Genesis 14 and Psalm 110

[Matthias]

“Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 are connected in Israel’s history through the theme of a human agent defeating kings in battle. …

Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 are among a unique group of Old Testament texts that involve a leader who is a descendant of Abraham (through Judah), and who gains a victory over kings with the help of Yahweh. This group includes Genesis 14, Judges 1:1-20, 2 Samuel 10:1-19, Isaiah 41:1-12, Psalm 2:1-10, and Psalm 110:1-7. When a priestly function is included in the story, the number of similar texts drops to Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, thus showing the importance of the theme of sacral kingship in connecting these two passages. Yet even without the sacral kingship theme, the theme of ‘victory over kings’ still connects the texts in a unique group of six texts within the canon.”

(Steven J. Paul, “Yahweh and His Human Agent - Victory over Kings”)

Yahweh and His Human Agent -- Victory over Kings

This paper compares all of the passages in the Hebrew Bible where Yahweh and his human agent gain victory in battle over kings.

www.academia.edu

 

[Mr E]

“Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 are connected in Israel’s history through the theme of a human agent defeating kings in battle. …

Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 are among a unique group of Old Testament texts that involve a leader who is a descendant of Abraham (through Judah), and who gains a victory over kings with the help of Yahweh. This group includes Genesis 14, Judges 1:1-20, 2 Samuel 10:1-19, Isaiah 41:1-12, Psalm 2:1-10, and Psalm 110:1-7. When a priestly function is included in the story, the number of similar texts drops to Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, thus showing the importance of the theme of sacral kingship in connecting these two passages. Yet even without the sacral kingship theme, the theme of ‘victory over kings’ still connects the texts in a unique group of six texts within the canon.”

(Steven J. Paul, “Yahweh and His Human Agent - Victory over Kings”)

Yahweh and His Human Agent -- Victory over Kings

This paper compares all of the passages in the Hebrew Bible where Yahweh and his human agent gain victory in battle over kings.

www.academia.edu

In what way is Genesis 14 about "a descendant of Abraham through Judah?" Isn't it a story about Abram, before he had any descendants at all?

 

[Matthias]

In what way is Genesis 14 about "a descendant of Abraham through Judah?" Isn't it a story about Abram, before he had any descendants at all?

The $0.64 question, and the right one to ask.

Earlier in the Appendix Pahl states, “We observe that Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 stand together in a list of only six texts where David and his ancestors or descendants are victorious over kings. The two texts are linked by comparison of the sacral kingship of David to the sacral kingship of ‘Melchi-Zedek’ and through David’s victory over kings in 2 Samuel 10.” See also Table 4:3 in the linked paper.

The human agent priest/king descendant of David is Jesus of Nazareth. I don’t have an issue with that.

The human agent priest/king ancestor of David is Melchi-Zedek. I have an issue with that. Scripture doesn’t provide ancestry/descendant data for Melchi-Zedek.

The argument hinges on speculation (i.e. Melchi-Zedek being an ancestor of David.)

For me, that spoils an otherwise good argument concerning the connection between human agency and priest/king functionality. Remove the speculation about Melchi-Zedek‘s genealogy and retain the connection between agency and priest/king typology would be my recommendation to Pahl.

 

[Matthias]

Trying to think of ways to save Pahl‘s argument.

Attempt: Melchi-Zedek is an ancestor of David not by direct line but in the general sense that all human beings are indirectly related through decent from Adam.

Does this work?

 

[Matthias]

Attempt: Jesus is Melchi-Zedek.*

Jesus is the descendent of David. Jesus is Melchi-Zedek. Jesus is related to David. Melchi-Zedek is older than David. Jesus, therefore, is both David’s ancestor and David’s descendant.

Does this work?

*I’m not certain but I suspect that this is what Pahl has, or may have, in mind.

 

[Matthias]

The $0.64 question, and the right one to ask.

Earlier in the Appendix Pahl states, “We observe that Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 stand together in a list of only six texts where David and his ancestors or descendants are victorious over kings. The two texts are linked by comparison of the sacral kingship of David to the sacral kingship of ‘Melchi-Zedek’ and through David’s victory over kings in 2 Samuel 10.” See also Table 4:3 in the linked paper.

The human agent priest/king descendant of David is Jesus of Nazareth. I don’t have an issue with that.

The human agent priest/king ancestor of David is Melchi-Zedek. I have an issue with that. Scripture doesn’t provide ancestry/descendant data for Melchi-Zedek.

The argument hinges on speculation (i.e. Melchi-Zedek being an ancestor of David.)

For me, that spoils an otherwise good argument concerning the connection between human agency and priest/king functionality. Remove the speculation about Melchi-Zedek‘s genealogy and retain the connection between agency and priest/king typology would be my recommendation to Pahl.

“The book of Hebrews doesn’t say that Melchizedek was literally the Son of God making a cameo appearance. Rather, the author drew parallels between the two figures, suggesting that what Melchizedek was literarily, Jesus Christ is literally.

(Michael J. Svigel, “Melchizedek as a Type of Christ”)

Melchizedek as a Type of Christ

Melchizedek, the king of Salem mentioned in Genesis 14, was a mysterious figure. This article draws parallels between him and another King.

insight.org

 

[Mr E]

Trying to think of ways to save Pahl‘s argument.

Attempt: Melchi-Zedek is an ancestor of David not by direct line but in the general sense that all human beings are indirectly related through decent from Adam.

Does this work?

I don’t think it’s salvageable. Neither do I think it’s important. In fact I think it misses the point and tries too hard to make a point that is pointless.

 

[Mr E]

Attempt: Jesus is Melchi-Zedek.*

Jesus is the descendent of David. Jesus is Melchi-Zedek. Jesus is related to David. Melchi-Zedek is older than David. Jesus, therefore, is both David’s ancestor and David’s descendant.

Does this work?

*I’m not certain but I suspect that this is what Pahl has, or may have, in mind.

Jesus was Jesus. Melchi-Zedek was Melchi-Zedek. John was John, yet in a certain manner -Jesus himself explained that John was Elijah.

You must be born again.

 

[Matthias]

I don’t think it’s salvageable. Neither do I think it’s important. In fact I think it misses the point and tries too hard to make a point that is pointless.

I think we disagree. Appreciate your contribution though.

 

[Mr E]

Attempt: Jesus is Melchi-Zedek.*

Jesus is the descendent of David. Jesus is Melchi-Zedek. Jesus is related to David. Melchi-Zedek is older than David. Jesus, therefore, is both David’s ancestor and David’s descendant.

Does this work?

*I’m not certain but I suspect that this is what Pahl has, or may have, in mind.

Closer. Jesus is a Christ..... an anointed one. -In the line of (a descendant of) Mechizadek. Melchizadek is a Christ.

The lineage is from Christ to Christ, not from Melchizadek to Jesus.

 

[Matthias]

Jesus isn’t just a Christ [of God]; Jesus is the Christ [of God].

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

“Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 are connected in Israel’s history through the theme of a human agent defeating kings in battle. …

Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 are among a unique group of Old Testament texts that involve a leader who is a descendant of Abraham (through Judah), and who gains a victory over kings with the help of Yahweh. This group includes Genesis 14, Judges 1:1-20, 2 Samuel 10:1-19, Isaiah 41:1-12, Psalm 2:1-10, and Psalm 110:1-7. When a priestly function is included in the story, the number of similar texts drops to Genesis 14 and Psalm 110, thus showing the importance of the theme of sacral kingship in connecting these two passages. Yet even without the sacral kingship theme, the theme of ‘victory over kings’ still connects the texts in a unique group of six texts within the canon.”

(Steven J. Paul, “Yahweh and His Human Agent - Victory over Kings”)

Yahweh and His Human Agent -- Victory over Kings

This paper compares all of the passages in the Hebrew Bible where Yahweh and his human agent gain victory in battle over kings.

www.academia.edu

Great food for thought, my friend Matthias.

In the ancient Israel before the exile, YHWH was mainly seen as a Lord of Battles and Armies.
War was a cause of great anxiety and fear among peoples. Having the greatest God on your side was essential to feel empowered and serene in front of the enemy.
These days we also face fierce enemies of a different kind. The battle is spiritual.

***

One detail about Psalm 110 that makes me think about a different topic, salvation, is that an enemy is defeated when the victorious king can rule over him (see quote below).
Metaphorically, surrender is represented as being stepped by the feet of the winner. In the Gospel, the woman who had been pardoned washed, kissed and anointed the feet of Jesus. The women at the tomb during the resurrection narrative hug the feet of Jesus. This all is a symbol of submission. This is why I think that God's ultimate purpose is not to destroy the wicked, but to make them submit to Him so that He can rule over them and be "everything in everyone".

The Lord says to my lord:[a]
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
2 The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”

 

[Matthias]

Great food for thought, my friend Matthias.

In the ancient Israel before the exile, YHWH was mainly seen as a Lord of Battles and Armies.
War was a cause of great anxiety and fear among peoples. Having the greatest God on your side was essential to feel empowered and serene in front of the enemy.
These days we also face fierce enemies of a different kind. The battle is spiritual.

***

One detail about Psalm 110 that makes me think about a different topic, salvation, is that an enemy is defeated when the victorious king can rule over him (see quote below).
Metaphorically, surrender is represented as being stepped by the feet of the winner. In the Gospel, the woman who had been pardoned washed, kissed and anointed the feet of Jesus. The women at the tomb during the resurrection narrative hug the feet of Jesus. This all is a symbol of submission. This is why I think that God's ultimate purpose is not to destroy the wicked, but to make them submit to Him so that He can rule over them and be "everything in everyone".

The Lord says to my lord:[a]
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
2 The Lord will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”

Are you able to see that the one sitting beside Yahweh is not himself Yahweh?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Are you able to see that the one sitting beside Yahweh is not himself Yahweh?

Yes, that's right.
Some centuries later, in the New Testament, Christ is represented as the Conqueror bringing to God, as a trophy of his victory, the enemies that God has put under his feet.
Those enemies are under Christ's feet. To me, this doesn't mean that those enemies have been annihilated as individuals, but that have known humiliation and submitted. It means that Christ rules over them.
Then, on a second step, Christ Himself submits to God, so that God may be all in all.

We read in 1 Cor 15:2528

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

 

[Matthias]

Yes, that's right.
Some centuries later, in the New Testament, Christ is represented as the Conqueror bringing to God, as a trophy of his victory, the enemies that God has put under his feet.
Those enemies are under Christ's feet. To me, this doesn't mean that those enemies have been annihilated as individuals, but that have known humiliation and submitted. It means that Christ rules over them.
Then, on a second step, Christ Himself submits to God, so that God may be all in all.

We read in 1 Cor 15:2528

For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

1. Your recognition and acknowledgement that the one sitting next to Yahweh isn’t himself Yahweh goes against mainstream Christian belief. The dominant doctrine / teaching of Christianity is that the one sitting next to Yahweh is himself Yahweh.

What you apparently see in Psalm 110:1 is an exalted human person seated next to Yahweh -> which is a belief which historical orthodox trinitarianism unequivocally denies.

The doctrine / teaching of Nicene Christianity therefore is incompatible with your belief. How do you square this with your belief that the belief of all religions is compatible?

2. Yahweh asserts in the Bible that he alone is the one God. Everything else is idols. If the teaching of all religious faiths is compatible, then, in your view, who or what are the deities of other faith traditions?

3. You mentioned in post #14 that you believe all conquered people will submit. We know in the present age that isn’t always the case. There are conquered people who live for the day when they will rise up and vanquish their conqueror. Rebellion is their nature.

Such persons don’t love their conqueror, they hate their conqueror. They live their lives and go to their graves rebels.

How do you deal with that?

P.S.

Christianity Board by policy doesn’t allow discussion of the Trinity. I’m not asking you or encouraging you to discuss that which cannot at this time be discussed. I’m merely pointing out that it doesn’t understand Psalm 110:1 as you and I understand it and asking, in light of that, how you are able to see the teachings as compatible.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

1. ...
The doctrine / teaching of Nicene Christianity therefore is incompatible with your belief. How do you square this with your belief that the belief of all religions is compatible?

Hi Matthias!

As you know, in Mexico City we have undergone bad earthquakes that have killed thousands of people.
I was in one of them, and I could hear people praying in fear as the columns of the office building were being shaken.
They all prayed to the One and Only God.
The Holy Spirit compels us to direct our thoughts to One Divine Agent, regardless of the particular theology we can confess in a Forum.
So, in the end of the day, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Baha'is, Zoroastrians, Druzes and Sikhs pray and submit to the One Creator, Judge and Origin of all good things.

2. Yahweh asserts in the Bible that he alone is the one God. Everything else is idols. If the teaching of all religious faiths is compatible, then, in your view, who or what are the deities of other faith traditions?

Well, we have first the monotheistic religions that I have mentioned above.
Then, within polytheistic religions, we have those that still have a conception of a Supreme Reality. For example, Brahman in Hinduism, that is manifested through secondary deities, or rule over all things. For illuminated souls that practice Hinduism, there is no conflict between the demands from different deities because there is no situation in which one asks you to commit a sin and another to do good.

If we define an idol as anything temporal, finite, ungodly, to which we submit our life instead of God, then Buddhism also teaches to restrain from attachments to anything that could be considered an idol. The Noble Eigthfold Pathway serves as the way to illumination, and that state, the light of the spirit, is supreme. If you review with this lense the Gospel, Jesus claimed to be the Pathway, and to be the Light. Someday we can examine the Noble Eight Pathway to compare it with the Gospel.

3. You mentioned in post #14 that you believe all conquered people will submit. We know in the present age that isn’t always the case. There are conquered people who live for the day when they will rise up and vanquish their conqueror. Rebellion is their nature.

Such persons don’t love their conqueror, they hate their conqueror. They live their lives and go to their graves rebels.

How do you deal with that?

Well, rebellion is the nature of all of us... both the saints and the wicked.
Take Paul, who hate the Conqueror and lived to arrest Christians and see those Christians judged and killed.
However, in God's wisdom and sovereignty, He chose Paul.

The difference in understanding here is that, while many believe that God's plans and efforts end in the grave, I believe they persist as much as necessary to fulfill God's purpose. I don't believe that God needs blood circulation, O2 and CO2 exchange, cell metabolism (whether an original body, or a resurrected body of any kind) to keep loving a soul and attracting a soul to Him.

So, damnation is really a temporary thing, because evil does not last forever. Eternity is an attribute of God, not of evil.

 

[Matthias]

Hi Matthias!

As you know, in Mexico City we have undergone bad earthquakes that have killed thousands of people.
I was in one of them, and I could hear people praying in fear as the columns of the office building were being shaken.
They all prayed to the One and Only God.

That must have been a harrowing experience for all involved. I’m glad you survived to tell the tale.

Did they all pray to Yahweh or did they pray to other deities?

Yahweh makes an exclusive claim in the Bible: “There is no God beside me.”

The Holy Spirit compels us to direct our thoughts to One Divine Agent, regardless of the particular theology we can confess in a Forum.
So, in the end of the day, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Baha'is, Zoroastrians, Druzes and Sikhs pray and submit to the One Creator, Judge and Origin of all good things.

According to Yahweh, the one creator and origin of all good things is Yahweh alone, by himself. Yahweh has appointed a human person, his Son, Jesus of Nazareth, to judge.

Islam says that God has no Son. Yahweh does, Allah doesn’t. How, in your view, is that discrepancy resolved?

Well, we have first the monotheistic religions that I have mentioned above.
Then, within polytheistic religions, we have those that still have a conception of a Supreme Reality. For example, Brahman in Hinduism, that is manifested through secondary deities, or rule over all things. For illuminated souls that practice Hinduism, there is no conflict between the demands from different deities because there is no situation in which one asks you to commit a sin and another to do good.

If we define an idol as anything temporal, finite, ungodly, to which we submit our life instead of God, then Buddhism also teaches to restrain from attachments to anything that could be considered an idol. The Noble Eigthfold Pathway serves as the way to illumination, and that state, the light of the spirit, is supreme. If you review with this lense the Gospel, Jesus claimed to be the Pathway, and to be the Light. Someday we can examine the Noble Eight Pathway to compare it with the Gospel.

Jesus is the pathway to God / Yahweh. He doesn’t assert that he is the pathway to any other deity, nor does he say that there is another pathway to Yahweh. He is a Jew. His creed is the Shema. There is no room for other deities in the Shema. There is no room for any God besides his God and Father, Yahweh, in his religion.

Well, rebellion is the nature of all of us... both the saints and the wicked.
Take Paul, who hate the Conqueror and lived to arrest Christians and see those Christians judged and killed.
However, in God's wisdom and sovereignty, He chose Paul.

Paul responded and was saved but not all people will respond and be saved. The parable of the sower makes a distinction between those who will be saved and those who wont.

The difference in understanding here is that, while many believe that God's plans and efforts end in the grave, I believe they persist as much as necessary to fulfill God's purpose. I don't believe that God needs blood circulation, O2 and CO2 exchange, cell metabolism (whether an original body, or a resurrected body of any kind) to keep loving a soul and attracting a soul to Him.

So, damnation is really a temporary thing, because evil does not last forever. Eternity is an attribute of God, not of evil.

I agree that evil will not last forever. Where we view it differently is why it won’t last forever. All people have free will and not everyone will surrender.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Islam says that God has no Son. Yahweh does, Allah doesn’t. How, in your view, is that discrepancy resolved?

Both things are correct, if the title "Son of God" is interpreted within the context in which it was used in the Bible and the Quran.
But that would take us to a topic that is not allowed in the Forum.
By the way, I am glad the topic is not allowed, because in the forum where I was, it was a source not just of heated arguing, but of division, mutual insults and unnecessary emotional distress to people.

Perhaps we can discuss this privately by email.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I agree that evil will not last forever. Where we view it differently is why it won’t last forever. All people have free will and not everyone will surrender.

I can see why you think that some people will not surrender. They look too wicked in this life, don't they?

However, I believe God's grace and power is greater than the greatest stubbornness of rebel men.
Think it this way: if there are people who in the end of the day will not surrender, that will mean that God did not win.
From a devil's perspective, those wicked people would look like heroes, like martyrs of their cause: "I preferred to be killed than to surrender to God".

True victory means to win your enemies over... particularly if that was your plan to begin with.

A year ago I had a friendly debate with an Uruguayan Calvinist... a senior person who I appreciate a lot, about this topic.
At some point of the conversation, he had to resort to the argument that God does not LOVE everyone, and that is why He has chosen not to save everyone, even if He could. He supported his view with some biblical verses that say that God hates the wrongdoers, the wicked.
The point is that... God sent Jesus precisely because He loves the wrongdoers, the wicked.
So, to me that argument was not convincing.

What do you think?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Did they all pray to Yahweh or did they pray to other deities?

They prayed to the single deity they thought existed and could help them.
Since almost all of them had been raised as Catholics or Evangelicals, I assume they were thinking in God, the Father.