice.

 

3 Here peace and pardon sweetly flow;
Oh what delightful food!
We eat the bread—and drink the wine—
But think on nobler good.

 

4 Deep was the suff’ring he endured
Upon the accursed tree—
For me—each welcome guest may say,
Twas all endured for me.

 

5 Sure there was never love so free—
Dear Savior—so divine!
Well thou mayest claim that heart of me
Which owes so much to thine.

 

HYMN 166. L.M.

 

1 How pleasing to behold and see
The friends of Jesus all agree,
To sit around his sacred board,
As members of one common Lord.

 

2 Here we behold the dawn of bliss—
Here we behold the Savior’s grace—
Here we behold his precious blood,
Which sweetly pleads for us with God.

 

3 While here we sit we would implore
That love may spread from shore to shore
Till all the saints, like us combine,
To praise the Lord in songs divine.

 

4 To all we freely give our hand’
Who love the Lord in ev’ry land;
For all are one in Christ, our Head,
To whom be endless honors paid.

 

5 Here, by the bread and wine, we view
What boundless curses we our due;
but through th’ atonement of our Lord,
More than was lost is now restor’d.

 

6 Let wrath and strife, those seeds of hell,
No more in Christian bosom dwell;
But love and union, by his blood,
Proves us the chosen heirs of God.

 

Sidney Rigdon Affirming the Truth of the Restoration (in spite of his excommunication and doctrinal differences with Joseph Smith in the 1830s, etc and the bogus claim he played a role in the production of the Book of Mormon, per the various Spalding theories of BOM origins)

 

HYMN 42. L.M.

 

1 When earth in bondage long had lain,
And darkness o’er the nations reigned
And all men’s precepts proved in vain,
A perfect system to obtain:

 

2 A voice commissioned from on high,
Hark, hark, it is the angel’s cry,
Descended from the throne of light,
His garments shining clear and white.

 

3 He comes the gospels to reveal
In fullness to the sons of men;
Lo! from Cumorah’s lonely hill,
There comes a record of God’s will!

 

4 Translated by the power of God,
His voice bears record to his word;
Again an angel did appear,
As witnesses do record bear.

 

5 Restored the priesthood, long since lost,
In truth and power, as at the first;
Thus men commissioned from on high,
Came forth and did repentance cry.

 

6 Baptizing those who did believe,
That they the spirit might receive
In fullness as in days of old,
And have one shepherd and one fold.

 

7 Ye Gentile nations, cease your strife
And listen to the words of life;
Turn from your sins with one accord,
Prepare to meet your coming Lord.

 

8 Let Judah’s remnants far and near
The glorious proclamation hear,
For Israel and the Gentiles too,
The way to Zion shall pursue.

 

9 Their voices and their tongues employ
In songs of everlasting joy;
The mountains and the hills rejoice,
Let all creation hear his voice.

 

10 From north to south from east to west,
In thee all nations shall be blessed.
When Abram and his seed shall stand

Unnumber’d on the promised land;

 

HYMN 45. L.M.

 

1 Embalmed records, plates of gold,
Glorious things to us unfold:
Though sealed up they long have been,
To give us light they now begin.

 

2 Long since to Daniel God did say,
Seal up the book and go thy way,
For many shall be purified,
By sacrifice they shall be tried.

 

3 A noble man of ancient birth,
Beheld the truth spring from the earth,
And many more in visions saw
The books which now contain the law.

 

4 Judah’s writing, and Joseph’s too,
Each testifies the other’s true.
They teach the same when searched through,
Believe them both we’re bound to do.

 

5 The Lord has said, I’ll make them one,
As I command, let it be done,
For a short work I now will make,
And Israel from the heathen take.

 

6 To their own lands on mountains high,
I’ll bring them with a watchful eye:
To them the kingdom I’ll restore,
And be their King forever more.

 

7 Revelations now coming forth,
Are sublime, are eternal truth;
in them Jehovah’s voice proclaims,
This is my church, enroll your names.

 

8 Word of wisdom is a sure guide
To all who do the same abide,
Its promises are very great
Through I the same need not relate.

 

9 Those things are true we testify,
And all who do with them comply;
Will in eternity rejoice,
That they have made so wise a choice.

 

HYMN 133

 

3 To every nation, and people and tongue
A late revelation from heaven hath come,
To all it is given, and all may behold
The purpose of heaven concerning the world.

 

 

 

Sidney B. Sperry on James Talmage Requesting His Scholarly Expertise to Interpret Scripture

 

In an article on Latter-day Saints and the Bible, LDS scholar Sidney B. Sperry recounted the following event which shows how Church leaders have always sought out the best scholarly opinions of the time to help with their own interpretation of Scripture as well as that of general Church membership:

 

Many years ago Dr. James E. Talmage of the Twelve called me into his office and asked what I thought of this common interpretation given by our elders to the Genesis passage. I frankly told him that I disagreed with it, giving my reasons why. In the first place, the whole of Genesis 18 has provided difficulties to Hebrew scholars and should be interpreted with caution. As an illustration of this fact let me quote a recent commentator:

 

The relation of the three men to the Lord (v. 1) is difficult. All three angels (19.1) may represent the Lord (see 16.7n.); thus the plurality becomes a single person in w. 10, 13. On the other hand, v. 22 and 19 suggest that the Lord is one of the three, the other two being his attendants.

 

In the second place, the Hebrew word for Lord in Genesis 18:1 is different from that for "lord" in verse 3, which may simply be a sign of greeting equivalent to "Sir"; and, interestingly, Joseph Smith in his "Inspired" revision has Abraham say to the three men "My brethren" instead of "My lord" as given in our modern translations. A Hebrew scholar can readily understand how an original "My brethren" might be changed by careless writing to "My lord."

 

And in the third place, the Jehovah or Lord of Gen. 18:1 who spoke to Abraham was most likely the pre-existent Savior. He it was who spoke to Moses, gave the law, and covenanted with his people Israel (see III Nephi 15:4,5). A pre-existent Savior would not partake of veal and cakes, and as for Elohim the Father, his name is not even mentioned in the Hebrew of Genesis 18. And the "lord" of Gen. 18:3 was probably a mortal being sent with authority from God. So our elders were undoubtedly wrong in their interpretation of the passage in Genesis. It was not right, therefore, to use it in their attempts to prove that God was a being of flesh and bones.

 

Dr. Talmage told me that he agreed with my reasoning and said that he was going to take what steps he could to discourage our elders in using the passage in the way I have described. My experience has been that our Church Authorities are always looking for solid, sensible, and reasonable interpretations of scripture, interpretations that are compatible with the basic principles of the Gospel. (Sidney B. Sperry, "Scholars and Prophets," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought Vol. 2, No. 1 [Spring 1967]:81-82)

 

 

H. Verlan Andersen on the topic of War

 

H. Verlan Andersen (1914-1992), as with myself, was strongly anti-war and only believed war was justified within a framework of what one would call a "just war theory." I rarely discuss politics on this blog except for making reference to my opposition to infanticide/abortion, but I am a Libertarian, just for those curious.

 

Writing during World War II, Andersen wrote the following about the topic of war in his personal writings:

 

Wars

 

Should hate replace faith in an ideal as a driving force toward winning the war? Would we not find ourselves engaged in another world war at some future date if we fail to find tolerance in our heart for our enemies and a helpful attitude toward the solution of their problems?

 

What statesman is there today who will say that hate, jealousy and the spirit of revenge at the peace table at the close of the last war are not directly contributing factors to the present struggle? What man is there who has studied the events leading up to this conflict who will deny that national selfishness, which is the result of individual selfishness, is not also a major cause?

 

Who among us can point an accusing finger at the John Doe of Germany and say I would have done differently had I been born a German? I would have withstood the Nazis’ attempt to indoctrinate me with their creed. I would not have gone to school and believed their false history books. I would not have listened to their radio broadcasts. I would not have read their newspaper. I would not have believed the Nazis, whose methods have deadly efficiency and a scientific approach.

 

You and I may thank God that our forefathers were imbued with a faith in their ideals strong enough to cause them to seek religious freedom in America. We may be thankful that we still possess that freedom to search for truth so that we may act and think without bias.

 

The urge of necessity and the extremities to which man is forced in this era of violent change should be the means of exacting from him his great contributions to humanity. The existing candidates should be able to make plain the necessity of faith in correct principles.

 

As individuals may we see to it that we evaluate properly the gospel of Jesus Christ as a guide in the solution of social problems. May we renew our faith in the necessity for religion not only in the lives of others but in our own lives. (Personal Notes,//1943)

 

We are today witnessing a conflict, the magnitude of which has never been equaled as far as we know. Millions of men are opposing each other in a struggle to the death. It is strange to know that man in his knowledge could bring himself to engage in such wanton destruction of life and property. No one man has a personal quarrel with a single opponent in the other armed camp nor even with the mass of men who are his opponents. His fight is against the ideas for which his opponents stand. It is a war of ideals. Each soldier possesses a faith in the superiority of his own way of life, a way of life which he feels called upon to preserve.

 

This is but to further demonstrate the tremendous power of faith in men’s lives, that type of faith which moves men to supreme effort and brings out the potentialites found in man in a degree unattainable in any other way. Man’s desire for wealth, his thirst for glory and approval of his fellows, his quest for security, all of these incentives fall into insignificance as a driving force when compared with the power and will to action produced in man through his faith.

 

If faith can become such a power in a man’s life, how essential it is that man possess a faith in a true philosophy of life. How necessary that such faith will inspire man to righteous living. How regrettable if the ordinary man must become engaged in a destructive way to preserve his freedom before such an exalted faith can become effective in his life. (Personal Notes,//1944) (Teachings of Elder H Verlan Andersen [Defending Utah, 2020], 270-71)

 

 

Jonathan Neville's Hatred of Proponents of a Mesoamerican Geography is Greater than his love for the gospel

 

Recently Daniel Peterson plugged a post on my blog:

 

An exceptionally stupid argument against the Restoration

 

Jonathan Neville (see the Neville-Neville Land blog for thorough refutations of Neville), has a recent blog post (attempting) to interact with Dan’s post, showing he has more contempt for Dan Peterson and other proponents of a Mesoamerican setting for the Book of Mormon than he has love for the Restored Gospel:

 

Exceptionally stupid? Current LDS apologetics

 

Why do I say this? Note the following from Neville:

 

Instead of ridiculing sincere objections and questions from those outside our faith, answer them accurately with equivalent sincerity and understanding.

 

This means that Neville honestly believes the following is a sincere question and objection to the faith:

 

Why did Smith’s three main witnesses, Cowdrey, Davis and Scales write the book, “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? (Vision House Publishers, 1977)? Why did they leave the Mormon Church, even though they claimed to have seen Smith’s tablets?

 

Neville’s hatred of Dan Peterson et al is greater than any fidelity he has to the Gospel.

Willem A. VanGemeren on Psalm 110

 

Commenting on Psa 110:1 and the second lord, not being Adonai but adoni, Protestant Willem A. VanGemeren wrote:

 

1 In an oracular statement (“the Lord says”; cf. 36:1; Allen, 79: “Yahweh’s oracle”), the psalmist speaks of the promise of God pertaining to David and his dynasty. The promise pertains to the covenant between the Lord (’^adōnî) and the one in authority over the people of God, the Davidic king. His authority is by divine grant. The Davidic king is a theocratic ruler in the sense that he rules over God’s people under the Lord and yet is very close to him (cf. 1 Ch 28:5; 29:23; 2 Ch 9:8; Ps 45:6), at his right hand (cf. 1 Ki 2:19).

 

The authority belonging to the Davidic king is derived from the Lord. He promises to extend his dominion by subjugating the enemies. To make the enemies a “footstool” is an ancient Near Eastern metaphor for absolute control. Originally the victorious king placed his feet on the neck of his vanquished foe (cf. Jos 10:24; 1 Ki 5:3; Isa 51:23). From this practice arose the idiom of making one’s enemy one’s footstool. In Psalm 2 the Lord also promises full authority over the earth to the Davidic king (vv. 8–9), and Paul alludes to this promise when speaking about Jesus’ authority as the Messiah of God (1 Co 15:25). The promise is further developed in the victorious and eschatological language of Psalm 110:2–3, 5–7.

Notes

For a discussion of the technical words and phrases in the superscription, see Introduction, pp. 62–67.

 

1 The MT uses the phrase אֲדֹנִי (ʾ^adōnî, “my master”) to denote the lord-vassal relationship between the king and his people (cf. 1 Sa 22:12; 26:18; 1 Ki 1:13; 18:7), whereas the usual reference to deity is אֲדוֹנָי (ʾ^adōnāy, “Lord” or “my Lord”). (Willem A. VanGemeren, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 5: Psalms [rev ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2008], 5814)

 

Elsewhere, commenting on vv. 5-6 where Adonai is at the right hand of the king, he notes:

 

5–6 When the king goes out to war, “the Lord” (ʾ^adōnāy), as the Master of the universe, supports him by being at his right hand (v. 5; cf. 16:8; 109:31; 121:5). He will further the king’s power by crushing the resistance of kings. There is a day of accountability appointed, and that day will be a time of vindication (“the day of his wrath”; cf. 2:5, 12; 21:9; Isa 13:9, 13; Zep 2:3). On that day the Lord will “judge the nations” (v. 6; cf. 2:9; 7:8; 9:8; 76:9; Rev 19:11–21), thus causing great defeat for the inimical nations—a defeat symbolized by their “corpses” and “heads” (rōʾš; NIV, “the rulers”). (Ibid., 5816–817)

 

Finally, on the Davidic King (not just the then-future Messiah!) being a priest “after the order of Melchizedek,” he noted the following about v. 4:

 

The irrevocable oath is none other than what the Lord has promised to David pertaining to his dynasty (2 Sa 7:13; Pss 89:3, 28–29, 34–35; 132:11). David had shown a deep concern for the Lord’s dwelling place; and with the divine appointment of Jerusalem as the focal point of his earthly rule, the Lord made great promises to David (see 132:13–18). Here the Davidic king serves as God’s priest “in the order of Melchizedek” (see M. J. Paul, “The Order of Melchizedek [Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:3],” WTJ 49 [1987]: 195–211). Melchizedek was a priest-king over Jerusalem (cf. Ge 14:18) and worshiped the Creator-God as the supreme deity (El Elyon). The Davidic king is after the order of Melchizedek only in so far as the sacerdotal kingship is concerned. He is charged with responsibility over the true worship of the Lord. For a prophetic vision of the glorious union of the Messiah-Priest, see Zechariah 6:13; for the NT application, see Hebrews 5:6–10; 7:22. (Ibid., 5816)