Can a Jew answer this?

[Brian2]

First, I want to say that I respect your point of view eventhough I don't agree with it.

The important detail is that verse in Hebrew in psalm 110 says "adonee" which is better translated as "my master". However, the author of the book of Matthew changes that. Instead of using the greek word for "master" (Strong's Greek: 1203. δεσπότης (despotés) -- lord, master) they use the word for the name of God (Strong's Greek: 2962. κύριος (kurios) -- lord, master). See below:

View attachment 46363
Notice that in the greek, it's the name of God (captial L, Lord) listed twice. Take a look at the actual Hebrew of Psalm 110:

View attachment 46369

Do you see how the author of Matthew changed the verse? Things like this cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the NT. The short episode in question was intended to show how the pharisee was not able to answer the question. But the question is based on a mistranslated verse in Psalms.

This is why I said: "It's a flawed conclusion based on a flawed translation." The flawed conclusion is: "The pharisee couldn't answer the question." A more likely conclusion is: If this episode actually occured, the authors of the NT changed the story to make it look good for Jesus and make it look bad for the the pharisee. By changing the words of the psalm, the authors of NT showed they were willing to sacrifice accuracy in favor of making Jesus look good.

If the episode occured, I expect the pharisee would have answered either that the psalm was being misquoted, or they would have answered that the Jewish Messiah is a King. A King is the master of the entire kingdom including David. The father-son relationship wouldn't change that. This is obvious if the psalm is quoted correctly using the words "my master", not "lord".

I see "master" and "lord" as synonyms and the capitalisation of the K in the Greek as out of respect for Jesus and not as a way of making Him into God. So I don't see the Gospel as misquoting.
But yes the Pharisee would be able to say that the Messiah is a King and so should be lord of David in that respect.
That would be the case only after David was not King and the Messiah became King however. David seems to be saying that the Messiah was his lord then, at the writing of the Psalm and I just noticed that if this lord is the Messiah it seems that there will be a time when He will be seated at God's right hand while God makes His enemies His footstool and then the Messiah will be coming to judge the earth.

 

[Brian2]

There is one other wrinkle -- Jews, when confronted with the 4 letter name of God do not pronounce it. Instead, a special construct was established, pronounced a-do-niy with the final vowel being pronounced as a long I sound (as in trY). That word, a-do-niy is not actually in the verse, but is just a way that we read the verse because we don't pronounce the 4 letter name (in fact, the vowels used when writing the 4 letter name are the ones from the word a-do-niy to remind us to say the substitute word). The other word in the verse which means "my master" is a-do-nee.

So you have two different pronunciations, and one of them isn't even really in the verse but is a substitute, and yet the translations want to equate the two.

In English the translations don't seem to me making 'lord' into a name for God by capitalising the L and if it is a capital K in the Greek then it would be out of respect for Jesus and not wanting the Hebrew to be making Him God. The whole things is not really about Jesus being God or not it is about whether the Psalm is Messianic. I have never seen this as showing Jesus to be God.

 

[Brian2]

Then why are you trolling for debate?

It's going to be a disagreement no matter what I say. If you want to call it a debate and say I am trolling for one that is fine and your judgement. I have said all I want to without starting to go in circles anyway I think so I'll stop here.

 

[rosends]

In English the translations don't seem to me making 'lord' into a name for God by capitalising the L and if it is a capital K in the Greek then it would be out of respect for Jesus and not wanting the Hebrew to be making Him God. The whole things is not really about Jesus being God or not it is about whether the Psalm is Messianic. I have never seen this as showing Jesus to be God.

It isn't a question of whether it is a name or not -- it is a matter of equating the two words. They are two very different words that can't be confused in the Hebrew but seem to be when the verse is translated.

 

[Brian2]

It isn't a question of whether it is a name or not -- it is a matter of equating the two words. They are two very different words that can't be confused in the Hebrew but seem to be when the verse is translated.

Psalm 110:1 The LORD said to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."
There is an attempts to distinguish the words in most translations if the above selection is any indication.

 

[rosends]

Psalm 110:1 The LORD said to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."
There is an attempts to distinguish the words in most translations if the above selection is any indication.

So then why capitalize the second instance? Using the same word in English in each case is already misleading. Adding a capital L just muddies the water further.

 

[Brian2]

So then why capitalize the second instance? Using the same word in English in each case is already misleading. Adding a capital L just muddies the water further.

You ask a question I cannot answer without looking into the mind of the translators.
First I would point out that the same work is used in the Hebrew scriptures for both and it seems it is out of respect for the Name of God and the Jews that most translators have not translated the Name.
The English does distinguish between the Name and the word lord however and you are right that a capital letter can be confusing for the second lord in the verse.
Christians see the Psalm as Messianic and so Christian translators may use a capital L for that reason, believing Jesus is the Lord of all now. This of course can suggest to some that He is also God, but I doubt that most Christians have seen the verse in that light and Jesus does not seem to be using the verse with that intention, I think.
Even in the JW translation (The New World Translation) the second L is capital and they do not see Jesus as God.
So anyway the capital L does seem to be a doctrinal translation even if it does not point to Jesus being God imo.
Nevertheless it is interesting that the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament does say that even the word, even when applied usually to men or angels, is applied to God is various places, particularly in the Psalms. Some examples are given Ex 34:23,Deut 10:17, Psalm 136:3, Ps:8:1.
I guess that means there is a possibility that Ps 110:1 is calling the Messiah God.
And then we get to the word for "judge" later in the Psalm as applying to God or God's judgement and that can make one pause since the word is applied to the Messiah in Psalm 110.
And I don't know if you see the Psalm as Messianic these days or not but plenty of Jews of the past have.
And that it is the second 'lord' who is the one judging can be seen from He being spoken of as at the right hand in verse 5. And of course this agrees with Isa 63 and Psalm 2 about the Messiah coming to judge the earth.
What is interesting to me about the Psalm is that this Messiah is seen as sitting at God's right hand for a time before coming to judge the earth imo and He is also seen as a Priest who no doubt does the duties of a priest. (sacrifice, intercession etc)

 

[rosends]

First I would point out that the same work is used in the Hebrew scriptures for both and it seems it is out of respect for the Name of God and the Jews that most translators have not translated the Name.

In the Hebrew scriptures, the two words are quite distinct in spelling and appearance.

I guess that means there is a possibility that Ps 110:1 is calling the Messiah God.

A possibility according to non-Jewish interpretation and reliance on the mistranslation.

And then we get to the word for "judge" later in the Psalm as applying to God or God's judgement and that can make one pause since the word is applied to the Messiah in Psalm 110.

No, the word is applied to God later on -- the verse before identifies the subject as God (a-do-niy) and then says "HE executes judgment."

He is also seen as a Priest who no doubt does the duties of a priest. (sacrifice, intercession etc)

But the Jewish messianic idea is clear in that the messiah is not a priest, nor an intercessor. So all of this starts with a mistranslation and an alien concept fo the messiah.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So then why capitalize the second instance? Using the same word in English in each case is already misleading. Adding a capital L just muddies the water further.

Given its Evangelical Christian roots, it is at least mildly interesting that the NIV renders the verse ...

Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."​

Also, Young's Literal Translation (YLT) reads:

A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'​

I prefer Robert Alter's rendering:

The Lord's utterance to my master: "Sit at My right hand till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."​

He then notes:

1. to my master. Although many translations render this as "my Lord" with a capital L, the Hebrew clearly shows 'adoni, with a first-person singular suffix, whereas the noun at the beginning of verse 5 reads 'adonai, showing the plural suffix invariably used when the noun 'adon is a designation for God. This is a royal psalm, and the speaker, by referring to the king as his master, would appear to be the court poet.​

 

[rosends]

Given its Evangelical Christian roots, it is at least mildly interesting the the NIV renders the verse ...

Of David. A psalm. The LORD says to my lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."​

Also, Young's Literal Translation (YLT) reads:

A Psalm of David. The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'​

I prefer Robert Alter's rendering:

The Lord's utterance to my master: "Sit at My right hand till I make your enemies a footstool for your feet."​

He then notes:

1. to my master. Although many translations render this as "my Lord" with a capital L, the Hebrew clearly shows 'adoni, with a first-person singular suffix, whereas the noun at the beginning of verse 5 reads 'adonai, showing the plural suffix invariably used when the noun 'adon is a designation for God. This is a royal psalm, and the speaker, by referring to the king as his master, would appear to be the court poet.​

Thanks -- that's a step in the right direction.

 

[Brian2]

But the Jewish messianic idea is clear in that the messiah is not a priest, nor an intercessor. So all of this starts with a mistranslation and an alien concept fo the messiah.

The way I see the Psalm 110:1 is God speaking to the Messiah (the lord) and the way I see Psalm 110:5 is God strengthening and fighting for the Messiah.
The Messiah is the one who is going to do the work of judging with the judgement of God however.
Capitalising the second lord of verse 1 certainly is something that can confuse people about the meaning and could be seen as a mistranslation but I don't see it as an attempt to mislead or prove that the Messiah is God, which it does not even with a capitalised L.
The idea of the Messiah being a priest may be alien in Judaism today but it has been expressed in the past.

 

[rosends]

The idea of the Messiah being a priest may be alien in Judaism today but it has been expressed in the past.

Maybe the way you see it.