• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Psalm 110: The most quoted psalm in the NT.

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
It's important because it may make the difference between being deceived by a false Messiah and being saved by the true Messiah!
So Topeka is out of the running?

Micah 5:2 tells us where the Messiah will be born.
Really?

Micah 5.2 - Robert Alter
Therefore shall He give them over
till the time the woman in labor bears her child,​
and the rest of his brothers shall come back
with the Israelites.​

Perhaps you were referring to 5:1, but no matter ...

Not all opinions are created equal.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
There is certainly, but my point was that someone making an argument about a Hebrew text (as the other poster was) should be able to understand the Hebrew.

Another of the classical commentators makes allusion to the same argument (though without the same specifics)
Psalms 110:1
If Abraham is your 'master', then doesn't it strike you as odd that Abraham should have paid a tithe to Melchizedek? Was Melchizedek not a 'master' to Abraham?
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
There are more NT references to Psalm 110 than to any other psalm.

Psalm 110:1-4 (KJV)
‘The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.’

(JPS 1985)
‘The LORD said to my lord,
“Sit at My right hand
while I make your enemies your footstool.”
The LORD will stretch forth from Zion your mighty scepter;
hold sway over your enemies!
Your people come forward willingly on your day
of battle.
In majestic holiness, from the womb,
from the dawn, yours was the dew of youth.
The LORD has sworn and will not relent,
You are a priest forever, a rightful king by My decree.”

Reference to Psalm 110 is made by Jesus in Matthew’s Gospel.
Matthew 22:41-46:
‘While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Saying, What think ye of Christ? Whose son was he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
The LORD saith unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.’

Matthew 26:64
‘Jesus saith unto him [the high priest], Thou hast said [‘whether thou be the Christ’]: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.’

Matthew 28:18
‘And Jesus came and spake unto them [the eleven disciples, in Galilee, after Jesus’ resurrection], saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.’

Mark 12:35-37
‘And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
David therefore himself called him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.’

Luke 20:41-44
‘And he [Jesus] said unto them, How say they that Christ is David’s son?
And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
David therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son?’

Luke 24:50,51
‘And he led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.
And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.’

Acts 2:33,34,35.
‘Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Until I make thy foes thy footstool.’

Acts 3:21
‘Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.’

Acts 7:56
‘And [Stephen] said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.’

1 Corinthians 15:25
‘For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.’

Ephesians 1:20-22
‘Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,
Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named. Not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church,’

Philippians 2:7-9
‘He made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:’

Hebrews 1:3-13
[Verse 13]‘But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?’

Hebrews 5:6
‘As he saith in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.’

Hebrews 7:17
‘For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.’

Hebrews 10:12,13
‘But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.’

1 Peter 3:22
‘Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.’

It’s interesting to note that the scribes and Pharisees who listened to Jesus (Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 20) never questioned the authorship of Psalm 110. There was no doubt in their minds that Psalm 110 was a psalm of David. Indeed, most Bibles contain a title ‘A Psalm of David’ in accordance with tradition. The Psalm is also said to have an historical connection to 2 Samuel 7.

So, if David is the true author of Psalm 110, as Jesus states, then David must have had a 'Lord' and a 'LORD', and one Lord is to be distinguished from the other LORD who speaks with him.

Should this be a concern for Torah Jews?
Yes, I believe so, because there is a huge difference between belief in a Messiah who is fully man, and belief in a Messiah who is both fully man and fully God. As Jesus argues, if the Messiah is from earth but not from heaven, then he is not the Christ of scripture! Where do Torah Jews expect their Messiah to come from?

Other important conclusions can be drawn from this scripture. For those of the Bahai faith, it is clear that the Son of man is to be received into heaven until the ‘time of restitution of all things’. The claim that the Messiah (or equivalent) has already returned does not correspond with this description of the ‘restitution of all things’ [see Acts 3:21].

For Muslims, who believe that Allah has no equal, there is a distinct issue of authority. For, according to the scriptures, all authority in heaven and earth is handed to Jesus Christ. His name is exalted above every other name.

Does Psalm 110 convince you that Christ is Lord?
Yes, but Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. There were a number of rigid expectations about the Messiah that the Jews stumbled over. Jesus knew that he could never fulfill those false expectations. But he did allow the expectations of a spiritual deliverer among his disciples.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
So Topeka is out of the running?


Really?

Micah 5.2 - Robert Alter
Therefore shall He give them over
till the time the woman in labor bears her child,​
and the rest of his brothers shall come back
with the Israelites.​

Perhaps you were referring to 5:1, but no matter ...


Not all opinions are created equal.
Micah 5:2 in the KJV!
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
If Abraham is your 'master', then doesn't it strike you as odd that Abraham should have paid a tithe to Melchizedek? Was Melchizedek not a 'master' to Abraham?
Who said he was "my" anything? I didn't write the Psalm.
Can you show me where in Psalm 110 you see the word "tithe"?
Maybe it would be easier for you if, along with inserting capital letters, you also inserted quotation marks, so it would be more like "The LORD said to 'My Master',"
then you would see "My Master" as a title and not a simple statement and recognize that this is the title by which Abraham was called in Gen 23:6.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Yes, but Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah. There were a number of rigid expectations about the Mesiah that the Jews stumbled over. Jesus knew that he could never fulfill those false expectations. But he did allow the expectations of a spiritual deliverer among his disciples.

Jesus is, lMO, the Jewish Messiah, and was recognised as such by Peter [John 6:69]. Just because many Jews rejected Jesus as the one anointed by God to be Messiah does not mean that it will not be Jesus returning as King of Kings to bring vengeance on his enemies [Zechariah 12:9,10].
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
Who said he was "my" anything? I didn't write the Psalm.
Can you show me where in Psalm 110 you see the word "tithe"?
Maybe it would be easier for you if, along with inserting capital letters, you also inserted quotation marks, so it would be more like "The LORD said to 'My Master',"
then you would see "My Master" as a title and not a simple statement and recognize that this is the title by which Abraham was called in Gen 23:6.
Genesis 14:20. Abraham pays a tithe to Melchizedek of all the spoils of war. This shows that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
It's important because it may make the difference between being deceived by a false Messiah and being saved by the true Messiah!

Micah 5:2 tells us where the Messiah will be born. Since that birth has now taken place, it has become a prophecy 'fulfilled'. We should now be looking forward to the return of the Messiah from heaven.

IMO.
It says he'll come forth from there. Not that he'll be born there.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I have no reason to disbelieve the words of scripture, and in the three synoptic Gospels it is recorded that Jesus used Psalm 110, knowing that David was its author. It is also noteworthy that none of his Jewish audience question the authorship of the Psalm.

If you check out the OP, you'll see these passages quoted.

Irrelevant.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Jesus is, lMO, the Jewish Messiah, and was recognised as such by Peter [John 6:69]. Just because many Jews rejected Jesus as the one anointed by God to be Messiah does not mean that it will not be Jesus returning as King of Kings to bring vengeance on his enemies [Zechariah 12:9,10].
Vengeance is for emotionally immature animalistic beings.

Yes, Jesus allowed Peter and his followers to believe in him as the spiritual deliverer which he was. But his kingdom was/is spiritual, not material or nationalistic Israel.

Jesus left without fulfilling a number of rigid expectations. In Judaism the expected Messiah wasn't supposed to die for sins and leave for 2000 years.

But the problem wasn't Jesus, the problem was the erroneous expectations of the form and function. The Jewish Messiah is still missing.

Jesus didn't publicly preach that he was the Jewish Messiah. He was cryptic, vague and even evasive when questioned about his identity.


Pilate went back into the Praetorium, summoned Jesus, and asked Him, “Are You the King of the Jews?”34“Are you saying this on your own,” Jesus asked, “or did others tell you about Me?35“Am I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests handed You over to me. What have You done?”36Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, My servants would fight to prevent My arrest by the Jews. But now My kingdom is not of this realm.”37Then You are a king!” Pilate said.

“You say that I am a king,” Jesus answered. “For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to My voice.”
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Genesis 14:20. Abraham pays a tithe to Melchizedek of all the spoils of war. This shows that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.
You have two potential problems here:
1. According to your reading, that Abe gave stuff to Malkitzedek, you jump to the conclusion that therefore Malkitzedek was "greater" than Abe. But that's a false conclusion -- the Torah commands us to give a tenth to priests, but that doesn't make them greater, just in need to charity because they don't get their own possessions.
2. You are inserting Abe into the verse where the text doesn't list him. In fact, the simple reading of the text has (from the preceding verse)

He blessed him, saying,
“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.

And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your foes into your hand.”And he gave him a tenth of everything.

---------
So if the subject is Malkitzedek addressing Abe, why insert "Abe" and say he did the giving back? The simple reading is that Malkitzedek gave a tenth to Abe. Check out the Chizkuni who references the Talmud (Nedarim 32b) Genesis 14:19-20
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Genesis 14:20. Abraham pays a tithe to Melchizedek of all the spoils of war. This shows that Melchizedek was greater than Abraham.
In my theology Melchizedek was an incarnate Son of God, a visible representative of God on earth. He established the agreement with Abraham with the idea that his descendants Israel would be the chosen host for the Son of God on earth. The Father fragment that indwelt Melchizedek was the same one that Jesus had.

By the times of the writing of the Old Testament they no longer believed in the mysterious appearance and disappearance of Melchizedek as one coming from heaven.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
It says he'll come forth from there. Not that he'll be born there.
It names Bethlehem as his town of origin. Jesse was born there, David was born there, so why is it so difficult to imagine that the Messiah, of the house of David, will be born there? Why else would a prophet include this passage?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I have no reason to disbelieve the words of scripture, and in the three synoptic Gospels it is recorded that Jesus used Psalm 110, knowing that David was its author. It is also noteworthy that none of his Jewish audience question the authorship of the Psalm.

If you check out the OP, you'll see these passages quoted.

K
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
You have two potential problems here:
1. According to your reading, that Abe gave stuff to Malkitzedek, you jump to the conclusion that therefore Malkitzedek was "greater" than Abe. But that's a false conclusion -- the Torah commands us to give a tenth to priests, but that doesn't make them greater, just in need to charity because they don't get their own possessions.
2. You are inserting Abe into the verse where the text doesn't list him. In fact, the simple reading of the text has (from the preceding verse)

He blessed him, saying,
“Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
Creator of heaven and earth.

And blessed be God Most High,
Who has delivered your foes into your hand.”And he gave him a tenth of everything.

---------
So if the subject is Malkitzedek addressing Abe, why insert "Abe" and say he did the giving back? The simple reading is that Malkitzedek gave a tenth to Abe. Check out the Chizkuni who references the Talmud (Nedarim 32b) Genesis 14:19-20
Maybe you should check out the verses in Hebrews 7:4-7.
'Now consider how great this man [Melchizedek] was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of his spoils.
And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood, have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law, that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham:
But he whose descent is not counted from them receive tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
And without all contradiction the less [Abraham] is blessed of the better [Melchizedek].'
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
In my theology Melchizedek was an incarnate Son of God, a visible representative of God on earth. He established the agreement with Abraham with the idea that his descendants Israel would be the chosen host for the Son of God on earth. The Father fragment that indwelt Melchizedek was the same one that Jesus had.

By the times of the writing of the Old Testament they no longer believed in the mysterious appearance and disappearance of Melchizedek as one coming from heaven.
The writer of the book of Hebrews could only draw on OT material, yet he says of Melchizedek, 'Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.' [Hebrews 7:3]
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
It names Bethlehem as his town of origin. Jesse was born there, David was born there, so why is it so difficult to imagine that the Messiah, of the house of David, will be born there? Why else would a prophet include this passage?
I didn't say it was difficult to imagine. Just that it's not a necessity as you keep attempting to push.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Maybe you should check out the verses in Hebrews 7:4-7.
Next you'll quote from Harry Potter. Why should I check out verses from text that I dismiss as useless?

Instead of quoting from an irrelevant book, why not deal with the issues I raised specifically from the words of the Hebrew texts which you referenced?
 
Top