“High Priest as a Divine Mediator,” 169–74.
158. See Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 80–89; Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:75–76; Steinmann, Daniel, 490. Also see Mitchell, Song of Songs, 921–22, 944–61. Mitchell connects this figure with the angel of Rev 10, and suggests that both are Christ. Also see discussion of the christological nature of the Ezekiel vision in Hummel, Ezekiel, 1:49–50.
159. See argument in favor of traditional messianic interpretation in Leupold, Psalms, 770–78. Also see discussions of Melchizedek in Fitzmyer, “Melchizedek,” 63–69; McNamara, “Melchizedek,” 1–31; Rooke, “Jesus as Royal Priest,” 81–94.
160. One might ask how a promise of an eternal priesthood squares with Christ’s own priesthood in the NT. Although Christ was not a Levite (Heb 7:14), all who are in him are eternally priests (1 Pet 2:9, Rev 5:10) and therefore Christ’s eschatological priesthood fulfills this promise to the Levities who have faith in him as their eternal high priest.
161. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 4:172–75.
162. Ibid., 4:167–71.
163. Ibid., 4:162.
164. Leupold, Zechariah, 77–78.
165. See discussion in Bergsma, Jubilee from Leviticus to Qumran, 198–203.
166. Keil, Biblical Commentary on Daniel, 270–75, 320–402.
167. See Collins, Daniel, 352; Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:89–90. See Leupold, Daniel, 408–9. Leupold disagrees with the reference of Jubilee, but considers the numbers of seven and ten as emblematic of the highest perfection of divine work. Either interpretation fits with our insistence that it does not refer to literal time, but to the divine completion of redemption.
168. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:100–102.
169. Ibid., 3:117–21.
170. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:142–46; Steinmann, Daniel, 474–76. For an alternative view, see Leupold, Daniel, 431–32. Leupold holds that it is in fact the antichrist who is making the covenant in order to imitate Christ.
171. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 3:146–48.
172. See Keil, Daniel, 360–62; Steinmann, Daniel, 474–76. Also see Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, 51–62. Pitre holds this text to directly predict a suffering Messiah who atones for sin.
173. See comments in Keil, Commentary on Daniel, 354–55.
174. Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament, 601.
175. Rendtorff, Canonical Hebrew Bible, 101.
176. Ibid. Also see Exod 23:32, 34:12; Deut 7:1–5.
177. Exod 33:14; Deut 12:9–10, 25:19; Josh 1:13, 15, 11:23, 14:15, 21:44, 22:4, 23:1; 2 Sam 7:11–12; 1 Kgs 5:41, 8:56; 1 Chr 22:9.
178. Leithart, Son to Me, 71–72.
179. See discussion in ibid., 70–73.
180. NIV translates this as “royal advisors” but some translators (notably the ESV) suggest “priests.”
181. See discussion in Leupold, Genesis, 1:462–66; Leupold, Psalms, 770–78.
182. Kraus, Psalms 60–150, 346–47.
183. Hengstenberg, Christology of the Old Testament, 1:151.
184. Ibid., 190.
185. Ibid., 180, 190–91.
186. In the Vulgate 2 Sam 6:19 reads: “Et partitus est multitudini universae Israhel tam viro quam mulieri singulis collyridam panis unam et assaturam bubulae carnis unam et similam frixam oleo et abiit omnis populus unusquisque in domum suam.”
187. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 180.
188. Ibid.
189. Ibid., 117.
190. Hahn, Father Who Keeps, 211.
191. Ibid.
192. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 119. Though this is how the ESV translates the text, it is also Hahn’s preferred translation.
193. Ibid., 191.
194. Ibid., 191–93.
195. See comment and discussion in Hahn, Lamb’s Supper, 14–28.
196. McBride, “Deuteronomic Name Theology.”
197. Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 20–43. Wellhausen asserted (without any evidence) that the “tabernacle” was simply a code word in Leviticus for the Second Temple. Kitchen demonstrates that tent-shrine like the tabernacle
