The use of Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12...Who is speaking to whom?

At first glance the way the author of Hebrews 1 uses Psalm 102:25-27 may seem perplexing. Continuing from 1:8 ("But to the son..."), he seems to be quoting Psalm 102:25-27 as words directed by God to the Son, the Christ or Messiah. Yet when we first read the words of the Psalm, they may seem more like they are directed towards God rather than the Messiah, especially as much of the rest of the Psalm seems to be the words of someone, say the Messiah, speaking to God, rather than the other way around (cf the opening words in verse 1, "Hear my prayer, O LORD, let my cry come to you!"). So how do we make sense of the use of Psalm 102:25-27 in Hebrews 1:10-12?

Here are the main options I have found:

1. The author of Hebrews boldly and matter-of-fact-ly takes a clear reference to God, the LORD, and attributes it to Jesus. While it may seem like a misuse of Scripture, the argument goes that it is done on sound theological basis and logical syllogism: since Jesus is God, even LORD (= YHWH), therefore any reference to God or LORD in the Old Testament can be legitimately also transferred to Jesus. It doesn't matter at all whether there are any specific indicators for the quotation that it has reference to the Christ, because the basis of usage is not on the "Messiah-ship" of Jesus, but rather just to do with his "LORD-ship". It can also take its lead from the argument of Jesus in John 10:35-36. This is a position we see in the commentary by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (pp.67-68).
2. The author of Hebrews attributes to Jesus a reference to God because the reference also has Messianic indicators. This option is a bit more focused and nuanced than the first option, but includes the argument of the first option. Not only does the author feel free to use a reference to God on the basis of the divinity of Christ, but also because the Psalm is referring to God in ways that should also be considered Messianic or relating to the work and coming of the Christ. Calvin's commentary takes this approach. He says, "I indeed allow that Christ is not named in any part of the Psalm; but it is yet plain that he is so pointed out, that no one can doubt but that his kingdom is there avowedly recommended to us. Hence all the things which are found there, are to be applied to his person; for in none have they been fulfilled but in Christ...".
3. The author of Hebrews understands the quotation to actually be words of God addressed to the Messiah. This option sees Psalm 102:25-27 as words spoken by God addressed to the Psalmist (or perhaps some other person), understood to be the Messiah. The beginning of the quotation of God's address starts in the middle of verse 23, according to the LXX translation, and this option understands the author of Hebrews as following the same reading as does the LXX. (The difference between the LXX and traditional Hebrew rendering is accounted for by the question of what Hebrew vowels to use in a certain word.) This option also finds strength in accounting for the general Messianic nature and recognition of the Psalm, as well as less awkwardly assimilating into the presentation of the author Hebrews, since it straight-forwardly takes Psalm 102:25-27 as words of God addressed to the Son (if we accept the meaning of the LXX translation, and then we have all the quotations of 1:5, 1:6, 1:8-9, 1:10-12 and 1:13 as words of God to the Son). This is an approach espoused by Don Carson in his devotional reading notes. Also in an article by Stephen Voorwinde in Vox Reformata. It still has a little awkwardness in that it may seem anachronistic for God to address the Messiah as "God" and "YHWH". However, this is not insurmountable, for similar reasons as in the options above. Also, anachronistic reading is mainly an issue if we have problems with the divine authorship of the Scriptures.

In thinking about this question, I also toyed with another option. Perhaps the author of Hebrews was making a more oblique reference, or that this quotation was not meant to be taken on its own merits, but in combination with the other quotations. Perhaps he did understand that Psalm 102 was referring to God, but that the same things are transferred by inheritance to the Son, since the Son sits at the right hand of God, being exalted to the same authority (cf 1:4 and 1:13). Such an option squares more naturally with the traditional Hebrew reading of Psalm 102 while avoiding the difficulties of not sufficiently distinguishing between God and the Son (which the author clearly does distinguish in chapter 1). However, on balance, given that it is a somewhat convoluted option, it is probably best to go with option 3 above, as a more straight-forward and very acceptable option.

Why the green grass when Jesus feeds the 5000 (Mark 6:30-56)?

Recently I was preparing to lead a Bible study on Mark 6:30-56, including the miracle of feeding the five thousand and also Jesus walking on water. Especially because we are told that "they did not understand about the loaves", I thought that there must be something more to the significance of the feeding of the five thousand than simple a display of power, another kind of miracle to add to Jesus' repertoire. There must be some common theme or thread that runs through the whole text, linking the accounts together.

With the help of some commentators, I saw that Jesus' compassion toward the people because "they were like sheep without a shepherd" (Mark 6:34) was not coincidental to the following miracle that was performed. This same expression (more or less) is used a number of times in the Old Testament, eg in these passages: Numbers 27:12-23; 1 Kings 22:17, Ezekiel 34:1-31; Zechariah 10:1-12. There is the emphasis that the people needed a shepherd, sometimes that shepherd is a human leader (eg Moses or Joshua or Davidic king), and other times the LORD himself is their shepherd.

And what is one of the significant tasks of the shepherd, if not to feed his sheep (cf Ezekiel 34:2, 34:3, 34:8, 34:13, 34:14, 34:23, etc, also John 21:15-17)? And here the green grass comes in. In the midst of a miracle of Jesus feeding the people, Mark records for us that Jesus "commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green grass" (Mark 6:39). Although the commentators I read didn't mention it, I couldn't help but be reminded of Psalm 23, where the LORD my shepherd "makes me to lie down in green pastures" (Psalm 23:2; cf also Ezekiel 34:14-15). While the mention of green grass could just be a detail of fact, that is what it was and where they were, within a whole context of Jesus as shepherd feeding the people, how could there not be a connection?

So what then should we "understand about the loaves"? Mark shows us Jesus the shepherd who feeds his sheep (first through teaching, Mark 6:34, since "Man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God", Matthew 4:4/Deuteronomy 8:3), and that Jesus is the Christ, in one person the successor to Moses, the Davidic King, and the LORD God himself. This is what we need to understand by the miracle of the loaves.

Throughout the passage there seems to be a question of identity. Who is this Jesus, really? In the walking on water, again the closest Old Testament referent must be the crossing of the sea in Exodus, with the waters parted, a signature miracle of the LORD. So when Jesus says, "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid" (Mark 6:50), whether directly or indirectly, he is saying that he is the "I AM", he is the LORD their shepherd. (Cf also the connection between shepherding and walking through the waters in Zechariah 10:1-12 and Psalm 77:7-20.)

So that is why the grass is green!

The Apostles at Jerusalem?

In Acts 8:1 it says "At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles" (NKJV). Why did the apostles stay at Jerusalem, while the rest of the Christians scattered?

Within the book of Acts, Jerusalem seems to remain as the base of operations for the Twelve Apostles (cf. 8:14, 15:2, 15:4, 16:4). Luke doesn't seem to explicitly criticize the apostles for staying in Jerusalem.

With recent discussions about eschatology and millennialism, it got me thinking. I wonder if the Luke's portrayal of the apostles in Jerusalem is meant to be symbolic of the new Israel with its centre in Jerusalem, reminding us of the OT prophecies about the future glory of Jerusalem/Zion (the twelve apostles seeming to be the equivalent representation of the twelve tribes of Israel).

It is a common theme in the OT Prophets that Jerusalem will be restored as part of the Messianic age, after its destruction in judgement. Jerusalem will be the focal point and centre of the new kingdom to come, reigning over all the earth. Consider some of these as samples:

• "For the LORD will comfort Zion, He will comfort all her waste places; He will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness will be found in it, thanksgiving and the voice of melody... So the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing, with everlasting joy on their heads. They shall obtain joy and gladness; sorrow and sighing shall flee away... Awake, awake! Stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk at the hand of the LORD the cup of His fury; you have drunk the dregs of the cup of trembling, and drained it out... Awake, awake! Put on your strength, O Zion; put on your beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city! For the uncircumcised and the unclean shall no longer come to you. Shake yourself from the dust, arise; sit down, O Jerusalem! Loose yourself from the bonds of your neck, O captive daughter of Zion!... How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who proclaims peace, who brings glad tidings of good things, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion, “Your God reigns!” Your watchmen shall lift up their voices, with their voices they shall sing together; for they shall see eye to eye when the LORD brings back Zion. Break forth into joy, sing together, you waste places of Jerusalem! For the LORD has comforted His people, He has redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD has made bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God." (from Isaiah 51-52, NKJV; note how it leads into the proclamation of the Suffering Servant who will accomplish these things)
• "For ZionÂ’s sake I will not hold My peace, and for JerusalemÂ’s sake I will not rest, until her righteousness goes forth as brightness, and her salvation as a lamp that burns. The Gentiles shall see your righteousness, and all kings your glory. You shall be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD will name. You shall also be a crown of glory in the hand of the LORD, and a royal diadem in the hand of your God." (Isaiah 62:1-3, NKJV)
• "Therefore because of you Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, and the mountain of the temple like the bare hills of the forest. Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the LORDÂ’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and peoples shall flow to it. Many nations shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion the law shall go forth, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem." (Micah 3:12-4:2, NKJV)
• "“Sing and rejoice, O daughter of Zion! For behold, I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” says the LORD. “Many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and they shall become My people. And I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you. And the LORD will take possession of Judah as His inheritance in the Holy Land, and will again choose Jerusalem. Be silent, all flesh, before the LORD, for He is aroused from His holy habitation!”" (Zechariah 2:10-13, NKJV)

The rebuilding of Jerusalem in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah when they returned from the Exile may have been a partial fulfillment of prophecies, but it seems to fall short of the fullness of the prophetic imagery. There is no king, and the 'kingdom' is still a pale reflection of its former days, the remaining legacy of the split between the North and the South. Some might still look forward to a literal restoration of the old Israel (such as the premillenialists and Zionists), perhaps even including the physical temple at Jerusalem, but this would seem like a going backwards, a downgrade, from what has happened already in Christ.

For now, in the coming of Jesus, the Messiah, the long-awaited kingdom of God has come and begun, and something greater than the OT Jews could have visualised has been inaugurated, things the prophets and angels desired to know about (1 Peter 1:10-12). Jesus has been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18), and sits at the right hand of the throne of God (Acts 2:30-36; Ephesians 1:19-23; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 3:22), ruling as King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Revelation 17:14). And the NT emphasis speaks of a new Israel (cf. Hebrews 8:8-13) and a new Jerusalem (cf. Hebrews 12:22-24). So in Revelation we see a new Jerusalem replacing the one that is to be destroyed (Revelation 21-22). Certainly we still await the consummation of the kingdom, but it has nonetheless already begun.

So it seems (at least to me!) quite fitting to have the Apostles symbolically based in the earthly Jerusalem, to show that the OT prophecies are being fulfilled in Christ and the Kingdom he has brought into being, with the Apostles being his representatives of that reality.