Shalom Chaverim,
In connection with our last Lesson (#4), Emily asks the following questions:
What of the common or (more "modern"?) Jewish view that Psalm 110 was written FOR rather than BY David vs. Yeshua's & Kefa's (Peter's) words that appear to state the opposite (Matt 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34-35)?
One would think Yeshua & Kefa would know whether David was considered to be the author OR recipient of the words of this Psalm at that point in history.
What of those who say that your view contradicts the understanding of Yeshua & Kefa? Is is possible to close the door to those who would make such an argument?
Thanks, Emily
Actually Emily, we only briefly touched upon one aspect of Mizmor (Psalm) 110, in our last lesson. But there remains much more to be said about the opening verse in this Psalm, owing to the Trinitarian camp's heavy reliance upon their misreading of this verse, in order to arrive at the view that Yeshua is "ADONAI" (G-d). Unfortunately for them, as we will shortly uncover, this is a claim which the text never asserts or even hints at.
Since the subject has been brought up, It won't hurt to discuss it now. However, we'll have to put off our discussion about Yochanan [John] 1:1 until the next lesson.
Before we get started in dealing with this inquiry, allow me to point out for the benefit of those who may not understand the need for such a question, for it represents a very important nuance.
In a typical English translated rendering for this Mizmor [Psalm], we see the following:
A Psalm of David. The L-RD said to my Lord,"Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies Your footstool."
Any "Jesus is G-d" disciple will not miss an opportunity to fire this verse at his opponent, because he is convinced that this indeed is a Psalm OF David, that is, that David wrote it, and that David himself is reporting a conversation between G-d the Father and the G-d the Son.
"Everyone knows," he [the "Jesus is G-d" proponent] reasons, "that 'the L-RD' refers to G-d, and that G-d is speaking to his [David's] Lord (or the Messiah). When David wrote the Psalm, through the influence of the Holy Spirit," our Trinitarian friend argues, "the person he called 'my Lord' (read 'my Adonai') was the G-d the Son, or the Messiah. Thus David applies one of G-d's primary names (Adonai) to the Messiah. Moreover," he continues, "the fact that David calls the Messiah 'my Adonai' signifies that the Messiah would be far more than human, and in fact, G-d Himself, since Adonai is a primary name for G-d."
To such brilliant textual exegesis, we can do no better than respond with one of the following statements:
A. "Bravo! Well done good and faithful theologian!" or...
B. "A little knowledge is dangerous. And another pseudo-theologian just bit the dust."
The later would be the more appropriate response. Here is why...
There are two points to keep in mind as you read this Psalm in HEBREW.
In no text, not Psalm 110 itself, and not in any instance in which this text is quoted in Torat HaShlichim (New Testament), does there exist a claim that David authored it. This understanding is not a "modern" Jewish view (which anti-missionaries cleverly conceived of, in order to counter missionary claims), but rather an ancient one, supported by the text itself. This understanding was as common in last millennium, as it is common today, and to anyone who reads Hebrew, it is immediately self-evident.
-------------- Commercial Break --------------
May I suggest that you all begin learning to read Hebrew? Since this is the language we shall all be reading and writing and speaking in the Messianic age, we should get used to it, and begin to say our goodbye's to English sooner rather than later. The Prophet Tsephania [Zeph] reminds us that at the end of days, HaShem "will 'flip-reverse' upon the peoples a PURE language, that they all may call on the name of HaShem, in order to serve Him with one accord." (Tsefania [Zeph] 3:9)
What language do you think is going to be flip-reversed upon the peoples? English? No. There is only one pure language which has been preserved until today, and that is Hebrew. It is the language which Adam v'Hava spoke, and it is the language which all the world will return to, in the end of days.
-------------- Back to the Text --------------
Yep, that's right, get your fine-point red permanent ink markers out, along with your favorite English translation of the Bible, and look up every one of 53 passages in the Tehilim (Psalms), and cross out the word "OF " within the phrase "A Psalm OF David." Just in case you are not sure where all those references are, I've looked them up for you. Here they are:
Psa. 3:0; 4:0; 5:0; 6:0; 8:0; 9:0; 11:0; 12:0; 13:0; 14:0; 15:0; 18:0; 19:0; 20:0; 21:0; 22:0; 23:0; 24:0; 25:0; 26:0; 27:0; 28:0; 29:0; 31:0; 32:0; 34:0; 35:0; 36:0; 37:0; 38:0; 39:0; 40:0; 41:0; 51:0; 61:0; 62:0; 63:0; 64:0; 65:0; 68:0; 69:0; 70:0; 101:0; 103:0; 108:0; 109:0; 110:0; 138:0; 139:0; 140:0; 141:0; 143:0; 144:0
In every case, what you are going to read, is one of the following:
Mizmor Le-David, which means...
"A Psalm FOR (or TO) David."
Or...
Le-David Mizmor which means...
"FOR (or TO) David, A Psalm"
Or just...
Le-David which means...
"FOR (or TO) David."
Never, ever, does the preposition "Lamed" (Le-) mean "OF" or "BY" anyone including David.
In other words, David didn't write any of the Psalms which say in English "A Psalm OF David," because that isn't what the text says. Someone else wrote them, FOR or TO Melech (King) David.
Now the King may have commissioned his servants to write these Psalms and/or prayers FOR him. Alternatively, his servants may have written these Psalms FOR him as gestures of honor, which they later bestowed upon him as they sang them or presented them TO their King, as expressions of how they viewed or felt about various aspects of the Kings life and teachings, and qualities of leadership, prayers and experiences.
The important thing to understand here though, is that the once the King took possession of any Psalm written FOR him or given TO him, and after it was added to his growing collection, they became known collectively as the works "OF David." Later, as the collection gained renown and distinction, they became a permanent part of the national and royal archives, which were kept preserved by the Sofrim (Scribes).
So, when people wanted to refer to Tehilim [Psalms], as a whole, or to some particular quote within it, they would simply say, "David wrote (or said)..." They didn't mean that David wrote every word, but rather that the collection as a whole was being ascribed to the period of the Davidic Kingdom, and that these Tehilim were his generation's contribution to the greatest literary works of that (and perhaps all) time.
To give you a modern example of this phenomenon, does anyone remember that little series of books compiled by Arthur Bloch called, "Murphy's Laws and Other Reasons Why Things Go Wrong?"
There were three volumes to the whole set. Very funny stuff. What happened was that Arthur Bloch set out to compile all the "Murphy's Laws" he could find, and even wrote a bunch of his own, and then published the whole set under his name.
Here is just one postulate found in Volume 1:
CHURCHILL'S COMMENTARY ON MAN:
Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.
Now everyone that reads all three volumes, knows that "Murphy," whoever he was, probably never wrote a single corollary, axiom or law in any of the books published by Bloch. But Murphy still seems to get all the credit, that is, whenever things go wrong, or when people try to explain WHY things go wrong. And of course everyone becomes a "Murphite" automatically, whenever things go wrong for them.
And yet, on the other hand, Arthur Bloch (there's a good Jewish name), authored the books, even though most people refer to the set as, "Murphy's Laws," rather than "Bloch's Laws," or "Bloch's books on why things go wrong."
Well, the same thing is true with the Psalms. David collected them, commissioned them, compiled them, and most likely adopted them. He undoubtedly even wrote a bunch of them himself. But one thing is for sure... he did NOT write any of the 53 Psalms which in particular open with the words "Mizmor Le-David," of which our Mizmor 110 is quoted, in the Torat HaShlichim [New Testament].
Any good student of the Bible will note that in each case, where a Gospel writer refers to Psalm 110, and states that --
" David calls him..." (Matt)
" David himself said..." (Mark)
" David says in the 'sefer Tehilim'"... (Luke)
" David says..." (Acts)
-- it can be concluded without question that "David" is here used as a euphemism for "The Psalms," or "The Collection of Mizmorim."
Now with that understanding firmly planted in our minds, lets move on to our second, and more crucial point to consider. In Mizmor 110...
Did you know that every language has "foreign" words? Foreign vocabulary is introduced into a language when the direct translation of culture-specific words just isn't possible.
In English, this happens all the time. Examples are:
Bon Apatite (French)
Coup d'état (French)
Gazunteit (German)
In modern Hebrew, the same thing has occurred, as a result of the dominance of our English in our English speaking world. Here are some examples:
Pseek'olog (Psychologist)
Le'fasfex (To Fax a document)
"Ata Lo Normali!" ("You are NOT a normal person!").
These Foreign words are called "Milim Lo'aziot." They are not Hebrew concepts at all, but rather English concepts expressed using Hebrew characters in a Hebrew dialect.
Back in the 2nd century BCE, when the Torah was being translated into what the then Greek speaking world called the Septuagint, they came across our Hebrew word for the ineffable four letter personal, private, up-close Name of G-d, which theology buffs call today, the Tetragrammaton (Tetra... from "four.")
In Hebrew, those four letters are Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [YHVH], but we Jews never pronounce that word, because its exact pronunciation has been lost to us. Rather than take a chance on breaking the commandments in the Torah not to take His Name in vain (Shm'ot [Ex] 20:7), or to profane His Holy Name, ViYikra [Lev] 22:32, we instead have developed a custom of saying either "Adonai," or "HaShem," when we read Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh on a written page.
It would be the same thing in English, if every time you saw the word "Coca-Cola" on the written page, you thought and said, "Poison" (which wouldn't be too far from the truth, would it?). Note that the words have no similarity in the constitution or order of their letters. Nevertheless, if you train yourself to say "Poison" every time you see the word "Coca-Cola," you would be doing exactly what Jews do when we read the word Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh.
So when the seventy-two Jewish elders (six from each of the twelve tribes) in Alexandria, Egypt, finished translating the first official copy of the Torah, which BTW took them seventy-two days, the work contained a number of "Lo'azit" (foreign) words within the Greek text. Some examples are:
"Sabbata" for Shabbat, the Seventh day of the Jewish week.
"Man" for Manna, the bread from heaven that bnei Israel ate in the desert, and
"Kades Barne" for Kadesh Barnea, the place at which the 10 spies delivered their evil and rebellious report against taking possession of the Land of Israel.
Each of these words, could have been expressed using the then existing Greek vocabulary, but for some reason, the seventy-two choose to use "lo'azit" words.
Shabbat for example, could have been expressed as "khebdome," or the "seventh" day, but instead, they popularized a new Greek word, "Sabbata," which to this day, in the Greek language, means "Saturday."
But what do you suppose our seventy-two elders did when they came to the word Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [YHVH], the ineffable Name of G-d?
Well, they had a choice. They could have just done what the proud Anglo Saxons did centuries later... invent a new "foreign" word by attempting to pronounce the consonants, and then making up the interleaving vowels, however it fancied them. This might have yielded something senseless like "Jehovah," or some other similar fabrication. What would remain would be to just phonetically spell the thing out using Greek characters.
They could have done this. But, no, they choose a different path, probably precisely because these Jewish Elders had the wisdom to foresee that if they would have brought a pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton to the Gentile Greek speaking world, the result would have been an open door for bunch of Pagans to go running about desecrating, profaning and taking the Name of the Creator of the Universe in vain. "Who needs that mess?" I'm sure they reasoned.
So, when they saw the word Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh in the Torah, rather than a transliteration, they gave a simple translation, using the existing Greek generic word, "Kurios," which just means "Lord," or "Master."
Of course this generic Greek word already had a Hebrew counterpart, well established in its vocabulary, and so what they were doing was knowingly assigning two Hebrew meanings to one Greek original. But again, they probably felt that this was a better situation than opening the doors to the Gentiles to desecrate G-d's Name.
The Hebrew word which already expressed the idea of "Lord," or "Master" was "Adon." This word was simply a title given to any human King or Master who was deserving of, or demanded honor and/or respect. It became used through-out the Greek speaking world to describe any sovereign Ruler or Lord over men.
The only problem was that the Torah distinguished between human Kings, and the Holy and invisible Almighty G-d who ruled over all earthly Kings.
And so, the solution which our seventy-two Elders came up with was to combine three Greek words, whenever they wanted to refer to the ONE L-RD G-d, Creator of Heaven and Earth, Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh Himself, instead of some other earthly Master.
Those three words were "Kurios Ho Theos," (The L-RD G-d).
From this point one, history reveals that with regard to Hebrew, the Greek Language would never even attempt to invent an additional word or words which would positionally possess higher rank than Kurios (either used by itself, or in combination with other words). It simply had no need to do so. And the rest of the story is "tradition."
Of course, the Hellenized world of that day, wasn't exactly anticipating the advent of the Anglo-Saxon horde which would one day overrun them, and enlighten the world with, G-d help us all, ENGLISH.
Quite content without this prophecy, the Gentile Greek speaking world went on to steal and translate the rest of our [Hebrew] Bible, while depriving us [Hebrew speaking Jews] of the opportunity to 'proof' the text they had translated. Eventually they produced the entire Tenach [Tanakh - Older Testament] in Greek, some centuries later.
As for the New Testament... well, you all know the story on that score. Even if most of it was originally penned in Hebrew, all we have left today, are tattered old Greek manuscripts. Perhaps the Hellenizers of those early days really did foresee the advent of the ANGLO SAXON, but so hated the Jews, that they quickly got rid of the Hebrew evidence, so that we would all be forced to bow the knee to Greek, in order to understand our Bibles.
You see, without the Hebrew to fall back upon, how would you ever know that the Greek translation for Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh, and the Greek word for "Lord" were originally two different Hebrew words with distinct meanings?
Compare, for instance, the difference below, between the Greek translation of Ps 110:1 in the Tenach (which the Gentiles are responsible for), and the way the same verse appears in the Greek New Testament (Acts 2:34)
Greek Transliteration...
In the Tenach
(LXX)[Septuagint] |
In the NT |
English (NKJV)
|
eipen
|
eipen
|
Said
|
ho
|
ho
|
The
|
kurios
|
kurios
|
LORD
|
toe
|
toe
|
to
|
kurio
|
kurio
|
Lord
|
mou
|
mou
|
my
|
kathou
|
kathou
|
sit
|
Do you see the difference? I hope not. Because there is no difference. Not only that, but there is also no difference between each use of the word Kurios, which appears twice in the verse being quoted.
The English of course, follows suit with the Greek fashla (disaster), with the small exception that most translators felt the ethical impetus to CAPITALIZE the first occurrence of LORD, which is supposed to flag the reader's attention to the theory that there just might be two different words in play here.
Here is what it looks like...
The most important thing to notice here, even if you don't read Hebrew, is that Hebrew Word #1 (seen as the Hebrew letters Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh [YHVH], but read or spoken as "HaShem," or "Adonai") looks completely different from Hebrew Word #2 (seen, read and spoken as "Adoni," or as "La'Adoni" with the attached preposition [Hebrew letter Lamed]). Phonetically, BTW, "Adonai" is pronounced "Ah-doe-nigh," and "Adoni" is pronounced "Ah-doe-knee."
Put then into English, the text should read...
HaShem (G-d) said to my master, "Sit to my right [hand]..."
You also need to understand that this isn't the only time that these two different words appear together in the same verse. In some 30 verses in the Tenach, they also appear together. And guess what? Do the translators attempt to muddle their distinctiveness by assigning the same English word to each. Not only "No," but "Heck No!" because in all the other occurrences, they DON'T have an agenda to protect, except in Psalm 110. Only in Psalm 110, do they want G-d to be talking to G-d. So they confuse you without the facts in evidence.
Makes you want to become a translator when you grow up, don't it?
The truth is that in every occurrence, including Mizmor [Psalms] 110, the two words for "Lord" are distinctively different. Adonai (Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh) refers only to G-d, and Adon refers to a Master or Boss-man. Check them out yourself:
Gen 24:12,27,35,42,48,56; 39:2-3; 1 Sam 24:6; 26:16; 1 Kings 18:10; 22:17; 2 Kings 2:3,5,16; 5:1,18,20; 9:7; 19:4,6; 2 Chr 4:16; 18:16; Is 19:4; 37:4,6; Jer 22:18; Lam 1:5; Hos 2:16; Mal 1:6
KENOSIS CIRRHOSIS
You realize of course, that this is why there is so much confusion over the so-called "Kenosis theory" expressed in Philippians 2:7-11, and put forward by many NT commentators. The fact is, that we are staring at a major fallacy in our Bibles here.
Even our own beloved David Stern, in his JNT and accompanying JNT Commentary buys into this lie, when he translates Phil 2:11 this way...
...and every tongue will acknowledge that Yeshua the Messiah is ADONAI - to the glory of G-d the Father.
He does this because in the Greek, Yeshua is described with the term, "Kurios," which to the non-Hebrew savvy bystander, can convey that Yeshua is G-d. What! How can this be?
Well, its easy. Using a typical Greek circular logic holding-pattern, instead of employing the Hebraic linear logic bi-directional pattern, we are led to accept the following...
A = B, or Adonai [G-d] in Hebrew = Kurios in Greek. (Only it doesn't!)
and...
C = B, or Yeshua our Lord in English = Yeshua our Kurios in Greek
It then follows that...
C = A, or Yeshua our Kurios = Yeshua our Adonai (G-d)
Now, if having read up until this point you believe the logic scenario presented above... well, all I can tell you is that "I have land to sell you in Florida." And you will probably believe that too!
You must see that this argument is flawed.
In the Septuagint, the "L-RD G-d" is always translated as "Kurios Ho Theos."
Consequently, since all that Kurios really means is "Master," or Lord, our KENOSIS verse should properly be translated...
...and every tongue will acknowledge that Yeshua the Messiah is Master - to the glory of G-d the Father.
So what is our needle (or "point" to use another more accurate term)?
The text does not say:
"G-d said to my G-d, sit at my right [hand]..."
This is because there is only ONE G-d, not two. Besides, G-d doesn't talk to Himself, as a matter of course.
In Mizmor [Psalms] 110, as well as in each Torat HaShlichim [New Testament] passage where this verse is being quoted, the composer of the song (not David) is reporting a statement, in which he hears HaShem (G-d) saying to the song composer's master (i.e. King David):
"Sit to my right, until I make your enemies your footstool."
Now, we all know that King David is the archetype of the Mashiach, who will come after him, as David's physical descendant. Even David knew this, because G-d promised him that his seed would remain on the Throne forever and ever, before HaShem (Shmu'el Bet 7 [2 Sam 7].
And so, since King David expected that his physical descendant would, by virtue of his role or appointment, be G-d's anointed agent or Mashiach, Mizmor 110 can, with GREAT CARE, also be read with the superimposition that David himself was hearing HaShem (G-d) saying to his (David's) son, the eventual Mashiach, who is also David's Master, by virtue of G-d's promises to him...
"Sit to my right, until I make your enemies your footstool."
However, even if we allow this superimposed idea, could it ever be said that David views his son, and descendant, the future anointed Mashiach, as Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh, "Adonai?" NO. NEVER. This could never be. David was a good Jewish Boy. Such a thing he would never think.
The very concept of the Mashiach, humanly and Jewishly speaking, implies the one with whom the buck stops. There is no higher human authority, or spokesman, as far as matters go between G-d and Man to whom one can appeal. That is why David could refer to the Mashiach as Adoni (my master).
"Adonai," on the other hand, expressed by the Tetragrammaton Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh, is the Name of the ONE and ONLY supreme G-d, Creator of Heaven and Earth. Yeshua is never once is called "Adonai," or "HaShem," just as Yud-Heh-Vav-Heh was never ever transliterated into a foreign word (like Jehovah) or placed into Greek vocabulary, as a "lo'azit" word.
And so, having now studied this matter with a Hebrew mind, if you had been standing there, when Yeshua popped His sh'eilah (question) to the P'rushim (Pharisees) asking...
"How then is the Mashiach called David's son, if David referred to him as "Lord?"
... You would have earned yourself all kinds of kudos, because you could have raised your hand and declared...
"Because the "Master" expected by King David was not only to be his physical descendant, but also David's Master, by virtue of this son's role and appointment by G-d as G-d's anointed agent -- the long awaited Mashiach, Ben David, Ben Elohim Cha'im (Son of the Living G-d)!"
Shabbat Shalom,
Uri Marcus
Jerusalem