An Account of My 2015 Email Debate with Two Jewish Apologists, Jared and May – Part 7 on Psalm 110

Jared April 27, to me, May
Hi Randall,

I’ve been away most of the weekend and have only got to your email now. I will happily interact with you on psalm 110. I was actually wondering when you would take this line and I’m glad you have. Instead of writing a detailed response, I’m going to follow your lead from a few emails back and attach a chapter where this is addressed from a Jewish viewpoint. When I asked you originally if you understand Hebrew, it was with views like this in mind.

I suspect the attached will either make you vehemently defend Christian teaching as that is such a core part of your life – or it may actually make you feel quite betrayed by the Church from previous generations. Either way I’m sure the things you read in the attached will be challenging.

Can I stress that an understanding of Hebrew is essential to know whether the translations you read are accurate. Who better to ask than someone fluent in the language (I.e an orthodox Rabbi)

Warm Regards, Jared

[Jared attaches a document from the Rabbi Tovia Singer, whom he was encouraging me to debate…]
Psalm 110 represents one of the New Testament’s most stunning, yet clever, mistranslations of the Jewish Scriptures. Moreover, the confusion created by the Christianization of this verse was further perpetuated and promulgated by numerous Christian translators of the Bible. As you will soon see, some Christian translators, to their credit, refrain from manipulating this text in Psalm 110.

The Church began tampering with Psalm 110 in its infancy, when the New Testament was written during the first century. In the Gospels we find the first use of Psalm 110, and it is introduced with within the framework of an anecdotal question. In the Book of Matthew Jesus turns to the Pharisees and asks them,

What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he? (Matthew 22:41-44)

The question in laymen’s terms is, “Of whom is the messiah supposed to be a descendant?”

They said to him, “The son of David.” He said to them, “How then does David in the spirit call him ‘Lord,’ saying, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool?”’ If David then called him Lord, how is he his son?” No one was able to answer him a word, neither did any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:41-44)

Although, as you will soon understand, the above conversation could not have occurred, this narrative has been replayed over and over again in the imagination of countless Christians for nearly two millennia.

In the Christian mind, this was a terrific triumphant story. Jesus really showed those arrogant Pharisees how little they knew about their own Bible! Yet, this is precisely why this story never transpired. No Jew armed with a superficial knowledge of this chapter would have ever found Jesus’ argument compelling, let alone a conversation-stopper. The depth of knowledge that the Pharisees possessed of Tanach was astounding.

Let us closely examine the original verse from which Matthew’s Jesus quoted in order to grasp the manner in which the original Hebrew text was manipulated to create the above storyline. The King James Version (KJV), the most esteemed English language Christian Bibles in use today, translates this passage in the following manner,

The LORD said unto my Lord, “Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet.” (Psalm 110:1 KJV)

It appears from the KJV translation that the “Lord,” which is God, said unto to “my Lord” – who missionaries would have you believe is Jesus (David’s “Lord”) – “Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet.”

Is the above verse speaking about the messiah? Not at all. Yet look at the first and second word “Lord” in the verse (they are side by side). Were you able to detect any difference between these two words in this fundamentalist Bible? In the “translation” they appear virtually identical because the Christian translator cleverly masked the text of the original Hebrew.

Psalm 110 1

Although the two English words in the KJV translation were deliberately made to appear virtually identical, in the original Hebrew text they are entirely different. Whereas the first word “Lord” in the Hebrew is a correct translation of יהוה, which is the Tetragrammaton (YHWH), the ineffable name of God, the second word “Lord” is a complete and deliberate mistranslation of the text. The second word “Lord” in the verse is an appalling translation of the Hebrew word לַאדֹנִי; (pronounced ladonee).

The correct and only translation of ladonee is “to my master” or “to my lord.” The Hebrew word adonee never refers to God anywhere in the Bible. It is used only to address a person, never God. That is to say, God, the Creator of the universe, is never called adonee in the Bible. There are many words reserved for God in the Bible; adonee, however, is not one of them.

To illustrate this vital point, let’s examine other places in the Bible where the exact same Hebrew word appears and find out how the same New American Standard Bible translates it there. Bear in mind, in none of the following examples do the Christian Bibles have any incentive for mistranslating the word adonee.

For example, we find the same Hebrew word, לַאדֹנִי; (ladonee), used in the following two verses which have been translated by the same King James Version where the identical word is used as in Psalm 110:

And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he said, Send me away unto my master. (ladonee: לַאדֹנִי;) [Abraham].” (Genesis 24:54, King James Version)

Jacob instructed the angels to bring the following message to his wicked brother Esau:

“And he commanded them, saying, Thus shall ye speak unto my lord Esau; לַאדֹנִי; (ladonee) ‘Thy servant Jacob saith thus, I have sojourned with Laban, and stayed there until now.’” (Genesis 32:4, King James Version)

The Hebrew word לַאדֹנִי; (ladonee) used in the above two verses is referring to Abraham and Esau, respectively. Notice that the Hebrew word used in both verses is identical to the Hebrew word in Psalm 110:1. Why did the King James Version translate לַאדֹנִי; correctly in Genesis 24:54 as “to my master,” or in Genesis 32:4 as “to my lord,” yet deliberately mistranslate Psalm 110:1 as “Lord”? Why do most Christian Bibles make not distinction between those two words, as they do in each and every other place they appear in the Tanach?

The answer is obvious. Both Genesis 24:54 and Genesis 32:4 are not texts used by the Church to “prove” Jesus from the Jewish Scriptures and therefore they had no incentive to tamper with them. Psalm 110:1, on the other hand, is a passage flaunted by the New Testament and its missionaries as a verse that they argue “unquestionably points only to Jesus,” and was deliberate mistranslated.

Some Christian translations are more transparent in their rendering of Psalm 110 than the New American Standard Bible. For example, the King James Version and a few other Bibles still render the second “Lord” as if it were sacred; however, they translate the first “LORD” in upper case. This is a helpful hint to the keen observer that there is a distinction between them. Of course, it’s up to the curious Bible student to then look up the second “Lord” in a Hebrew Bible. Only a careful investigation of the original Hebrew text would reveal how this verse was doctored.

It should be noted that while many Christian translators indulge in this manipulation of Psalm 110:1, some refrain from engaging in this practice. Numerous modern Christian Bibles have corrected Matthew’s mistranslation. For example, the Revised Standard Version and the New English Bible correctly render the Hebrew word ladonee as “ to my lord,” in Psalm 110:1, clearly indicating that this word is not speaking of God.

As mentioned above, this tampering with Psalm 110:1 began at the time the Christian Bible was written. The Christian translators, who would later also mistranslate this verse, simply followed in the footsteps of the author of the first Gospel. If we look at the original Greek of Matthew 22:44 we find the same doctoring of the text in later Christian translations of the Book of Psalms. When Matthew has Jesus quote Psalm 110:1 to the Pharisees, the identical Greek word κύριος2 (kurios pronounced koo-re-os) is used both times the word “Lord” appears in Matthew 22:44.

Finally, it is essential that we explore the meaning of Psalm 110:1. Of whom is this Psalm speaking? To whom are the words “my master” or “my lord” referring?

The Psalm begins with the opening Hebrew words מִזְמוֹר לְדָוִד(Mizmor l’David).” The word “Mizmor” means “a song,” and thus the opening phrase of this Psalm is, “A Song of David.” In fact, the word Psalms comes from the Greek word ψαλμός (psalmos), which means “a song.” Bible students are often unaware of this.

Why would King David be writing these songs? For whom was he writing them? Who did King David intend to sing these songs? With these questions in mind, we can begin to understand the meaning of Psalm 110.

One of King David’s greatest disappointments was God’s refusal to allow him to build the first Temple in Jerusalem. Although David’s son Solomon undertook that task, and eventually constructed the first Temple, David’s umbilical connection to Solomon’s Temple was significant.

For example, David founded the city of Jerusalem, the city where the Temple was built. In fact, both the city and the Temple were named after him, the City and Temple of David. Moreover, he made preparations for the building of the Temple, and even arranged for the Temple service (II Samuel 7; I Chronicles 14-17, 22-26). This is where the Book of Psalms played its central role. King David was a faithful servant of God who possessed extraordinary skills as a teacher, musician, and poet. In fact, King David authored most of the Book of Psalms. The central purpose of the composition of this sacred work for the Levites to sing them in the Temple. The Levites would stand on a platform and joyfully chant these spiritually exhilarating Psalms to an inspired audience. Accordingly, the Levites would sing allowed,

The Lord [God] said to my master [King David] “Sit thou at my right hand…” (Psalm 110:1)

For the Church, however, the Psalmist’s original intent was set aside because it was zealously committed to Christianizing this verse. Thus, the opening verse in Psalm 110 was altered in order to paint Jesus into the Jewish Scriptures.

Here is some advice. The only way to recognize rampant Christian tampering of the Bible is to read the passage in the original Hebrew language, without the biased filter of the Christian translator. Therefore, give your children a good Jewish education. Remember, the success of groups like Jews for Jesus represents the unpaid bills of the Jewish people.

Sincerely yours,

Rabbi Tovia Singer

This is the sacred name of God. ↩

Although the two Greek words kurios in this verse are the same, they are written with a slightly different syntax. Whereas the Greek word for the first word “Lord” in Matthew 22:44 is κύριος (kurios), the Greek word for the second word “Lord” is κύριοω (kurio), because the latter is in the dative case, indicating “to” or “for” which an action occurs. This Greek syntax functions similarly to the letter l (lamed) does as a prefix in the Hebrew language. ↩

Randall Johnson April 29, to Jared
This is not a compelling argument in my view and again throws Christian motives into question needlessly, suggesting that we are purposely hiding the truth about Psalm 110 from our fellow Christians and unwitting Jewish listeners whom we are trying to proselytize. Yes, I wish Yahweh was translated Yahweh instead of LORD, but that is beside the point. No one is trying to hide the truth there. And if David is the author of this psalm and speaking of his master, then his master is the Lord.

Yes, the word is adonee and refers to my master, but no, David cannot be using this psalm to speak about himself. The remainder of the psalm will not allow that. David is not a priest after the order of Melchizedek and an Israelite king is never said to sit at the right hand of Yahweh. Nor is Yahweh said to serve at his right hand in battle. So if David is speaking to his master, as he surely must be, then Jesus’ exposition of this psalm does show a problem for the Pharisees and for your view and this psalm is a clear messianic prediction of David’s son, who is greater than he, only on the basis that he is both David’s descendent genetically and yet David’s lord and master by virtue of being the second person of the Trinity.

You have still not responded to my questions about the angel of Yahweh and the two Yahweh’s in Genesis 19. I was reading Rabba Genesis and noted that he raises an explanation for Genesis 19:24 which it seems he rightly rejects, that the first Yahweh refers to Gabriel. He argues that it is Yahweh speaking impersonally about himself, as Lamech does in 4:23 or as David does in 1 Kings 1:33. But the problem with this argument is both those examples are in dialogue, whereas Genesis 19:24 is not. It is descriptive narrative.

Jared April 30, to me, May
The central purpose of the composition of this sacred work was for the Levites to sing these words in the Temple. The Levites would stand on a platform and joyfully chant these spiritually exhilarating Psalms to an inspired audience. Accordingly, the Levites would sing allowed,

“The Lord [God] said to my master [King David] “Sit thou at my right hand…” (Psalm 110:1)”

You need to understand the context. David is writing what the Levites would sing – him being the master in reference.

I also notice your tendency to brush off when Christianity conveniently mistranslates certain words in Passages that are considered messianic. Have you noticed a pattern with that? I haven’t even started with Matthews misuse of the world Alma as Virgin.

Can you please repeat the question on the Angels?

Also I understand May will be replying to you in the near future.

Randall Johnson April 30, to Jared, May
It is impossible that the Levites were singing to David. Again, David was not a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek, nor was he or could he have been said to sit at the right hand of Yahweh. I’m well aware of the proposed sitz im leben of the many psalms, but that cannot be used to contradict the content of the psalm. And no, there is no pattern as you describe. Adoni in this psalm must refer to the Lord because He is the only one who was David’s master. Is it convenient that you will only base your thinking on the Masoretic text? I showed you on Psalm 16 that the LXX reflects a Hebrew text that differs from the Masoretic text on the “pierce” issue. I have explained to someone who should already know that the ‘typical’ understanding of key leaders (prophets, priests, kings, patriarchs, etc.) and even the nation itself are the molds whose histories and experiences shape the expectation of the Messiah. Matthew is doing a better job at pesher interpretation than you are. Isaiah’s experience of his wife, the alma, giving birth to a child as a sign to Ahaz, who can be titled Immanuel, is fulfilled typically in the anti-type, Messiah, who is the ultimate sign, the ultimate Immanuel in the most literal sense of that word, his mother the most ultimate alma. The seed of the woman has come.
Please refer to the email I sent to May and you for the argument concerning the angel of Yahweh and the 2 Yahwehs.

Jared April 30, to me, May
Although the Psalms were composed by King David they were often written in the third person about himself. For example: “He who releases David, His servant” Psalm 144:10

This point is also substantiated by the fact that in Hebrew this Psalm starts “L’David Mizmor” which means “A psalm of David.” L’David literally means “to David” or concerning him, it does not simply mean “composed by David.” This is similar to “L’Shlomo” meaning “for Solomon” in Psalm 72:1. This indicates that David was writing Psalm 110 about himself.

Although King David was not allowed to build the Temple he did everything he could to prepare the way for it to be built, and among the things he did was compile the book of Psalms to be sung by the Levites in the Temple, as it says: “Then on that day David first delivered the psalm into the hands of Asaf and his brethren” 1 Chronicles 16:7
“For the chief musician a psalm for David” Psalm 20:1
“And David spoke to the chiefs of the Levites to appoint their brethren the singers with instruments of music’ l Chronicles 15:16

Psalm 110 was composed in the third person to be sung by the Levites, and thus reflects their point of view, for they would call their king “my master – adoni.” In other words, the Levites are saying that “God spoke to our master (King David). Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

It was composed at the beginning of David’s reign. When the Philistines heard that Israel had anointed David as king, they came to fight with him, David talks about his reassurance from G-d that He would fight with the Jews against their enemies. As it says:
“He arose and struck the Philistines until his hand was weary and did cleave to his sword and the Lord wrought a great victory that day.”(2 Samuel 23 v.l0)

Sitting at God’s right hand as stated in the beginning of Psalm 110, symbolized God’s victorious protection, as written:
“Thy right hand has supported me” Psalm 18:36
“Thy right hand Oh Lord, is glorious in power” Exodus 13:6
“The right hand of the Lord is exalted; the right hand of the Lord does valiant.” Psalm 118:16
The privilege of sitting at the right hand is also a mark of distinction.
“And (Solomon) placed a chair for the king’s mother and she sat to his right”1 Kings 2:19

When God invites David to “sit at My right hand,” it is to show the protection given by God and the privileged position enjoyed by David in his relationship with God. It is not to be taken as literally indicating sitting at God’s right hand. The terminology “right hand” is here used as an expression of God’s protection and favoritism toward David.

• What does it mean that he will be “a priest (Kohen) forever after the manner of Melchizedek?”
• Who was Melchizedek?
• What kind of priest was he?
• How could David be referred to as a “Kohen”(who originate from the tribe of Levy) when he was from the tribe of Judah?
• How was David like Melchizedek?

A priest after the manner of Melchizedek does not refer to Jesus taking over the Levitical priesthood forever. This statement also refers to King David. Melchizedek was non-Jewish a King who lived during the times of Abraham as it says: “And Melchizedek King of Salem brought forth bread and wine and he was a priest (Kohen) of G-d the most high” Genesis 14:18.

Even thought he was not Jewish and could not be from the tribe of Levy, he is called a priest (Kohen) because of his position of service. Similarly, Jethro (Moses’ father-in-law) was called a “priest (Kohen) of Midian.” Exodus 18:1.

Melchizedek was called the “King of Salem” This mean that he was a king of Jerusalem. In Hebrew the word Jerusalem (Yerushaliem) is made up of the words ‘yereh’ and ‘salem. “Abraham called this place ‘Hashem Yereh’ (God sees) Genesis 22:l4

The word Salem refers to Jerusalem, as it says: “In Salem is his tabernacle (Temple)”Psalm 76:3

Additionally, the name Melchizedek comes from two Hebrew words, ‘melech’ which means king, and ‘zedek’ which means righteousness. This means a king over a place known for its righteousness.
Jerusalem is referred to as the city that reflects God’s righteousness as it is stated: “Jerusalem will dwell in security and this is what she (Jerusalem) will be called ‘God is our righteousness.’” Jeremiah 33:16.

Melchizedek, a generic title conferred of kings who rule over Jerusalem. In the same way, all kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh, Kings of Philistine were referred as Abimelech and Kings of Persia were given the title Achasverous.

So too, kings with the name ‘zedek’ as part of their title were human kings of Jerusalem as in: “Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem” Joshua 10:l. Notice that the first part of this king’s name is the word “adoni” which we have pointed out mean “lord” or “master.”
Additionally, David ruled with righteousness as it says: “David reigned over all of Israel. David administered justice and righteousness to all his people” 2 Samuel 8:15.

Just as Melchizedek was king of Jerusalem so was David. David was also promised that he would be a “priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek.” How could he be called a (Kohen) priest? As noted above, the term priest is not exclusively used to refer to priest “Kohanin” who originated from the tribe of Levy.

In the Tanach the title Cohen is also used to refer to individuals dedicated to minister a specific service. They didn’t have to be literally a Kohen-priest but were dedicated to a specific service just like a priest. We see specifically that David’s sons were referred to as “priests -Kohaim” as in: “the sons of David were ministers (Kohanim) of state” 2 Samuel 8:18.

Therefore, the term priest as in “priest of G-d, the most high” in Psalm 110:14 can also refer to a leader. That David would be a “priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek.” means that the privilege of being ruler of Jerusalem would always remain to David and his descendants forever. “To David and his offspring, forever” Psalm 18:51.

The entire psalm speaks in the third person of King David and his relationship with G-d. He was literally a Melchizedek “king of righteousness” King of Jerusalem.

1 That the Messiah would be destined to replace the Levitical priesthood is a non-biblical concept and unnecessary when the concepts of the sacrificial system, prayer and repentance are understood correctly
2 The bible gives no indication that Melchizedek’s position as a “Priest” involved any service that involved the forgiveness of sin.

Randall Johnson April 30, to Jared
An Israelite king is never invited to sit at Yahweh’s right hand. Yahweh’s right hand is definitely said to aid His people and His kings, but that is completely different than being invited to sit at Yahweh’s right hand, which is tantamount to sharing His throne with Him and His authority and power. No one but God can have that position. And again, this does not explain the priesthood that is granted. Do not the ancient rabbis see this as a Messianic psalm?

 

Jared April 30, to me
All explained in my last email I sent it in two parts

Randall Johnson April 30, to Jared, May
I’ll have to admit that is a pretty good argument for Melchizedek. And I’ll admit that though this psalm seems to be a direct prophecy of Messiah, if it is not, it still works as a typico-prophecy of Messiah that Jesus fulfills at the highest possible level.