Psalm 110: The most quoted psalm in the NT.

[rosends]

The challenge made by Jesus is as relevant today as it was two thousand years ago. He asked his Jewish audience, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?

What would your reply have been?

That's not really much of a question. In the Aramaic he might have been asking about any Jew's attitude towards the idea of an anointed person. If he asked about "what do you think of Jesus" I might answer "I don't".

As to a question about whose son he is, if I even knew who the guy was I might name his parents. If i knew who his parents are. Otherwise I would say "who knows, who cares."

 

[Redemptionsong]

That's not really much of a question. In the Aramaic he might have been asking about any Jew's attitude towards the idea of an anointed person. If he asked about "what do you think of Jesus" I might answer "I don't".

As to a question about whose son he is, if I even knew who the guy was I might name his parents. If i knew who his parents are. Otherwise I would say "who knows, who cares."

It's not a question about 'the idea of an anointed person' but about the one shepherd [Ezekiel 37:24-28] God promises to anoint as King over his people.

Where do you think this king comes from? Whose son is he?

 

[rosends]

It's not a question about 'the idea of an anointed person' but about the one shepherd [Ezekiel 37:24-28] God promises to anoint as King over his people.

Where do you think this king comes from? Whose son is he?

From the patrilineal tribe of Judah and the Davidic line through his father. He is the son of some guy. Some human guy.

 

[Redemptionsong]

From the patrilineal tribe of Judah and the Davidic line through his father. He is the son of some guy. Some human guy.

So your reply would have been exactly the same as those who heard Jesus speak. They said, The Son of David, and that is what you are saying as well. A human descendant of David.

What Jesus said in reply demonstrates that their response was a 'half truth'. The problem with having a human descendant being the Messiah is that it makes the Messiah a sinner.
Psalm 51:5. 'Behold, l was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.'

Given that all men in Adam die, it is fair to conclude that all men are sinners. 'The wages of sin is death'.

Yet, we know that the Messiah does not die, for in Ezekiel 37:25 it says, 'my servant David shall be their prince for ever'. So, if the Messiah does not die then he cannot be a sinner after Adam.

The issue now is to explain how the Jewish shepherd king is both a son of man (born to die) and the son of God (living forever) at the same time. As it says in Numbers 23:19, 'God is not a man'. Men do not live forever, only the sinless live forever, and only God is without iniquity [Deuteronomy 32:4].

 

[Harel13]

So your reply would have been exactly the same as those who heard Jesus speak. They said, The Son of David, and that is what you are saying as well. A human descendant of David.

Who would have thunk that a Jew today would answer the same way Jews would have answered 2000 years ago?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Who would have thunk that a Jew today would answer the same way Jews would have answered 2000 years ago?

Which makes the reply given by Jesus equally valid today.

 

[Harel13]

Which makes the reply given by Jesus equally valid today.

More like equally pointless.

 

[rosends]

So your reply would have been exactly the same as those who heard Jesus speak. They said, The Son of David, and that is what you are saying as well. A human descendant of David.

So I'm of a long tradition of people who are consistent and living within the same textual tradition. Cool

What Jesus said in reply demonstrates that their response was a 'half truth'. The problem with having a human descendant being the Messiah is that it makes the Messiah a sinner.
Psalm 51:5. 'Behold, l was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.'

Then Jesus didn't know what he was talking about. First, why would he have a problem with the fact that humans are sinners? That's built into our nature and the biblical text gives us daily and yearly methods of atonement to deal with that. Next, why would Jesus think that the role of king means "you can never have sinned"? And, of course, there is the fact that Jesus clearly, then, doesn't understand the verse in question. The verse (which is 51:7...in 51:5 he admits that he recognizes and remembers his own sin daily even though he has moved on from it) says that he was born with an evil inclination and through physicality which is what condemns mankind to sin. Sad that Jesus would misunderstand the text -- good thing the Jews are still here to correct his error.

Given that all men in Adam die, it is fair to conclude that all men are sinners. 'The wages of sin is death'.

Well, actually, not all men have "died" -- a couple ascended to heaven without what we think of as death. Also, since Adam's time, death has become part of human life (as a function of the shift in nature, not because of a personal sin, so if you bemoan that all men are mortal (apologies to Socrates) then you will have bigger problems with the Jewish messianic idea.

Yet, we know that the Messiah does not die, for in Ezekiel 37:25 it says, 'my servant David shall be their prince for ever'. So, if the Messiah does not die then he cannot be a sinner after Adam.

Strange...you accepted a few posts ago that Jesus' father wasn't named David, but that he was from the Davidic ancestry, and yet here, you assume that a singular person named David (which was not Jesus' name IIRC) will rule forever and not die. Also...Jesus died so, um, problem. But let's ignore that for the moment. The text is speaking about that same Davidic ancestry. The line of David will rule forever, not a singular guy named David.

The issue now is to explain how the Jewish shepherd king is both a son of man (born to die) and the son of God (living forever) at the same time. As it says in Numbers 23:19, 'God is not a man'. Men do not live forever, only the sinless live forever, and only God is without iniquity [Deuteronomy 32:4].

So here you wrap up all your confusion into an goofily elegant ball and wrap it with silly string. The Jewish king is to be a human, same as all the earlier kings. If you want to wade into the argument between Ramban and Rambam about the nature of humanity in the messianic era (whether ALL people will be immortal, including the messiah, or whether all people will be mortal, including the messianic king) you will need a time machine and a lot more learning.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So I'm of a long tradition of people who are consistent and living within the same textual tradition. Cool


Then Jesus didn't know what he was talking about. First, why would he have a problem with the fact that humans are sinners? That's built into our nature and the biblical text gives us daily and yearly methods of atonement to deal with that. Next, why would Jesus think that the role of king means "you can never have sinned"? And, of course, there is the fact that Jesus clearly, then, doesn't understand the verse in question. The verse (which is 51:7...in 51:5 he admits that he recognizes and remembers his own sin daily even though he has moved on from it) says that he was born with an evil inclination and through physicality which is what condemns mankind to sin. Sad that Jesus would misunderstand the text -- good thing the Jews are still here to correct his error.

Well, actually, not all men have "died" -- a couple ascended to heaven without what we think of as death. Also, since Adam's time, death has become part of human life (as a function of the shift in nature, not because of a personal sin, so if you bemoan that all men are mortal (apologies to Socrates) then you will have bigger problems with the Jewish messianic idea.

Strange...you accepted a few posts ago that Jesus' father wasn't named David, but that he was from the Davidic ancestry, and yet here, you assume that a singular person named David (which was not Jesus' name IIRC) will rule forever and not die. Also...Jesus died so, um, problem. But let's ignore that for the moment. The text is speaking about that same Davidic ancestry. The line of David will rule forever, not a singular guy named David.

So here you wrap up all your confusion into an goofily elegant ball and wrap it with silly string. The Jewish king is to be a human, same as all the earlier kings. If you want to wade into the argument between Ramban and Rambam about the nature of humanity in the messianic era (whether ALL people will be immortal, including the messiah, or whether all people will be mortal, including the messianic king) you will need a time machine and a lot more learning.

The verse used by Jesus to prove that the Messiah lives forever with God the Father is Psalm 110:1. The Jewish audience must have agreed that this psalm was not about Abraham, but about the shepherd king mentioned in the book of Ezekiel. It was widely understood that the only 'Lord' to king David, other than the LORD, would be God's Messiah.

Is it the royal line of David that runs forever, or is it an individual immortal Messiah at the end of the royal Davidic line? The scriptural evidence seems to point to an individual at the end of the line. Why else would Daniel [7:13] tell us about the coming of a man to the throne of God in heaven? Is this not the Suffering Servant being resurrected after death?

Psalm 22:30. 'A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.'

Matthew 1:1. 'The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham'.

If a Messiah of the line of David is mortal, as he would be, then the only way in which that mortal could become immortal is by resurrection (or translation). The same must be true for all the children of Israel.

How therefore does one gain eternal life, or get oneself resurrected?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hi BilliardsBall,
What is your take on Psalm 110? Do you read Hebrew?

Yeshua is on every "page" of Tanakh. My non-saved Jewish brethren have to eliminate most prophecies about Yeshua until they have perhaps three prophecies of Him left in all of Hebrew scripture!

My Hebrew is not as good as my Greek, but I didn't keep up much after Bar Mitzvah and took Greek in University.

 

[rosends]

The verse used by Jesus to prove that the Messiah lives forever with God the Father is Psalm 110:1. The Jewish audience must have agreed that this psalm was not about Abraham, but about the shepherd king mentioned in the book of Ezekiel. It was widely understood that the only 'Lord' to king David, other than the LORD, would be God's Messiah.

That's where your narrative becomes self serving. In your text, Jesus explains it as X. Your own text says the people must have agreed with X, therefore Jesus's explanation must be externally correct and your text must be valid. But I have presented all sorts of external information indicating that the people would NOT have agreed, so therefore the text fails and X was not the widespread reading, so Jesus would have been wrong.

Is it the royal line of David that runs forever, or is it an individual immortal Messiah at the end of the royal Davidic line?

That's the Ramban vs. the Rambam right there. Either way, though, it is a statement about the nature of all humans, not a unique attribute of the messianic king.

The scriptural evidence seems to point to an individual at the end of the line. Why else would Daniel [7:13] tell us about the coming of a man to the throne of God in heaven? Is this not the Suffering Servant being resurrected after death?

No, this is not the "suffering servant" because that refers to the nation. By the way, the text says וּמַלְכוּתֵ֖הּ דִּי־לָ֥א תִתְחַבַּֽל that the kingship, not the individual will never be removed. Since elsewhere the discussion is that the Davidic line will go on, this would only prove that the human will be part of a continuing line of kings from this dynasty.

If a Messiah of the line of David is mortal, as he would be, then the only way in which that mortal could become immortal is by resurrection (or translation). The same must be true for all the children of Israel.

No, people would become (according to the interpretation that there will be no more death) immortal by not dying (apologies to Woody Allen). The nature of people would change so people would no longer die. Those who had died would be resurrection. But the messiah wouldn't become the messiah after being resurrected, so "no."
In terms of "who" and "how" I can only give you resources that present their understanding of what might happen.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2312363/jewish/To-Live-and-Live-Again.htm

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yeshua is on every "page" of Tanakh. My non-saved Jewish brethren have to eliminate most prophecies about Yeshua until they have perhaps three prophecies of Him left in all of Hebrew scripture!

My Hebrew is not as good as my Greek, but I didn't keep up much after Bar Mitzvah and took Greek in University.

Alfred Edersheim did a survey of Tanakh passages that were Messianically applied and provides the following introduction to his listing of passages:
'The following list contains the passages in the Old Testament applied to the Messiah or to Messianic times in the most ancient Jewish writings. They amount in all to 456 thus distributed: 75 from the Penteteuch, 243 from the Prophets, and 138 from the Hagiographa, and supported by more than 558 separate quotations from Rabbinic writings. Despite all labour and care, it can scarcely be hoped that the list is quite complete, although it is hoped, no important passage has been omitted'.

If Edersheim could find this number of references in Rabbinic writings it seems mighty odd that Torah Jews (in recent times) have managed to reject so many in favour of alternative interpretations.

 

[Harel13]

If Edersheim could find this number of references in Rabbinic writings it seems mighty odd that Torah Jews (in recent times) have managed to reject so many in favour of alternative interpretations.

Messianically applied or Jesusianically applied? Big difference if you ask Jews.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Messianically applied or Jesusianically applied? Big difference if you ask Jews.

Edersheim says, ' The Rabbinic references might have been considerably increased, but it seemed useless to quote the same applications of a passage in many different books. Similarly, for the sake of space, only the most important Rabbinic quotations have been translated in extenso. The Rabbinic works from which quotations have been made are: the Targumim, the two Talmuds, and the most ancient Midrashim, but neither the Zohar (as the date of its composition is in dispute), nor any other Kabbalistic work, nor yet the younger Midrashim, nor, of course, the writings of later Rabbis. I have, however, frequently quoted from the well-known work Yalkut, because, although of comparatively late date, it is really, as its name implies, a collection and selection from more than fifty older and accredited writings, and adduces passages now not otherwise accessible to us. And l have the more readily availed myself of it, as l have been reluctantly forced to the conclusion that even the Midrashim preserved to us have occasionally been tampered with for controversial purposes.'

 

[Harel13]

Edersheim says, ' The Rabbinic references might have been considerably increased, but it seemed useless to quote the same applications of a passage in many different books. Similarly, for the sake of space, only the most important Rabbinic quotations have been translated in extenso. The Rabbinic works from which quotations have been made are: the Targumim, the two Talmuds, and the most ancient Midrashim, but neither the Zohar (as the date of its composition is in dispute), nor any other Kabbalistic work, nor yet the younger Midrashim, nor, of course, the writings of later Rabbis. I have, however, frequently quoted from the well-known work Yalkut, because, although of comparatively late date, it is really, as its name implies, a collection and selection from more than fifty older and accredited writings, and adduces passages now not otherwise accessible to us. And l have the more readily availed myself of it, as l have been reluctantly forced to the conclusion that even the Midrashim preserved to us have occasionally been tampered with for controversial purposes.'

So you have no idea to what he was referring to.

 

[rosends]

Edersheim says, ' The Rabbinic references might have been considerably increased, but it seemed useless to quote the same applications of a passage in many different books. Similarly, for the sake of space, only the most important Rabbinic quotations have been translated in extenso. The Rabbinic works from which quotations have been made are: the Targumim, the two Talmuds, and the most ancient Midrashim, but neither the Zohar (as the date of its composition is in dispute), nor any other Kabbalistic work, nor yet the younger Midrashim, nor, of course, the writings of later Rabbis. I have, however, frequently quoted from the well-known work Yalkut, because, although of comparatively late date, it is really, as its name implies, a collection and selection from more than fifty older and accredited writings, and adduces passages now not otherwise accessible to us. And l have the more readily availed myself of it, as l have been reluctantly forced to the conclusion that even the Midrashim preserved to us have occasionally been tampered with for controversial purposes.'

That doesn't, even a little, address what @Harel13 said. Why cut and paste it?

 

[Redemptionsong]

So you have no idea to what he was referring to.

I do possess the Babylonian Talmud in an English translation, so l do have some idea!

Are you about to suggest that these are not reliable sources for the views of Rabbis?

 

[Redemptionsong]

That doesn't, even a little, address what @Harel13 said. Why cut and paste it?

It was not a 'cut and paste'.

 

[rosends]

It was not a 'cut and paste'.

Really? Other than the words "Edersheim says" what did you write and what did you cut and paste from another site like, maybe this one?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Really? Other than the words "Edersheim says" what did you write and what did you cut and paste from another site like, maybe this one?

Do you no longer read books? I copied the words as l read them.