Why Psalm 110 Terrifies Modern Judaism
Christian Chronicles | 24 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRDxy6hFLE
This is the Classic Christian challenge, simply taking note of what's in the Psalm.
King David is talking of the Messias as of "my lord" ... the argument isn't that "LORD" and "lord" are the same word in Hebrew, though it becomes so back when reading the tetragrammaton as "Adonai" (now, for some reason, they prefer "HaShem"). The argument is that whoever King David was talking about was not King David and not just simply any descendant who needed to see David as lord, since father or ancestor. This point is missed in the Jewish response I just read.
That person is by God the most High, by the LORD, invited to sit at His right hand.
That person is also a priest, namely the same type as Melchizedek was. And that forever.
Each of these is more or less explained by Jews for Judaism, in the link below, written or compiled by Bentzion Kravitz:
Psalm 110 - A Jewish Perspective
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/psalm-110-a-jewish-perspective
King David is, they say, putting words into the mouths of Levites, to sing about him when he has the temple consecrated. So ... wait, is each Levite singing about King David or King Solomon as "my lord"? Why aren't they unitedly singing of King David as "our lord" if King David meant this to be words in the mouth of Levites, not said in his own person?
This also has the weakness that the temple actually was consecrated by David's son Solomon.
The seat at the right hand is not in some heavenly sphere, the right hand simply means protection, specifically military such.
And Melchizedec was "Cohen" insofar as he was King, not an actual priestly function.
Now, it is true that "Cohen" is used of King David's sons II Kings/Samuel 8. It's also true that King David once behaved like a Cohen, by eating of the breads of presence, and it's not improbable that the Temple fixed the illegality by an adoption, making King David an Aaronite by adoption. However, Catholic commentary tends to accept the Jewish explanation that this means some kind of peace time officers, like of the palace, rather than strictly temple functions. We see this kind of mingling (as per my suggestion) of Aaronite and Davidic later on too, since Mary and Joseph were of the house of David, but Mary's cousin was the wife of a Cohen (strict Aaronitic sense).
In sum, the psalm refers to King David as lord of Levites (plural), protected by God, holding office (not a priestly one) in Jerusalem.
Here is where this breaks down.
If David was putting words into the mouths of plural Levites, and the word is about himself, why is he "my lord" and not "our lord"?
If sit at my right hand is no more than "be secure in my protection" why is Daniel seeing a heavenly vision? Here:
I beheld therefore in the vision of the night, and lo, one like the son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and he came even to the Ancient of days: and they presented him before him And he gave him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes and tongues shall serve him: his power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away: and his kingdom that shall not be destroyed
[Daniel 7:13-14]
As we are at the wording of David in the psalm, how many nations did king David judge through Israel?
I only recall Philistines. The Amalecites were already killed off by Saul.
He shall judge among nations, he shall fill ruins: he shall crush the heads in the land of the many
[Psalms 109:6]
Seems more like Daniel 7 than King David.
Now, suppose King David were "Cohen like Melchizedec" simply by ruling from Jerusalem, there are two problems.
First, Melchizedec as ruler of Jerusalem or Salem is called, specifically Melech. He is called Cohen "of God the Most High" as if it were a priestly title, and in connection with an oblation of bread and wine, which can be seen as a kind of sacrifice, leading up to a blessing, another priestly act:
For from the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation: for my name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord of hosts
[Malachias (Malachi) 1:11]
If Catholicism is true, Holy Mass fulfills both Ps 109 and Malachias 1.
But more, whoever King David is talking about is this kind of Cohen like Melchizedec "for ever" or "le Olam" .... here is where Bentzion Kravitz gets very weak:
Therefore, the term priest as in “priest of G-d, the most high” in Psalm 110:14 can also refer to a leader.
That David would be a “priest forever after the manner of Melchizedek.” means that the privilege of being ruler of Jerusalem would always remain to David and his descendants forever.
“To David and his offspring, forever” Psalm 18:51
The sons of King David were not designated as priests of the most High, but if they actually could be so designated, one of them was a prophet. They were also not ruling Jerusalem when II Kings / Samuel 8 was about.
And the "forever" in Psalm 18 compounds with the difficulty for Judaism. Sons of David have not been ruling Jerusalem as kings since Nebuchadnezzar came and then once more under Serubbabel. Herod wasn't one. Titus wasn't one. Constantine wasn't one, nor even his mother St. Helen. Heraclius wasn't one and his enemy Chosroës II wasn't one. Omar wasn't one. Mehmed VI wasn't one, nor his older brother Mehmed V. Nor George V, nor Ben Gurion.
If physical or political rule of earthly Jerusalem is meant, the throne "forever" has stood empty, not for 2000 years, but for even longer. This parallels the disingenuous interpretation of Genesis 49:10. And as we there deal with Judah, not king David, and as there is an actual term, that political sovereignty was taken out of the hands of the Jews after Herod the Great died, so the expectation of nations has already come.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pentecost Thursday
28.V.2026
No comments:
Post a Comment