The LORD saith unto my lord: 'Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.'
Welcome to Nakdimon's Page
The
psalm 110 lecture of rabbi Tovia Singer�s �Let�s get Biblical� series is
not about all of Psalm 110 but about the first verse. It is also one of the
easiest to refute, simply because it is abundantly clear that David is the
speaker here and speaks of the Messiah and of no one else. This is one of the
lectures where I really wanted to be in the audience asking the very same
question that was asked him. Namely, that there is more to the subject of this
chapter than one might think. Of course he would tell me then that it was
obvious from my question that I didn�t read or understand a word of Hebrew. If
you didn�t know already, this is the standard anti-missionary scare tactic.
They will challenge you on the Hebrew! Although the rabbi is right about one
thing, which is that this verse doesn�t prove that the Messiah is God. But it
does affirm the view that the Messiah was to be more than human. Because who can
be more than king David? King David is the greatest king ever known to mankind.
He was the king of kings. And yet he speaks here of someone as �his lord/master�.
There is not a king that can come forth from the Gentiles, nor from the Jewish
people, that could excel David. All the kings that followed him, were always
compared to him in their righteousness. As the rabbi said it correctly �he was
their measuring rod�.
You
might say �this isn�t King David speaking, but the Levites for whom the
Psalms were written to sing in the Temple�, just as the rabbi claims, hereby
following the reading of the Ramban (aka Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman or Nachmanides).
This is what the Ramban wrote (emphasis mine)
King David was the composer who wrote the Psalms with
the aid of the holy spirit. He composed them for the purpose of having them sung
before the altar of God. He himself did not sing them, nor was he permitted to
do so, for that function was forbidden to him by law of the Torah. (Deuteronomy
18:6-7) Instead, he gave the Psalms to the Levites, so that they would sing them.
This is clearly written in the book of I Chronicles 16:7 Therefore, King David
perforce expressed the psalm in the language appropriate for utterance by the
Levites. Thus, if King David had said; "The Eternal said to me", the
Levites repeating these words would be uttering falsehood. Instead,
it is proper for the Levite to say in the Temple: "The Eternal saith unto
my lord: (that is to King David) Sit thou at My right hand." The purport of
the term 'sitting' is to state that the Creator, blessed be He, will protect him
during his lifetime and that He will save him and cause him to prevail over his
enemies. So it was, for he lifted up his spear against eight hundred, whom he
slew at one time. This is the right hand of God.
Is this
reading actually valid? Let�s examine the text:
This is
how rabbi Singer�s argument goes: This is a verse speaking about king David,
who wrote it for the Levi�im (Levites) to sing in the Temple. And because he
wrote it for them to sing in the Temple it was necessary for him to write it
from their perspective, because would he write it from his perspective and said
�the LORD said to me� and the Levi�im would say it likewise, then they
would be lying. So that�s why he wrote it from their perspective and
therefore had to write �the LORD said to my lord� referring to king David
and then they would be truthful. (9:00)
Again,
we ask the question: Is this a valid reading? Let�s look at the validity of
this claim:
It
starts out with
(L�David
mizmor) which means �a psalm of David�. It can also mean �a psalm for/to
David�. This is actually subject of dispute. The more likely form is the
former, however, as mentioned, it can also mean the latter. The first claim is
that it was exclusively written for the Levi�im to sing in the Temple. Well,
the common phrase "lam'natseach" [for the
leader], meaning the
leader of the worship, is completely absent here.
We find it in a lot of Psalms. We find it in Psalm 51 through
65, for example. The
second claim is that this is written from the perspective of the Levi�im. But
I couldn�t find one instance where David did this. In fact, he had a lot of
Psalms where he could have used this method of writing. Let�s take the most
striking example of all the Psalms: Psalm 51. This is a Psalm David wrote after
he had sinned greatly and taken Batsheva, the wife of the Hittite Uriah, whom he
murdered. He there goes all out to confess to God and what does he write?
This is
beyond any doubt a Psalm written for the Levi�im to utter in the Temple. But
what does king David do next? You would think that, if the rabbis were right, he
would go on to write from the perspective of the Levites, right? Not so! He then
goes on to speak from his own perspective and not from the perspective of
the Levi�im. So according to the reasoning of rabbi Singer and the Ramban, the
Levi�im would be lying if they uttered this Psalm in the Temple, because
it didn�t happen to them, but to someone else, and therefore they couldn�t
sing this as if it happened to them. That would be misleading. But this is not
at all implied by the psalmist and this never occurred to him even once,
otherwise he would have written this in the third person. Notice the expression
in verse 16:
Where is
the perspective of the Levi�im when it is needed the most? How about Psalm 59?
Let�s look at how David writes there and never considers the perspective of
the Levi�im:
1 For the
Leader; Al-tashheth. [A Psalm] of David; Michtam; when Saul sent, and they
watched the house to kill him. 2 Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God; set me
on high from them that rise up against me. 3 Deliver me from the workers of
iniquity, and save me from the men of blood. 4 For, lo, they lie in wait for my
soul; the impudent gather themselves together against me; not for my
transgression, nor for my sin, O LORD.
Well, do
you see David writing from the perspective of the Levi�im? I certainly
don�t! And we can�t imagine the Levi�im singing these Psalms, saying
�Deliver him from his enemies� or anything of that kind. So it�s obvious
that David never considered their perspective in the first place. And where does
this leave the charge of deceit made by rabbi Tovia Singer? Absolutely nowhere!
David wrote this Psalm, not for the Levi�im to sing in the Temple referring to
him, but what God said about the Messiah.
Then
there is of course the charge of the New Testament account that the Messiah
raises this question to the Pharisees and says to them �if he is supposed to
be the son of David, then how come David calls him �lord�?� According to
rabbi Tovia Singer this is an unlikely event because the people who know a
little Hebrew would point Yeshua to the fact that the two �lords� aren�t
the same. But is that the point Yeshua wanted to make? That both �lords� in
that psalm are the same and therefore the Messiah is God? Not at all! All he was
trying to tell the people is exactly what he said there; how come that David,
the greatest of kings in the history of all of Israel, calls the Messiah, who is
supposed to be his son by many generations, his lord?
So
whether the first lord and the second lord are or aren�t the same has never
been the question. The question was if the Messiah is actually king David�s
lord, then what does this tell us about the Messiah? So it is clearly
demonstrated that rabbi Tovia Singer is totally
wrong in his analysis and wrongly points us to the Ramban. But because it
is the Ramban, the rabbi takes his analysis as the absolute truth and doesn�t
ask any questions. If he would have been half as critical towards the commentary
of the Ramban as he was to the New Testament, he would have seen that this
analysis is, sad but true, wrong and therefore their conclusion is false. Apart
from HaShem, it is the Messiah and the Messiah only who is David�s lord. Who
else fits the bill?