Tovia Singer's Deceptive take on Psalm 110...Noahide pt 6

The Neo Pharisee, Tovia Singer has employed a very deceptive tactic in his all out assault on Christianity. He uses his mastery of the Hebrew language, which is indeed the language of the original scripture, to accuse early Christian teachers of distorting the texts of the Hebrew Bible, in order to cast doubt on long held Christian teaching on Jesus’s fulfillment of Messianic scripture.

Obviously most Christians do not speak Hebrew, and though they may quote traditionally Messianic verses such as Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 and Psalm 110, they couldn’t answer a when challenged to debate the actual Hebrew. In this way Singer has seriously undermined the faith of many, and openly calls for a defection from faith in Jesus Christ.

In his many lectures and sermons, the non Hebrew speaker is expected to sit by as Singer ‘demolishes’ the messianic verses which he claims Christians distorted to validate Jesus.

My concerns about this man and the work He is doing to attack and undermine the faith of so many, have led me to find resources, and answers to his many charges. I have found some excellent and irrefutable arguments put forth by Hebrew speaking Christians, Who have answered Singer’s challenges.

We will look at a few of the boldest claims, and where I cannot answer adequately, (I do not speak Hebrew, but I do believe the Bible), I will point you to those who do.

The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.( Psalm 110:1)

This is the most repeated Old Testament passage in all of the New testament, nd from the beginning has been pointed to as being a Messianic prophecy pointing to Jesus. Jiesus himself challenged the Pharisees on it, in the last week of his earthly life,

While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is 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 said 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 21:41-46)

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.

L’David, mizmor: N’um Yahweh l’adoni, shev limini; ad-asit oyveycha, hadom l’ragleicha1A Psalm of David. The LORD saith unto my lord: ‘Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’

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: Hatsileini midamim, Elohim 16Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God….

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?

What then do we make of rabbi Tovia Singer’s claims? They are totally untrue!

Seriously people, Keep Calm and Let's Roll. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Mark 12:37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

It's not that complicated then. Experts... what don't they know? They've got it all worked out.

Meanwhile, regular normal people who raise families know exactly who's in charge:

In Isaac is Abraham's seed called, but what happened? It's like that scene in MIB, "We at the FBI do not have a sense of humor that we are aware of."

It's like that. No levity. Stuck in the mire. Time for a Mighty Rescue!!

Exo 3
7. And the Lord said, I have surely seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and have heard their cry because of their taskmasters; for I know their sorrows:
8. And I have come down to save them from the hand of the Egyptians, and to bring them out of that land to a good and large land, to a land flowing with milk and honey; to the place of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites:
9. And therefore, behold, the cry of the people of Israel has come to me; and I have also seen the oppression with which the Egyptians oppress them:

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...

Join in the Levity, because there's *always* a song to sing.

Such a feelin's comin' over me
There is wonder in 'most every thing I see
Not a cloud in the sky, got the sun in my eyes
And I won't be surprised if it's a dream

Top of the World

King David the expert fiddler really knew how to play with his hands...

Here is the Temple
With its porch very high.
When I open the doors
All the Yidden wave "Hi!".

Halloween -- good time to round up the usual suspects, to rattle all the denizens of the crypt.

Something in the wind has learned my name...

Ezekiel 37

1. The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the wind of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones:
2. And he led me around among them; and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, behold, they were very dry:
3. And he said to me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord God, you know:
4. And he said to me, Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O you dry bones, hear the word of the Lord:
5. Thus says the Lord God to these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live:
6. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord:

The question was if the Messiah is actually king David’s lord, then what does this tell us about the Messiah?

That he wears the pants in the family. Carharrt. Naturally.

And don't forget --

If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.

It's not complicated!

Well since the onesies didn't generate any replies, here's the more serious answer to the drama about how David could call his [Messiah] son lord/master.

The very special son of David has a mother as well as a father. Rachel is the "mother of all Israel", and she is famous (famous!) for her mercy. Why if it weren't for Rachel's mercy, good luck getting out of bondage. She had and has God's ear on that matter. An inside track. The INTEL inside, her unfailing love for her family even though they can't stop arguing with each other, trying to one-up the other.

David was born where Rachel died on the way to Ephrath (fruition), and was buried in an isolated grave, crying for her children. People assume that the passage in the NT about the slaughter of little children and babies is about children and babies. Well it is, but some claim it never happened. Yet what happened there is at minimum as historically valid as Rachel's tears, and her mercy that reduced the Babylonian exile down to only 70 years because she "gave up the codes".

Those wicked Herods were Edomite converts to Judaism yet they had no mercy. Rachel's own children were not... merciful; they were dead souls. Any wonder why she cried her eyes out?

Back to the son of David and how he is the man, the master such that David could say that... Both his mother and father (Rachel and David) come out of Bethlehem. A double dose of mercy, not just from one side. Both of the same "house" (school of thought, character of mercy).

When the people addressed Jesus as the son of David, it was in tandem with their crying out, "Have mercy on us".

King David was the masculine embodiment of mercy, the "final verdict" of the Sanhedrin because David could see something about the accused that nobody else saw. David used his magnifying glass to search for something good. The usual suspects with no mercy channel their inner Balaam, convinced that they are doing God's work. The dark side clamps down tight.

A classic example of David's mercy is of course in the account of the angry, emotionally ravaged Benjamite named Shimei, who was all in for Team Saul. King David could have had him executed for his despicable actions and words, but he let it go. Because you never know...

Mordecai the Jew, a descendant of Shimei.

How to recognize the son of David -- like father like son, going about his father's business, because that's just how he rolls. The common people recognized the son of David for his great mercy.

Add Rachel the mother of all Israel into the line up, and David's son has a wow factor that David saw was completely off the charts.

Seeing is believing.

Explains why religious teachers have got it all worked out to explain that the Messiah really isn't a descendant of David through his father David, y to y to y. Remove the y and nobody asks why, they just pass down the failed consensus teachings and here we are.

And what are Jews doing believing what Christians claim is actual doctrine in the NT? Might as well believe in a trinity because that's what Christians *say* is taught in the Torah. Walls of books "prove" it, after all. Or reject the Torah because of what various religions claim it teaches.

Logic fail. SMH.

Psalm 110? That's the one about the "order" of Melchizedek, which was his manner of conducting business, with righteousness as king. A most charitable fellow, showing up with bread and wine. :)

What in the world has crawled up your ear recently? You hypocritically attack the one and only ritual and ceremonial given by G-d Himself (as opposed to all those chrstian rituals and ceremonials) and now you are attacking a man of integrity all because he isn't converted by the quoting of NT verses.

Judaism is not about the Messiah. It's about the TORAH. Any "messiah" who claims the Torah has fulfilled its purpose is a fraud and a pretender, especially if he claims to be (G-d forbid!) "G-d in a human body."

As Rabbi Singer has said, put your money where your mouth is. Find a verse in the Hebrew Bible that says J*sus is the messiah or that chrstianity is true. But you can't because no such verse exists. And no, quoting "new testament" interpretations of Hebrew Bible verses doesn't count. Unless the Torah openly authorizes chrstianity it is false. Period.

Why don't you get onto Catholic, Orthodox, Syrian, Armenian, etc. unscriptural works? Why don't you attack the Ethiopian Church? But no. They all get a free pass while you attack commandments from the very Mouth of G-d (something no version of chrstianity has).

The world is falling to pieces because of moral nihilism, you choose to attack G-d's Divine Commandments for civilized society!

Your priorities are messed up.

Find a verse in the Hebrew Bible -- Your Hebrew Bible was compiled in 70 AD at the Council of Jamnia by Pharisees specifically to edit out references to Christ.

The pharisees reinvented Judaism into Pharisee-Judaism with the rabbis instead of priests and the synagogue readings instead of sacrifices

In the Tanakh you find the following references to JesusGen 12: "7 The Lord appeared to Abram and said: To your descendants I will give this land. So Abram built an altar there to the Lord who had appeared to him.
Gen 17: 1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to Abram and said: I am God the Almighty. Walk in my presence and be blameless

The Hebrew name YESHUA transliterated “Iesus” (Greek), Jesus (English), means SALVATION or GOD SAVES. So technically speaking, any mention of God's salvation in the Old Testament is an indirect reference to Jesus. For details, see: YESHUA IN THE TANAKH (The Name of JESUS in the Old Testament)

. Jonathan Bernis, in Finding Jesus in the Old Testament , makes this brief statement to buttress the point presented in the foregoing paragraph:

For example, the name Yeshua means "salvation" or "God saves." His name signifies why He came into this world—to rescue us from the penalty we deserve because of our sins. Let's take a look at a few times Yeshua's name is mentioned in the Old Testament (with emphasis added):

*."The Lord is my strength and song, and He has become my salvation" (Ex. 15:2). In other words, "He has become my Yeshua."

*."God be merciful to us and bless us, and cause His face to shine upon us, that Your way may be known on earth, Your salvation [Yeshua] among all nations" (Ps.67:1-2).

*."And it will be said ... 'Behold, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us. We will be glad and rejoice in His salvation [Yeshua]' " (Is. 25:9).

You see, Yeshua is much more than a name in the human sense, such as Jonathan, David or William. It is a description of His mission: to bring salvation to people everywhere.

In Daniel we find "'Look!' he answered, 'I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God'" (vv. 24-25).

The Torah authorizes sacrifices - not the Pharisee way you have right now

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.