220 AN EXPOSITION OF THE [CHAP. I.
speaks of another person;—‘“ The Lorp said unto my Lord;” say they, “The Lord said unto me.” And thereunto are annexed those imaginations about studying the law and waiting for the death of Saul, which in no case belong to the text or matter in hand.
Others, therefore, to avoid this rock, affirm that the psalm speaks of David, but was not composed by him, being the work of some other who calls him lord. So David Kimchi on the place. And this he endeavours to prove from the inscription of the psalm, i!) WP: that is, saith he, “ A psalm spoken to David;” for it denotes the third, and not the second case or variation of nouns.
But this is contrary to the use of that prefix throughout the whole Book of Psalms; and if this observation might be allowed, all psalms with this title, 172, “le David,” which are the greatest part of those composed by him, must be adjudged from him, contrary to the re- ceived sense and consent of Jews and Christians. But fully to manifest the folly of this pretence, and that the author of it contra- dicted his own light out of hatred unto the gospel, there are sundry psalms with this title, WP, “le David,” which are expressly affirmed to be composed and sung by him unto the Lord; as Ps. xviii. whose title is, “ To the chief musician, "1p nin) 729,” (where the prefix is repeated)—“ to David, the servant of the LorD, who spake unto the Lorp the words of this song.” So directly do the modern rabbins contradict their own light, out of hatred unto the gospel.
Evident, then, it is that David is not treated of in this psalm, in that he, being the penman of it, calleth him his Lord concerning whom he treats. Besides, to omit other instances of a like cogency, how or when did God swear unto David that he should be a priest, and that for ever, after the order of Melchizedek? The Jews knew well enough that David had nothing to do with the priesthood. So that David had no concernment in this psalm, but only as he was the penman of it. He was not herein so much asa type of the Messiah, but speaks of him as his Lord.
Wherefore others of them, as Jarchi, and Lipman, and Nizzachon, affirm that it is Abraham who is spoken of in this psalm; of whom the one says it was composed by Melchizedek; the other, by his servant, Eliezer of Damascus. But the fondness of these presump- tuous figments is evident. Melchizedek, on all accounts, was greater than Abraham, above him in degree, dignity, and office, as being a king and priest of the most high God; and therefore blessed him, and received tithes of him, and on no account could call him his lord. Eliezer did so, being his servant; but how could he ascribe unto him the sitting at the right hand of God? how the sending forth the rod of his power from Zion? how being a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek ? or, indeed, any one thing mentioned in the
VER. 13.] EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. DA \
psalm? These things deserve not to be insisted on, but only to manifest the woful pretences of the present Judaical infidelity.
It appears from the Dialogue of Justin Martyr with Trypho, that some of them of old applied this psalm to Hezekiah. But not one word in it can rationally be conceived to respect him; especially that which is spoken about the priesthood utterly excludes him, seeing his great-grandfather, a man of more power than himself, was smitten with leprosy, and lost the administration of his kingdom, for one single attempt to invade that office, 2 Chron. xxvi.
It remains, then, that this psalm was written concerning the Mes- siah and him alone, for no other subject of it can be assigned. And this use in our passage we may make of the Targum, that whereas these words, “The Lorp said,’ do not intend a word spoken, but the stable purpose or decree of God, as Ps. ii. 7, its author hath rendered them m719D2 ON, —“ The Lord said in” (or “ by”) “his Word;” that is his Wisdom, his Son, with whom and to whom he speaks, and concerning whom his decree and purpose is here de- clared.
It remaineth only that we consider the objections ot the Jews against our application of this psalm unto the Messiah. And these are summed up by Kimchi in his exposition of the text. “The heretics,” saith he, “expound this psalm of Jesus. And in the first verse they say the Father and Son are designed. And they read ‘ Adonai’ with kamets under Nun; in which use the true God is sig- nified by that name. And verse the third, in yoy they read khirik under Ain; so making it signify ‘with thee.’ And what is there said of the ‘beauty of holiness,’ they ascribe unto that which is from the womb, But in all copies that are found, from the rising of the sun to the going down of it, khirik is with Nun in ‘ Adonai,’ and pathakh with Ain in ‘Hammeka.’ And Gerolmus [Jerome] erred in his trans- lation. And for the error, if the Father and Son be the Godhead, how doth one stand in need of the other? and how can he say unto him, ‘Thou art a priest?’ He is a priest who offers sacrifice, but God doth not.” Of the like nature are the rest of his exceptions unto the end of his notes on that psalm. To this Lipman adds a bitter, blasphemous discourse about the application of these words, “from the womb,” verse 3, unto the womb of the blessed Virgin.