Home (Netzarim Logo)

NHM 22.41-46 Text:

41 "Then, the Pәrush•im′  [sect of Judaism],23.25.1 who advocate that Ha•lâkh•âh′ 7.1.1 must be exclusively oral,3.7.1 having been gathered,1.18.5 Yәho•shu′ a questioned17.10.2 them saying, ‎42 "What do you suppose concerning the Mâ•shi′ akh… whose bein will he be?" ‎43 They said to him, "Bën-Dâ•wid′ ."

He said to them, "Then how does Dâ•wid′ , in the Spirit,22.43.1 call Him a•don•i′ 22.43.2, saying (Tәhil•im′  110.1):

44 "For Dâ•wid′ ,22.44.1 a chant-hymn26.30.1 of a speech22.44.2 of ' ‭ ‬ 1.22.1 to a•don•i′ :22.43.2 “Sit to My right,22.44.3 until I shall set your enemies,22.44.4 [to be] a stool for your feet.” "

45 Since Dâ•wid′  called him a•don•i′ ,22.45.1 how can an "a•don•i′ 22.45.2 (to Dâ•wid′ ) be a Bën-Dâ•wid′ ?"22.45.3

46 No one was able to reply to him with a saying12.37.0—nor did anyone else dare to question17.10.2 him from that day forward.

Errata For Notes in NHM 22.44-46:

22.43.1

…in [the] Spirit…

πνευμα (pneuma; spirit) is distinguished from το πνευμα (to pneuma; the spirit) (cf. note NHM 4:1). Cf. also notes for similar phrases at NHM 1:18; 28:19; & 12:32; also Yn. 20:22.



22.43.2 / (a•don•i / a•don•o; sir or m'lord, and "his lord," respectively), κυριο μου (kurio mou, m'lord).

a•don•i / a•don•o

A•don•i, the masc. sing. conn. form, is quoted from MT. (a•don•o; his sir / lord; the corresponding masc. sing. conn. form) is added for clarification only; and isn't based upon, nor found in, ancient mss.

The construct used to refer to ' is either (•don; Lord, Sir)—not the connective form; or, in the conn., only in the plural: (A•don•ai; lit. my Lords, my Sirs). The construct found in Tәhil•im 110.1 is the sing. a•don•i, referring to a human person, not '. Cf. also a•don•i / •don note 12.8.1.

Therefore, the Artscroll Stone Edition editors have properly contrasted -- with (l-a•don•i; "my sir" or "m'lord")—not , ;-A•don•ai); "ha-Sheim" and "my master," respectively.

The Greek makes no distinction between ' and as found in MT, reading from LXX: κυριος το κυριω (Kurios to Kuriō; [said the] Lord to [my] Lord). The spelling variance in Greek is due solely to grammar, distinguishing nominative from locative, respectively; and does not distinguish between two different terms as in MT. Elimination of the distinction in the Greek is the primary basis for Christian mistranslation of this pâ•suq.

The pause after "to a•don•i" in pâ•suq 44 is required by the (râ•bia; cantillation mark) found in MT.



22.44.1 (lә-Dâ•wid; to/for Dâ•wid)

…for Dâ•wid,

quoted from MT in Tәhil•im 110.1.

A pause (marked here by a comma) following Dâ•wid is required by the found in MT.

As a quotation from Ta•na"kh, this has always been obvious to the Jewish community and, hence, is understood in Hebrew Ma•tit•yâhu.



22.44.2 (nә•um; a formal speech, discourse, address, rhetoric, oratory), ειπεν (eipen; he said),

…a speech…

quoted from MT Tәhil•im 110.1.

The Greek, based in LXX, changes the noun meaning "speech" to a verb, which wrongly enables the connotation of "the Lord said to my Lord" (cf. 22.43.2) rather than the correct rendering: "a speech of the Lord to m'lord."



22.44.3 (li-y•min•i; to/for my right [hand]), εκ δεξιον μου (ek dekzion mou; on the right of me),

…to My right,…

the pause after "right" (marked here by a comma) is required by the (atnâkhâ) in MT. Note that the pauses, and even the kinds of pauses, are marked in MT; and that punctuation may not be moved to fit one's belief system.



22.44.4 (oyvëykhâ; your enemies), εχθρους σου (exthrous sou; your enemies),

…your enemies,…

The pause, marked here by a comma, is required by the found in MT.



22.45.1 (a•don•i; sir, m'lord), κυριον (kurion; [accusative of κυριος], kurios; lord),

a•don•i

EB wrongly translates from the Greek and LXX κυριος to (•don; the Lord), whereas the quotation being cited, Tәhil•im 110.1, reads .

The question Ribi Yәho•shua asked, however, was based on the quotation from Tәhil•im 110.1, not Roman—i.e., Hellenist=Christian—idolatry dating two centuries after Ribi Yәho•shua's death.



22.45.2 (a•don•o; his sir / lord)

(a•don•o) is added for clarity, and is not found in the source mss.



22.45.3 (eikh yi′ hәyëh bën•o′ ; how will he be his son?), πως υιος αυτου εστιν (pos uios autou estin; how is he his son?),

…then how can a•don•o (of Dâ•wid′ ) be the Bën--Dâ•wid′ ?…

NHM clarifies "he" and "his" as "a•don•o [his sir / lord] of Dâ•wid′ " and "of Dâ•wid′ ."

Talmud understands this chant-hymn to be describing Ël•i•ëz′ ër, the servant of Av•râ•hâm′ . Thus, it is Ël•i•ëz′ ër who says, according to the English Soncino Talmud, "The Lord said unto m'lord" (i.e., ' said to Avrâhâm…). Clearly, Jews have never worshipped Av•râ•hâm′  as a result.

Since the (mi•zәmor′ ; a chant-hymn) is stipulated in Tәhil•im′  to be (lә-Dâ•wid′ ; to/for Dâ•wid′ ), it is logically more appropriate to understand the passage as referring to the scion of Dâ•wid′ , whom nearly everyone understands is the Mâ•shi′ akh, rather than to Av•râ•hâm′ .

The question Ribi Yәho•shua asks is simple: why would Dâ•wid′  call a descendent of his (Bën-Dâ•wid′ ) "Sir" / "m'lord" unless Dâ•wid′  recognized that this particular descendent of his was [a] the Mâ•shi′ akh and [b] greater than himself? Fathers didn't address their sons as "sir." Tor•âh′  requires exactly the opposite (the 5th "commandment")!!!

How much moreso would the greatest King of Israel not refer to any ordinary descendent of his as "m'lord" or "sir"!!!

A priori, the Mâ•shi′ akh is greater than any king of Israel. The implication is that the Mâ•shi′ akh is, therefore, the embodiment of the vision of the Mәnor•âh′  under two olive trees Zәkhar•yâh′ , combining the offices of kingship and priesthood (cf. Zәkhar•yâh′  4.1-4, 11-14) and the Nâ•vi′ , prophesied by Mosh•ëh′  (Dәvâr•im′  18.15, who cannot be Yәho•shu′ a Bën-Nun because, inter alia, of Dәvâr•im′  34.10).

Neither Tәhil•im′  110.1 nor Ribi Yәho•shua make any suggestion of an idolatrous divine Christ.

Christians illogically ask that proof be demonstrated from this passage that it doesn't indicate the divinity of Christ. However, the rules of logic dictate that the known is assumed until disproven. The known, in this case, is documented in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT. Until Christians prove differently, Christianity remains logically invalid. There has never been any scintilla of a man-god Christ in pre-Christian Judaism (i.e., before Paul the Apostate (a Hellenist Turkish-Jew) or the forcible Roman-gentile ouster of the Nәtzâr•im′  Jewish leadership in 135 C.E.). Therefore, rather than being incumbent upon Jews to prove the status quo was maintained in Judaism, it is incumbent upon Christians to prove and demonstrate the 180° contradiction of Tor•âh′  (e.g., Dәvâr•im′  13.1-6) they claim transpired in order to permit belief in a divine man-god Christ. In the Hebrew original of MT and Ma•tit•yâh′ u, however, there is not the remotest suggestion, much less evidence or the required contradicting proof.

Rainbow Rule
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nәtzâr•im… Authentic