Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:49:19 GMT -5
8. In contrasting Jesus’ priestly ministration with that of Israel’s high priests, the writer
emphasized both its uniqueness and its efficacy; Jesus presented Himself as a sacrificial
offering in one consummative work, and He did so in order to deal conclusively with the
problem of sin, not just respecting Israel, but the whole human race. This, in turn, led him
to reflect again on the fact that this work constituted God’s faithfulness to His purpose
and promises bound up in His covenant relationship with Abraham and his descendents.
Calvary and its outcome were neither arbitrary nor an afterthought calculated to address
the unfortunate failure of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel. It wasn’t as if the
Law failed, leaving God to formulate a new arrangement for His relationship with Israel,
and so get His purpose for the world back on track. No, by His own design, the Law was
preparatory and prophetic; it embodied a “shadow of the good things to come” (10:1a; cf.
9:11). God devised it to point to and prepare for the substance it served as a pedagogue.
a. And so, while it’s true that the Law failed in a certain sense, this failure
constituted its success in accomplishing its mission. In the writer’s words, the
failure of the Law consisted in the fact that it could never secure that for which it
made provision; its resource of sacrificial offerings “could never perfect those
who draw near” (10:1b). Every Israelite had to acknowledge this, even those who
held the Law in the highest esteem. On the one hand, the perpetuity of the
sacrifices (“the same sacrifices year by year”) forced this conclusion. But far
more compelling was the personal, acute, and enduring consciousness of sin
(10:2-3). However sincerely and precisely an Israelite availed himself of the
Law’s atoning and cleansing provision, he was never freed from his condemning
conscience. Any sense of cleansing disappeared the moment he again peered into
his own mind; outward ritual cannot touch the inner life (9:9-10, 13-14). (As a
sidenote, the writer’s mention that the Levitical sacrifices hadn’t ceased is further
indication that he penned his epistle prior to 70 A.D. It also underscores Israel’s
national rejection of Jesus as Messiah, in that the temple sacrifices, which He
fulfilled in Himself, continued on after His death and resurrection).
The Law failed the sons of the covenant, but this was by divine design. It couldn’t
secure the perfection it spoke of, and its provision couldn’t cleanse the unclean.
But this was because it was a shadow whose purpose was to indicate the existence
of a corresponding substance (“the good things to come”) and trace out its shape.
b. The Hebrews writer – like his fellow witnesses to Jesus as God’s Messiah – had
come to understand that the Law of Moses was prophetic and preparatory. But
this wasn’t some obscure and esoteric conclusion that could only be reached
through supernatural illumination; it was a central thesis woven throughout
Israel’s scriptures. For if, as Jesus insisted, all of the Scriptures testify of Him, the
Law itself bore this same testimony. This was as true of the “Ten Words” as it
was of the Sinai covenant itself and the Pentateuch of which it is the marrow (ref.
Matthew 11:13; cf. Galatians 3:8, 4:21-31). And what was true of the Law was
true of the priestly ministration that supported and sustained it. The writer has
already made much of this point, but here he turned to the Psalms to underscore
specifically the prophetic nature of the Law’s sacrificial provision (10:4-7).
168
The insufficiency of Israel’s sacrificial system was the primary proof that it looked
beyond itself; the blood of bulls and goats couldn’t take away sins (10:4). Even
though Yahweh explicitly prescribed these offerings as the means for sustaining
His relationship with His covenant “son,” but He never intended or supposed that
they would achieve that goal. Israel’s failure was grounded in an inward, essential
alienation that no natural sacrifice or ritual cleansing could touch. Father and son
needed to be reconciled, not simply in terms of guilt and forgiveness, but a true
and fully-intimate communion of heart and mind; the covenant son needed to
become image-son, such that to see the son was to see the Father. This was the
way that Israel would fulfill its covenant identity and calling to mediate to all
mankind the blessing of a true and living knowledge of the Creator God.
The goal of the covenant wasn’t human conformity to a moral and ethical
standard, but God’s realization of His eternal purpose to fill the world with His
presence and administer His loving lordship in it through His human imagebearers. His goal was that His glory should be manifest in the face of man and
reflected out into the world He loves, so that His communion with His creation is
in and through His image-children. Excluded from God’s life and alienated in
heart and mind, Israel could never fulfill this vocation, and no conceivable
sacrifice could remedy this. God Himself would have to arise and bring life out of
death and genuine renewal to man in his inner being. He’d promised through His
prophets to do just that (Deuteronomy 30; Isaiah 59; Ezekiel 36-37), but the exact
means remained a mystery. Israel’s scriptures connected this work with the
coming messianic servant and Davidic king, and so also with a priestly
ministration (Psalm 110; Isaiah 52-53), but the way these pieces fit together didn’t
become clear until Jesus poured out His Spirit after His ascension to the Father.
c. The writer has drawn on several psalms in making his case concerning Jesus’
person and work as God’s Messiah, and here he turned to Psalm 40. Once again,
it’s important to understand his mindset and hermeneutical approach in using the
Scriptures. For, here, as elsewhere, it’s easy to conclude that he was simply citing
passages that contain an idea he wished to promote. That is to say, he was using
these passages analogically (“this is like that”), rather than adhering to their
contextual meaning. This certainly seems to be the case with his use of Psalm 40,
since the psalm recounts David’s celebration of God’s gracious deliverance, and
his own commitment to serve Him by faithfully proclaiming His excellencies and
devoting himself to His will. The particular focus in the verses the writer cited
(vv. 6-8) is David’s recognition that God seeks the true obedience of listening ears
and a knowing and devoted heart, rather than the formal obedience of sacrifices
and offerings. A few things about this text are important to note:
1) The place to begin is the wider context and concern of Psalm 40.
Attributed to David, the psalm has three main sections: David’s praise and
thanksgiving to Yahweh for His merciful deliverance, his commitment to
serve Him as the instrument of His will, and his confident plea for the
Lord’s continued care in provision and deliverance.
169
Many scholars believe Psalm 40 speaks to David’s circumstance during
the years when Saul was pursuing him with the intent to kill him. If so, the
psalm is situated between David’s anointing as Israel’s king and his
ascension to the throne. Yahweh had already identified him as the ruler
He’d chosen for Israel (1 Samuel 16; cf. Deuteronomy 17:14-20), so that
David’s suffering under the threat of death was situated within God’s sure
promise to him. On the one hand, David recognized that his death could
come at any time; on the other, he believed Yahweh’s pledge to set him on
the throne of Israel. Most importantly, David understood that his reign
would be Yahweh’s reign through him; God had raised him up to shepherd
His people Israel in His name and for His sake. This is the sense in which
David spoke of his “coming” and “preparation,” and his commitment to
God’s will as a man having His Torah written on his heart.
2) In terms of the citation itself, the thing that perhaps stands out the most is
David’s assertion that God neither desired nor required the offerings and
sacrifices that were central to Israel’s covenant life. This is an astonishing
claim, given that God prescribed them; none of them resulted from
Israelite innovation, and the Jews labored relentlessly under these
sacrificial obligations precisely because Yahweh imposed them.
How, then, could David make the claim that God neither desired nor took
pleasure in the very ordinances He prescribed and demanded (cf. Psalm
51:16)? The easy answer is that he simply was mistaken. But the problem
with this is that God Himself made the same sort of claim regarding
Israel’s sacrifices and offerings (cf. 1 Samuel 15:22; Isaiah 1:10-11, 66:3;
Hosea 6:6). These passages show that God’s displeasure wasn’t with the
ordinances themselves, but with the worshippers. He hated and rejected
the hypocrisy of solemn, pious observance by people whose hearts were
far from Him, and who only sought His favor in view of their own
personal agenda (Isaiah 29:13; cf. also Amos 5:21-27; Zechariah 7:1-7).
David obviously recognized Israel’s history of pretence and self-serving
worship, even finding it in himself. He, too, had to own the charge of
distorted devotion to Yahweh (40:12; ref. also Psalm 51 with 2 Samuel
11-12). But that wasn’t the issue in mind in verse 6; David was expressing
something more subtle and much more profound. He wasn’t pointing to
the failure of the worshipper, but of Israel’s system of worship. And not
failure in its implementation, but as a matter of divine intent. While it’s
true that God despised and refused Israel’s disingenuous and hypocritical
offerings, He also derived no satisfaction from the sacrificial system itself
– the system He prescribed. The reason, again, is that God devised the
Levitical system and its ordinances and practices to serve a pedagogical
purpose. He found no genuine satisfaction in them precisely because they
were non-ultimate shadows; His pleasure and satisfaction looked beyond
them to the reality they only foreshadowed and prepared for.
170
3) This was clearly Hebrews writer’s perspective in this context (ref. 10:1),
and he cited from Psalm 40 believing that it supports his perspective. In
his judgment, then, verses 6-8 of this psalm demonstrate that the Law of
Moses and its priestly system were but “a shadow of the good things to
come.” And they do so by highlighting the true worship that marks a true
worshipper. In context, David is that worshipper, and he distinguished his
worship as the exertions of a devoted heart and mind fully committed to
carrying out God’s will. As such, he presents Yahweh the sacrifices He
actually desires, which are the offerings of a consecrated life animated and
directed by living knowledge of His Torah (His revealed truth). Moreover,
David offers this living sacrifice as Yahweh’s chosen king – His regal
image-son set apart to administer His rule over His covenant household.
4) Keeping with his pattern, the Hebrews author cited from the Septuagint
text available to him. This explains his wording, “a body you have
prepared for me” (10:5), in contrast to the psalm’s Hebrew wording “my
ears you have opened” (40:6). Biblical scholars have proposed various
explanations for this significant alteration of the text, but what matters
here is that the writer saw in this wording a clear and important prophetic
allusion to the form and manner of Messiah’s sacrificial worship.
Specifically, the Septuagint reading has David connecting his fulfillment
of Yahweh’s will (the divine purpose to which he was set apart and fully
devoted) with the body He had prepared for him. David, then, was
acknowledging and praising God that He’d brought him into this world for
a specific purpose. Yahweh had prepared him a body and given him
listening ears in view of his calling to shepherd His people as his devoted
son-king. This was the lens through which David viewed his suffering at
Saul’s hand and the Lord’s constant provision: In delivering and
sustaining him at every turn, Yahweh was showing Himself faithful to His
purposes for Israel and David’s own role in them (ref. 40:1-5, 9-10).
David entrusted himself to his God, fully confident that He would deliver,
preserve, and establish him as king, not just because he hoped in His
compassion and mercy, but because he knew Him to be committed to His
will for Israel, and through Israel, for the world (40:11-17). This was the
understanding and conviction that impelled David’s pledge of devotion:
“Behold I come – according to Your ordained and revealed purpose (“in
the scroll of the book it is written of me”) – to do Your will as Your
anointed king, having Your Torah written on my heart as a faithful son.”
These observations provide insight into how the Hebrews writer connected Psalm
40 with Jesus’ messianic work, specifically His self-offering that accomplished
what the Levitical ministration could not. As with his other citations, he wasn’t
ignoring the psalm’s historical context and meaning – the fact that David penned
it as he considered his own relationship with Yahweh and place in His purposes.
171
At the same time, he understood that David was to find his own destiny and
ultimacy in the regal son covenanted to him. David’s identity and calling as
Yahweh’s anointed king looked to a future offspring in whom those things would
be fully realized. Thus the writer introduced his citation from Psalm 40 as words
spoken by Jesus: “when He [the Messiah] comes into the world, He says…”
Again, he wasn’t denying that these were David’s words, and he certainly wasn’t
putting them in Jesus’ mouth as if He literally spoke them Himself. Rather he was
highlighting the typological correspondence between David and His messianic
offspring – the regal “seed” pledged to him by covenant; the son in and through
whom Yahweh would establish David’s house, throne, and kingdom forever, and
so establish His own kingdom over all the earth.
d. God’s will for David, reflected in Psalm 40:8, was that he’d execute his calling
faithfully. That calling was to administer Yahweh’s rule over His covenant people
in conformity with His heart and mind. David would fulfill the Lord’s will for
him by being a man after His own heart; a man whose devotion derived from
Yahweh’s Torah embedded within him (ref. again Deuteronomy 17:18-20).
This was David’s obligation of faithfulness, and he fell short of it (40:10; cf.
Psalm 51). In various ways, he failed to execute Yahweh’s rule, instead ruling for
his own sake. Like every king before him and since, David’s reign was marred by
the universal flaw that is the “procedure of the king” (1 Samuel 8:1-18). To this
extent, David testified of himself, not Yahweh as Israel’s king, and the result was
that, rather than leading the Gentile nations to know Israel’s God (the Abrahamic
mandate), David gave them reason to blaspheme Him (2 Samuel 12:1-14).
In this way David increased Israel’s sin and guilt, bringing Yahweh’s sword of
judgment upon the entire nation as well as his own household. The covenant
house was divided in two, and both parts underwent further division and
fracturing until both were destroyed in conquest, desolation and exile. David’s
failure as son-king lay behind all of this, but soaring above it was Yahweh’s
enduring covenant pledge of a future regal seed through whom He would restore
all things and see Israel’s vocation on behalf of the world fully realized.
If David, even while living under the threat of Saul’s sword, understood his own
“coming” and “preparation” in terms of Yahweh’s will for him as His anointed
king, he would later come to perceive that will as finding its true and lasting
fulfillment in the son promised to him (cf. 2 Samuel 7:1-19). For all his devotion
and faithfulness, David’s kingship only increased Israel’s sin and guilt and further
ensured its failure to fulfill its calling as covenant “son.” So it was with the
priestly system Yahweh put in place to sustain the covenant relationship – the
system David himself had participated in. Even apart from the corruption within
it (Jeremiah 6:1-15), the system itself was but a shadow. It was David’s Son who
would “come to do Yahweh’s will” as priest-king. And He would fulfill that will
by His own self-offering, thus “taking away the first to establish the second,” in
order to “sanctify Yahweh’s people once for all” (10:9-10; cf. Acts 2:22-39
emphasized both its uniqueness and its efficacy; Jesus presented Himself as a sacrificial
offering in one consummative work, and He did so in order to deal conclusively with the
problem of sin, not just respecting Israel, but the whole human race. This, in turn, led him
to reflect again on the fact that this work constituted God’s faithfulness to His purpose
and promises bound up in His covenant relationship with Abraham and his descendents.
Calvary and its outcome were neither arbitrary nor an afterthought calculated to address
the unfortunate failure of the covenant between Yahweh and Israel. It wasn’t as if the
Law failed, leaving God to formulate a new arrangement for His relationship with Israel,
and so get His purpose for the world back on track. No, by His own design, the Law was
preparatory and prophetic; it embodied a “shadow of the good things to come” (10:1a; cf.
9:11). God devised it to point to and prepare for the substance it served as a pedagogue.
a. And so, while it’s true that the Law failed in a certain sense, this failure
constituted its success in accomplishing its mission. In the writer’s words, the
failure of the Law consisted in the fact that it could never secure that for which it
made provision; its resource of sacrificial offerings “could never perfect those
who draw near” (10:1b). Every Israelite had to acknowledge this, even those who
held the Law in the highest esteem. On the one hand, the perpetuity of the
sacrifices (“the same sacrifices year by year”) forced this conclusion. But far
more compelling was the personal, acute, and enduring consciousness of sin
(10:2-3). However sincerely and precisely an Israelite availed himself of the
Law’s atoning and cleansing provision, he was never freed from his condemning
conscience. Any sense of cleansing disappeared the moment he again peered into
his own mind; outward ritual cannot touch the inner life (9:9-10, 13-14). (As a
sidenote, the writer’s mention that the Levitical sacrifices hadn’t ceased is further
indication that he penned his epistle prior to 70 A.D. It also underscores Israel’s
national rejection of Jesus as Messiah, in that the temple sacrifices, which He
fulfilled in Himself, continued on after His death and resurrection).
The Law failed the sons of the covenant, but this was by divine design. It couldn’t
secure the perfection it spoke of, and its provision couldn’t cleanse the unclean.
But this was because it was a shadow whose purpose was to indicate the existence
of a corresponding substance (“the good things to come”) and trace out its shape.
b. The Hebrews writer – like his fellow witnesses to Jesus as God’s Messiah – had
come to understand that the Law of Moses was prophetic and preparatory. But
this wasn’t some obscure and esoteric conclusion that could only be reached
through supernatural illumination; it was a central thesis woven throughout
Israel’s scriptures. For if, as Jesus insisted, all of the Scriptures testify of Him, the
Law itself bore this same testimony. This was as true of the “Ten Words” as it
was of the Sinai covenant itself and the Pentateuch of which it is the marrow (ref.
Matthew 11:13; cf. Galatians 3:8, 4:21-31). And what was true of the Law was
true of the priestly ministration that supported and sustained it. The writer has
already made much of this point, but here he turned to the Psalms to underscore
specifically the prophetic nature of the Law’s sacrificial provision (10:4-7).
168
The insufficiency of Israel’s sacrificial system was the primary proof that it looked
beyond itself; the blood of bulls and goats couldn’t take away sins (10:4). Even
though Yahweh explicitly prescribed these offerings as the means for sustaining
His relationship with His covenant “son,” but He never intended or supposed that
they would achieve that goal. Israel’s failure was grounded in an inward, essential
alienation that no natural sacrifice or ritual cleansing could touch. Father and son
needed to be reconciled, not simply in terms of guilt and forgiveness, but a true
and fully-intimate communion of heart and mind; the covenant son needed to
become image-son, such that to see the son was to see the Father. This was the
way that Israel would fulfill its covenant identity and calling to mediate to all
mankind the blessing of a true and living knowledge of the Creator God.
The goal of the covenant wasn’t human conformity to a moral and ethical
standard, but God’s realization of His eternal purpose to fill the world with His
presence and administer His loving lordship in it through His human imagebearers. His goal was that His glory should be manifest in the face of man and
reflected out into the world He loves, so that His communion with His creation is
in and through His image-children. Excluded from God’s life and alienated in
heart and mind, Israel could never fulfill this vocation, and no conceivable
sacrifice could remedy this. God Himself would have to arise and bring life out of
death and genuine renewal to man in his inner being. He’d promised through His
prophets to do just that (Deuteronomy 30; Isaiah 59; Ezekiel 36-37), but the exact
means remained a mystery. Israel’s scriptures connected this work with the
coming messianic servant and Davidic king, and so also with a priestly
ministration (Psalm 110; Isaiah 52-53), but the way these pieces fit together didn’t
become clear until Jesus poured out His Spirit after His ascension to the Father.
c. The writer has drawn on several psalms in making his case concerning Jesus’
person and work as God’s Messiah, and here he turned to Psalm 40. Once again,
it’s important to understand his mindset and hermeneutical approach in using the
Scriptures. For, here, as elsewhere, it’s easy to conclude that he was simply citing
passages that contain an idea he wished to promote. That is to say, he was using
these passages analogically (“this is like that”), rather than adhering to their
contextual meaning. This certainly seems to be the case with his use of Psalm 40,
since the psalm recounts David’s celebration of God’s gracious deliverance, and
his own commitment to serve Him by faithfully proclaiming His excellencies and
devoting himself to His will. The particular focus in the verses the writer cited
(vv. 6-8) is David’s recognition that God seeks the true obedience of listening ears
and a knowing and devoted heart, rather than the formal obedience of sacrifices
and offerings. A few things about this text are important to note:
1) The place to begin is the wider context and concern of Psalm 40.
Attributed to David, the psalm has three main sections: David’s praise and
thanksgiving to Yahweh for His merciful deliverance, his commitment to
serve Him as the instrument of His will, and his confident plea for the
Lord’s continued care in provision and deliverance.
169
Many scholars believe Psalm 40 speaks to David’s circumstance during
the years when Saul was pursuing him with the intent to kill him. If so, the
psalm is situated between David’s anointing as Israel’s king and his
ascension to the throne. Yahweh had already identified him as the ruler
He’d chosen for Israel (1 Samuel 16; cf. Deuteronomy 17:14-20), so that
David’s suffering under the threat of death was situated within God’s sure
promise to him. On the one hand, David recognized that his death could
come at any time; on the other, he believed Yahweh’s pledge to set him on
the throne of Israel. Most importantly, David understood that his reign
would be Yahweh’s reign through him; God had raised him up to shepherd
His people Israel in His name and for His sake. This is the sense in which
David spoke of his “coming” and “preparation,” and his commitment to
God’s will as a man having His Torah written on his heart.
2) In terms of the citation itself, the thing that perhaps stands out the most is
David’s assertion that God neither desired nor required the offerings and
sacrifices that were central to Israel’s covenant life. This is an astonishing
claim, given that God prescribed them; none of them resulted from
Israelite innovation, and the Jews labored relentlessly under these
sacrificial obligations precisely because Yahweh imposed them.
How, then, could David make the claim that God neither desired nor took
pleasure in the very ordinances He prescribed and demanded (cf. Psalm
51:16)? The easy answer is that he simply was mistaken. But the problem
with this is that God Himself made the same sort of claim regarding
Israel’s sacrifices and offerings (cf. 1 Samuel 15:22; Isaiah 1:10-11, 66:3;
Hosea 6:6). These passages show that God’s displeasure wasn’t with the
ordinances themselves, but with the worshippers. He hated and rejected
the hypocrisy of solemn, pious observance by people whose hearts were
far from Him, and who only sought His favor in view of their own
personal agenda (Isaiah 29:13; cf. also Amos 5:21-27; Zechariah 7:1-7).
David obviously recognized Israel’s history of pretence and self-serving
worship, even finding it in himself. He, too, had to own the charge of
distorted devotion to Yahweh (40:12; ref. also Psalm 51 with 2 Samuel
11-12). But that wasn’t the issue in mind in verse 6; David was expressing
something more subtle and much more profound. He wasn’t pointing to
the failure of the worshipper, but of Israel’s system of worship. And not
failure in its implementation, but as a matter of divine intent. While it’s
true that God despised and refused Israel’s disingenuous and hypocritical
offerings, He also derived no satisfaction from the sacrificial system itself
– the system He prescribed. The reason, again, is that God devised the
Levitical system and its ordinances and practices to serve a pedagogical
purpose. He found no genuine satisfaction in them precisely because they
were non-ultimate shadows; His pleasure and satisfaction looked beyond
them to the reality they only foreshadowed and prepared for.
170
3) This was clearly Hebrews writer’s perspective in this context (ref. 10:1),
and he cited from Psalm 40 believing that it supports his perspective. In
his judgment, then, verses 6-8 of this psalm demonstrate that the Law of
Moses and its priestly system were but “a shadow of the good things to
come.” And they do so by highlighting the true worship that marks a true
worshipper. In context, David is that worshipper, and he distinguished his
worship as the exertions of a devoted heart and mind fully committed to
carrying out God’s will. As such, he presents Yahweh the sacrifices He
actually desires, which are the offerings of a consecrated life animated and
directed by living knowledge of His Torah (His revealed truth). Moreover,
David offers this living sacrifice as Yahweh’s chosen king – His regal
image-son set apart to administer His rule over His covenant household.
4) Keeping with his pattern, the Hebrews author cited from the Septuagint
text available to him. This explains his wording, “a body you have
prepared for me” (10:5), in contrast to the psalm’s Hebrew wording “my
ears you have opened” (40:6). Biblical scholars have proposed various
explanations for this significant alteration of the text, but what matters
here is that the writer saw in this wording a clear and important prophetic
allusion to the form and manner of Messiah’s sacrificial worship.
Specifically, the Septuagint reading has David connecting his fulfillment
of Yahweh’s will (the divine purpose to which he was set apart and fully
devoted) with the body He had prepared for him. David, then, was
acknowledging and praising God that He’d brought him into this world for
a specific purpose. Yahweh had prepared him a body and given him
listening ears in view of his calling to shepherd His people as his devoted
son-king. This was the lens through which David viewed his suffering at
Saul’s hand and the Lord’s constant provision: In delivering and
sustaining him at every turn, Yahweh was showing Himself faithful to His
purposes for Israel and David’s own role in them (ref. 40:1-5, 9-10).
David entrusted himself to his God, fully confident that He would deliver,
preserve, and establish him as king, not just because he hoped in His
compassion and mercy, but because he knew Him to be committed to His
will for Israel, and through Israel, for the world (40:11-17). This was the
understanding and conviction that impelled David’s pledge of devotion:
“Behold I come – according to Your ordained and revealed purpose (“in
the scroll of the book it is written of me”) – to do Your will as Your
anointed king, having Your Torah written on my heart as a faithful son.”
These observations provide insight into how the Hebrews writer connected Psalm
40 with Jesus’ messianic work, specifically His self-offering that accomplished
what the Levitical ministration could not. As with his other citations, he wasn’t
ignoring the psalm’s historical context and meaning – the fact that David penned
it as he considered his own relationship with Yahweh and place in His purposes.
171
At the same time, he understood that David was to find his own destiny and
ultimacy in the regal son covenanted to him. David’s identity and calling as
Yahweh’s anointed king looked to a future offspring in whom those things would
be fully realized. Thus the writer introduced his citation from Psalm 40 as words
spoken by Jesus: “when He [the Messiah] comes into the world, He says…”
Again, he wasn’t denying that these were David’s words, and he certainly wasn’t
putting them in Jesus’ mouth as if He literally spoke them Himself. Rather he was
highlighting the typological correspondence between David and His messianic
offspring – the regal “seed” pledged to him by covenant; the son in and through
whom Yahweh would establish David’s house, throne, and kingdom forever, and
so establish His own kingdom over all the earth.
d. God’s will for David, reflected in Psalm 40:8, was that he’d execute his calling
faithfully. That calling was to administer Yahweh’s rule over His covenant people
in conformity with His heart and mind. David would fulfill the Lord’s will for
him by being a man after His own heart; a man whose devotion derived from
Yahweh’s Torah embedded within him (ref. again Deuteronomy 17:18-20).
This was David’s obligation of faithfulness, and he fell short of it (40:10; cf.
Psalm 51). In various ways, he failed to execute Yahweh’s rule, instead ruling for
his own sake. Like every king before him and since, David’s reign was marred by
the universal flaw that is the “procedure of the king” (1 Samuel 8:1-18). To this
extent, David testified of himself, not Yahweh as Israel’s king, and the result was
that, rather than leading the Gentile nations to know Israel’s God (the Abrahamic
mandate), David gave them reason to blaspheme Him (2 Samuel 12:1-14).
In this way David increased Israel’s sin and guilt, bringing Yahweh’s sword of
judgment upon the entire nation as well as his own household. The covenant
house was divided in two, and both parts underwent further division and
fracturing until both were destroyed in conquest, desolation and exile. David’s
failure as son-king lay behind all of this, but soaring above it was Yahweh’s
enduring covenant pledge of a future regal seed through whom He would restore
all things and see Israel’s vocation on behalf of the world fully realized.
If David, even while living under the threat of Saul’s sword, understood his own
“coming” and “preparation” in terms of Yahweh’s will for him as His anointed
king, he would later come to perceive that will as finding its true and lasting
fulfillment in the son promised to him (cf. 2 Samuel 7:1-19). For all his devotion
and faithfulness, David’s kingship only increased Israel’s sin and guilt and further
ensured its failure to fulfill its calling as covenant “son.” So it was with the
priestly system Yahweh put in place to sustain the covenant relationship – the
system David himself had participated in. Even apart from the corruption within
it (Jeremiah 6:1-15), the system itself was but a shadow. It was David’s Son who
would “come to do Yahweh’s will” as priest-king. And He would fulfill that will
by His own self-offering, thus “taking away the first to establish the second,” in
order to “sanctify Yahweh’s people once for all” (10:9-10; cf. Acts 2:22-39