heard the Apostle contradicted his statement that "David himself" had spoken those words.

But lest it may be argued that modern higher criticism has discovered that the Davidic authorship cannot be sustained, inasmuch as "le-David Mizmor" ought to be rendered "a Psalm on or about David," let us then examine which of these two renderings is in accordance with the usage of the language. Every Hebrew scholar knows that the preposition Lamed in titles of books or poems marks the genitive, and, as it thus indicates the author of the composition, it is generally called Lamed auctoris. The same usage exists also in the Arabic. In this manner it is employed throughout the Psalms. Thus we have Ps. iii. 1, Mizmor le-David, a Psalm of David; Ps. vii. 1, Shigaion le-David, an ode of David; Ps. 1. 1, Mizmor le-Asaph, a Psalm of Asaph, one of David's choristers; Ps. lxxxvii. 1, Libhne Korah Mizmor, a Psalm of the sons of Korah, a family of Levites, and choristers; Ps. lxxxix.: 1, Maschil le-Ethan, a song (enforcing piety) of Ethan, also one of David's singers; Ps. xc. 1, Tephillah le-Mosheh, a prayer of Moses; Ps. cxxvii. 1, Shir Lishlomah, a song of Solomon. In all these examples it will be seen that the preposition Lamed indicates the author of the composition; and so it does in all other instances where it occurs in the title-verse of the Psalm. If the reader will refer either to the Authorized Version or the Revised Version he will in all cases find the translation " a Psalm of," and never on or "about David.”

66 a Psalm

Professor Workman says, "The title 'lord' should be printed as in the Revised Version with a small letter, and not with a capital as in the Authorized Version." We cannot account for the revisers having printed "lord" with a small letter; we may, however, safely take it for granted that it was not for the purpose of making it applicable to David. In the New Testament, wherever the passage is quoted, the revisers have printed it with a capital. The Professor further remarks, that, "But for the use made of the Psalm by Christ, according to the Evangelist, the historical application would never have been questioned." "The historical application" has been questioned by the ancient Jews before the advent of Christ, for they universally acknowledged that the King and Priest of the Psalm is the Messiah. Indeed, we cannot conceive how any other conclusion can be arrived at since there are passages in the Psalm which preclude the possibility of their being applied to David, or any other king of Judah. Thus, for example, how can the words, "Sit thou at my right hand" (verse 1), be made to refer to David or any other earthly king? The throne of Jehovah is in heaven, and sitting at the right hand implies a participation in dominion and power. See Rev. iii. 21; Matt. xxviii. 18; Heb. i. 13. It is a pity Professor Workman did not furnish us with his explanation of the passage, to show us how it can be made applicable to David. We shall adduce a few of the explanations advanced by some of the most eminent writers of the school of higher criticism, to give the reader an idea of the arbitrary expositions they have resorted to in order to strip the Psalm of its Messianic import. Ewald, for instance, explains; “The king was not to go to battle without Jehovah, but Jehovah will for and with him go. Jehovah bids him to sit at His right hand until the enemies are cast down before such a war-chariot." (Commentary on the Psalms, p. 24.) This is a literal rendering from the German edition. Had we seen such a statement in an English edition, we certainly should have thought the translator must have made some mistake. A more far-fetched exposition can hardly be conceived. Hoffman explains, "He shall receive the seat of honour in the place where Jehovah is enthroned on Mount Sion." This explanation may, at first sight, appear more plausible, but when we come to consider it more closely, it will be found as untenable as the other. It is true, that the

cherubim on the ark of the covenant were considered as a kind of throne of Jehovah; hence it is said in many places, that God sits between the cherubim. But surely David could not "receive a seat of honour" in that holy place. Bleek explains the passage as "denoting nothing more than the immediate shelter and defence which shall be extended to the king by God." But the rendering of God's shelter and defence is never spoken of as sitting at God's right hand, but rather by God being or standing at the right hand of any one. Compare Psalm xvi. 8.; and in many other places. From these few examples it will be seen that although our adverse critics agree in applying the Psalm to David, or some other king of Judah, they are far from agreeing in their explanation of the words, "Sit thou on my right hand." The expression, “Till I make thine enemies thy footstool," implies the bringing under entire subjection. This cannot be said to have been consummated in David's time, for although he made many conquests, he did not entirely bring his enemies under his rule. The Philistines, for instance, were constantly harassing the Israelites. By the enemies can only be understood those who reject the teaching of the Messiah.

Professor Workman remarks

"In verse 7 [verse 4] this theocratic king. David, is styled a priest after the order, that is, after the manner, of Melchizedek. Thus the writer shows the union of the kingly and priestly dignities in David, similar to the union of this twofold dignity in Melchizedek."

Our adverse critics have laboured hard, and expended no little ingenuity, in their endeavour to make verse 4 applicable to David or to some other king. Their most favourite argument is, “That inasmuch as the Israelitish kings exercised high authority in ecclesiastical matters, such as arranging the festivals, offering sacrifices, blessing the people, &c., the predicate priestly might be well applied to them." But was it applied to them in any part of the Scriptures? We say, decidedly, it was not. The term Cohen, priest, is nowhere applied to any Israelitish king. The kings certainly exercised great influence in religious observances, but what really constituted the most essential function of the priestly office, namely, the offering up of the sacrifices, they did not dare to arrogate to themselves. King Uzziah, notwithstanding the remonstrance of the high priest, and fourscore priests with him, persisted in taking the censer to burn incense upon the altar of incense, and he was smitten with leprosy, so that he was a leper until the day of his death. (See 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-22.)

Our adverse critics labour hard to prove that David performed priestly offices by referring to his acts when bringing the ark from the house of Obed-edom to Jerusalem, as recorded in 2 Samuel vi. They say "he acted as a high priest, was dressed in sacerdotal garments, offered sacrifices, and blessed the people." Now, when we turn

to that chapter, what do we find? David, on this joyful occasion, and only on this single occasion, was girded with an ephod. Now there were two kinds of ephod, one for the high priest, and another for the ordinary priests. The former was composed of gold, blue, purple, crimson, and twisted cotton, and altogether consisted of a very rich composition of different colours and precious stones. The reader will find a full description of this ephod in Exodus xxviii. The ephod worn by the ordinary priests, on the contrary, was perfectly plain, and therefore Moses gave no description of it. There is no direct prohibition which would make it unlawful for any person to wear this plain linen ephod. Indeed, we find that Samuel, though a Levite only, and a mere child, wore an ephod. At the dedication of Solomon's temple, the Levites and singing men, who were not of the priests' order, were clothed in fine linen; and is it a remarkable thing that David, on that particular, solemn occasion above alluded to, should have worn a plain linen ephod, considering there is no

prohibition for doing so? Surely our critics have overdrawn the picture by speaking of this as being "dressed in sacerdotal garments." But we are told that he also offered sacrifices." In this David did no more than any other Israelite who offered a sacrifice; that is to say, the offering was brought to the appointed place, and was then offered by the officiating priests upon the altar. After the priesthood was annexed to the family of Aaron, the right of offering sacrifice to God was reserved to this family. (See Num. xvi. 40.) We are aware that a few passages are referred to as indicating that sacrifices were offered by others who were not of the family of Aaron. Thus, for instance, Samuel, who was not a priest, is said to have offered up. a lamb for a burnt-offering. (1 Sam. vii. 9; xvi. 5.) Saul also is said to have offered up a burnt-offering. But these sacrifices were, no doubt, offered by the hands of the priests. According to Scripture usage, a person is said to perform an act which he merely orders to be done. A general is said to have won a battle, though he himself did not fire a gun. But it is also said that David blessed the people;" so did Moses and Solomon, for it is nowhere commanded that such an act belonged exclusively to the priest's office.

66

The term Cohen, priest, is in the Old Testament applied, (1) to priests of Jehovah; (2) to priests of idols; (3) in a few instances to chief ministers or counsellors of the king. In these few passages the Hebrew term seems to have been employed in the same manner as we use the term ministers in reference to counsellors of state. But in no instance is the Hebrew term Cohen ever applied to a king of Israel.

In verse 4, we have the solemn declaration, "Jehovah has sworn and will not repent; thou art a priest for ever, after the order (or manner) of Melchizedek." The meaning clearly is, "Thou art a high priest of an order like that of Melchizedek," combining with the priestly also the kingly dignity. Why the Psalmist merely employs the term Cohen denoting an ordinary priest, is sufficiently accounted for by the comparison with Melchizedek, which shows that the priesthood must have been of the highest order. St. Paul, too, in quoting the passage, Heb. v. 6, merely uses the term "priest," but in verse 10, where he again quotes the passage, he makes use of the term "high priest."

Here again our adverse critics have recourse to an arbitrary interpretation in order to make the phrase, "Thou art a priest for ever," chime in with their application of the Psalm to David. Thus, Ewald, for instance, explains the passage merely to mean that "the reign of a king is always desired to be eternal" (Com. p. 25). Surely, an eminent critic like Ewald should not have overlooked the fact, that we have in our passage no wish of the people, but a direct declaration of Jehovah accompanied by the solemn oath, "Jehovah has sworn and will not repent." Hoffman, and others of the same school, explain the passage to mean, to the end of the life of David. This view of the passage, is certainly more plausible than that of Ewald, since the Hebrew term "leolam," "for ever," is sometimes used in a restricted sense of the duration of human life. Thus Deut. xv. 17, “and he sha'l be a servant (leolam) for ever;" i.e., "as long as he lives." So again, Psalm lxxiii. 13, "Jehovah my God (leolam) for ever I will praise thee;" i.e., as long as I live." But as indicating the duration of the priesthood, the phrase "for ever," except in the passage under consideration, is never used in the Old Testament. In such a connection it would be perfectly superfluous, as the priesthood was restricted to the line of Aaron, and was always for a lifetime.

Professor Workman says:

"Apart from the two verses 1 and 7 [evidently a misprint, 7 instead of 4], the language

of the Psalm, especially the language of the latter portion of it, is applicable only to an earthly king."

We fail to discover anything in the latter portion of the Psalm that could argue against its Messianic application. The Messiah, in highly figurative language, is represented as a victorious warrior. Surely there is nothing remarkable in that, for Jehovah himself is frequently spoken of under the figure of a human warrior in the Old Testament. The Psalmist speaks of "Jehovah" as "mighty in battle" (Psalm xxiv. 8). Isaiah represents the Lord as mustering the host for battle (Isaiah xiii. 8). The drinking in the way of the brook, verse 7, indicates the stubbornness and fierceness of the battle, until His enemies shall be brought under His rule. Water is in Scripture employed as an emblem of what refreshes and imparts strength. The last clause of verse 7, "therefore shall He lift up the head," gives the result of the long and fierce battle, namely, the complete victory of the Messiah over those who refuse to acknowledge Him as King and High Priest. Our adverse critics urge that "such a Messiah who was both priest and warrior never appeared." The New Testament teaches differently, and those who make such an assertion, therefore, deny the fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The warfare in which the Messiah is engaged, commenced already with the advent of Christ, and will continue until all His adversaries are brought under His benign rule, and "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ: and He shall reign for ever and ever" (Rev. xi. 15).

We come next to consider the much contested-and we admit somewhat difficult -prophecy contained in Isaiah vii. 14, "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; behold the virgin pregnant and bearing a son, and she shall call His name Immanuel." This is the literal rendering of the passage, and the reader will perceive there are slight variations from the rendering in the Authorized Version, which, however, are important, as will hereafter be shown.

Upon this passage Professor Workman remarks:

"The gospel of Matthew abounds with illustrations of the evangelical principles of typical application. In chapter i. 22, 23, a passage is quoted with some modification from Isaiah vii. 14. Matthew does not here assume, much less affirm, that this quotation had a direct personal reference to Jesus Christ. He knew that it primarily and immediately referred to an event which was to happen in the time of Ahaz. One significant deviation in the Gospel from the exact rendering of the original illustrates Matthew's method of accommodation. In the Old Testament the passage reads,‘She shall call His name Immanuel ;' in the New Testament, it reads, They shall call His name Immanuel.' The original form denotes that the prophecy was to receive a literal fulfilment in the prophet's time; the qualified form denotes that it was receiving a secondary application in the Evangelist's time. In this way, on the principle of accommodation, a prophetic passage is applied in a relation which differs materially from that involved in its original connection."

Professor Workman, in maintaining that the prophecy in our passage had its literal fulfilment in the time of king Ahaz, again follows in the footsteps of the German rationalistic critics. In this instance, however, we must say, that we certainly consider the rationalistic writers more consistent than Professor Workman. The former, with few exceptions, divest the passage altogether of its Messianic character, regarding it as merely speaking of the birth of some ordinary child which was to be born in the time of Ahaz. This, at least, is within the compass of our understanding. Professor Workman, on the other hand, whilst he also holds the literal fulfilment in Ahaz' time, does not stop there, but maintains, further, that the prophecy also received “a secondary application in the Evangelist's time." Now we would ask, in what sense could the birth of an ordinary child in any possible way be

66

significant

also made applicable to the miraculous birth of Christ as recorded in the New Testament? Professor Workman hazards the assertion that "Matthew does not here assume, much less affirm, that this quotation had a direct personal reference to Jesus Christ." Let us examine whether the Evangelist's language will bear out this positive statement. St. Matthew, in chapter i. 18 of his Gospel, gives the following succinct account of the birth of Christ: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." The Evangelist having made this statement, goes on to show, that this all important event was in fulfilment of the promise which God had made by the mouth of the prophet. We must ask the reader to mark well the language which the sacred writer employs in applying the prophecy. "Now all this came to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Behold the virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel," verses 22, 23. We are certainly at a loss to understand how Professor Workman, with such a direct application of the prophecy to the birth of Christ before him, should still assert that the Evangelist had no direct personal reference to Jesus Christ. The Professor, in support of his accommodation theory, appeals to the change of the pronoun in the quotation by St. Matthew from that which is employed by Isaiah. According to the former, the passage reads, “They shall call His name Immanuel," and according to the latter, "She shall call His name Immanuel." The Professor speaks of this as a deviation," whilst in reality the deviation admits of an easy explanation. In Hebrew some verbs have no passive form; in that case the active form, if necessary, is used to supply the want. This usage is, however, sometimes extended even to verbs which have a passive form, and this is the case with the verb kara, to call, in our passage, "And she shall call His name Immanuel," that is, "And His name shall be called Immanuel." The active is used for a passive. This is by no means the only instance where this verb is so used. See, for example, Gen. xvi. 14: “Wherefore," kara, lit., "he called the well," for "the well was called." So again, Isaiah ix. 6 (Heb. v. 5), waiyikra, lit., "and he shall call His name," for "and His name shall be called." Also Jer. xxiii. 6: "This is His name," asher yikreu, lit., "by which ye shall call Him," for "by which He shall be called." The reader, by referring to the English Bible, will find, that in the last three quotations, the literal rendering would make no sense. So St. Matthew employs the active for the passive, "they shall call," for "he shall be called." So Luke xii. 20, lit., they shall require thy soul," for "thy soul shall be required." From the above examples it will be seen, that when the active is employed for the passive, the verb may be used either in the singular or plural, affording a general sense and not a restricted one to a person or persons. Accordingly the expression in Isaiah, "She shall call His name Immanuel," and the expression in St. Matthew, "They shall call His name Immanuel," simply means that" His name shall be called Immanuel." Professor Workman's argument, therefore, that "the original form denotes that the prophecy was to receive its literal fulfilment in the prophet's time; and the modified form denotes that it was receiving a secondary application in the Evangelist's time," is utterly fallacious.

66

As the prediction of the birth of the Messiah is so closely connected with the historical account of the confederacy of the king of Syria, and the king of Israel, against the kingdom of Judah, it is important that the occasion which led to the delivery of that prophecy at such a time be rightly understood. The confederacy of the two powers against Judah had already been formed in the time of Jotham, the father of Ahaz, but their design was not put into execution until the beginning of the