Contra Stavrinides Index
Next Part
Previous Part

Contra Stavrinides
by Frank Nelte

PART XII: PSALM 110

Now let's look at one of the many scriptures that clearly contradict Dr. Stavrinides' ideas ... Psalm 110:1.

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

In trying to do away with the meaning of this verse on tape #6, Dr. Stavrinides says the following:

A direct quotation from tape #6 is:

"IF David wrote it, then he had A HUMAN PERSON IN MIND AS 'MY LORD'."

And again:

"There's a difference between two Beings and A VISION of two Beings."

And again:

"Daniel 7:13 is NOT PROOF OF ANYTHING!"

And again:

"A gospel is AN ARGUMENT."

Let's examine this very carefully and proceed logically.

  1. What THE JEWS understand Psalm 110:1 to mean has nothing to do with what this scripture actually DOES MEAN! We have already covered the Jewish understanding in PART VIII, point #10 on page 41.
  2. The appeal to the SONCINO and ANCHOR Commentaries is also meaningless in this discussion. They simply give us the ideas of men. By the way, when a commentary supports HIS VIEWS, then Dr. Stavrinides is quick to quote it for support. At other times he will criticize other commentators and at the outset, on tape #2, he had told us that "to quote books means nothing". Applying this now means that his use of Soncino and Anchor commentaries also "MEANS NOTHING"!
  3. What "the LXX-people" thought about the authorship of Psalm 110 is also meaningless. We covered that in PART IX, starting on page 42. What people "THINK" doesn't affect the authorship in any way!

    What becomes very obvious from the whole discussion by Dr. Stavrinides, though, is that he is HOSTILE to the idea that David was the one who wrote this Psalm. WHY THIS HOSTILITY? Why is it so important to Dr. Stavrinides' explanation to discredit the Davidic authorship? His reasoning is clearly very carnal!

  4. The claim that the Hebrew is "ambiguous" about the authorship is not true. This is clearly one of the Psalms of David!
  5. Let's notice that Dr. Stavrinides' hostility is really directed AGAINST JESUS CHRIST!

    Jesus Christ had a discussion with the Pharisees about the Messiah. The Pharisees understood quite clearly that the Messiah was to come from the line of David. But they did not understand that the Messiah would actually also be the second member of the Godhead.

    This is recorded in the first three gospels, which Dr. Stavrinides feels are "arguments". Notice Matthew's account.

    He saith unto them, How then doth DAVID in spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? 45 If DAVID then call him Lord, how is he his son? (Matthew 22:43-45)

    Here is Mark's account ...

    For DAVID himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 37 DAVID therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he [then] his son? And the common people heard him gladly. (Mark 12:36-37)

    And here is Luke's account of this incident ...

    And DAVID HIMSELF SAITH IN THE BOOK OF PSALMS, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 43 Till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 44 DAVID therefore calleth him Lord, how is he then his son? (Luke 20:42-44)

    Three times Christ is recorded as saying that DAVID said this. In Matthew 22:43 Christ said that David called THE MESSIAH "LORD". Mark 12:37 says that Christ said that David called THE MESSIAH "LORD". Luke 20:44 says that Christ said that David called THE MESSIAH "LORD".

    Yet Dr. Stavrinides has the nerve to say:

    "IF David wrote it (implying this is open to question!), then he had A HUMAN PERSON in mind as 'my Lord' ".

    Dr. Stavrinides, in order to establish his own ideas, does not hesitate here to call Jesus Christ a liar ... and on TWO counts!! First, he questions David's authorship when Jesus Christ PLAINLY SAID that David is the author. Secondly, he questions that David was talking about the Messiah when Jesus Christ also PLAINLY SAID that David was indeed talking about the Messiah.

    On page 17, at the bottom, I quoted Dr. Stavrinides' comment that ANGELS would have to agree with his reasoning ... and if an angel dared to disagree then, said Dr. Stavrinides' "I would tell him HE IS WRONG!" It seems Dr. Stavrinides doesn't stop at angels. Regarding Psalm 110 he doesn't hesitate to TELL JESUS CHRIST THAT HE (CHRIST!) IS WRONG ... that David had a human person in mind and not the Messiah, the Son of God! ... i.e. IF it really was David in the first place, which, according to the LXX-people, is open to debate, right?

    Here's living proof for Romans 8:7 ...

    Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. (Romans 8:7)

    Dr. Stavrinides' "arguments" illustrate this verse perfectly!

  6. It should be very obvious to anyone, who cares to examine this information here, that Dr. Stavrinides simply does not believe the Bible! So when he uses scriptures in his "arguments", the reader/viewer should realize that they are being used in exactly the same way as Satan used them in Matthew 4:6 ...
    And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: FOR IT IS WRITTEN, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in [their] hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone. (Matthew 4:6)

    ... namely, to get the scripture to say something that was not really intended by God at all!

  7. Let's now look at Dr. Stavrinides' reasoning in Handout #9. Notice the following points:
    1. A) In the opening paragraph Dr. Stavrinides makes a false assertion. He writes:
      "The Pharisees said that they were expecting ONLY a son of David, not a Son of God." In support he refers to Matthew 22:45.

      The Pharisees did not use the word "ONLY". The answer they gave was correct, but incomplete. Neither verse 42 nor verse 45 uses the word "only".

    2. Dr. Stavrinides then draws up a list of "8 assertions" that those of us, who believe that this verse is indeed talking about the Messiah, supposedly make. Since he didn't ask us personally whether we would like to make these "assertions", I guess he wants us to accept that "they are IMPLICIT in the statement". These 8 assertions are more "red herrings" ... they have nothing to do with the question at hand!
    3. Assertion #1 SHOULD READ: there are currently two God-beings within the ONE God-Family.
    4. Assertion #2 SHOULD READ: Two God-beings in the one God-Family is indeed biblical.
    5. Assertion #3 is nonsense! It adds nothing to the above two statements.
    6. Assertion #4 is a smoke-screen. For ALL teachings we believe that the Bible does not contradict itself!
    7. Assertion #5 is nonsense! Deuteronomy 6:4 has nothing to do with whether there are two God-beings or not. He has mis-explained this verse. On pages 20 to 27 I have explained Deutero-nomy 6:4 correctly.
    8. Assertion #6 is based on #5 ... and therefore automatically also nonsense.
    9. Assertion #7 is a twisting of the facts! EXACTLY WHO is ... "commonly suggesting"??? The Church of God has "COMMONLY SUGGESTED" for over 30 years that there are currently two members in the Godhead. And Dr. Stavrinides himself said in his first lecture (tape #2) that "to quote books means nothing"! So who on earth is all of a sudden "commonly suggesting" that there is only one God-being? Is it from books and authors whose opinions "mean nothing"?
    10. Assertion #8 is another false argument! The traditional Jewish concept has nothing to do with what Psalm 110 is actually is telling us!
  8. Do you know what Dr. Stavrinides has done with these "8 assertions"? Do you really?

    HE HAS NOT SAID ONE WORD ABOUT WHAT THIS VERSE ACTUALLY SAYS! HE HAS NOT GIVEN EVEN A CURSORY GLANCE AT THIS INSPIRED REVELATION OF GOD ... WHICH JESUS CHRIST SAID, IN MATTHEW 22:43 AND ALSO IN MARK 12:36, THAT DAVID WROTE UNDER INSPIRATION.

    DO YOU GRASP THIS? WHAT THIS VERSE ITSELF SAYS DOESN'T ACTUALLY FEATURE IN DR. STAVRINIDES' PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS!

  9. Since Dr. Stavrinides' assumed assertions on our behalf are totally wrong, we need to present the CORRECT assertions we, who believe this verse, are really making. So here they are:
    1. Assertion #1: Jesus Christ said that DAVID wrote this verse about the MESSIAH, not about some other "human person".
    2. Assertion #2: This verse uses TWO different names for God to refer to TWO different individuals. These two different names for God are "YHWH" and "Adonai".
    3. Assertion #3: This verse implies TWO different individuals talking to each other, not two "hypostases" of the same one Being somehow having a chat with each other.
    4. Assertion #4: Christ quoted this verse as proof of His Messiahship.
    5. Assertion #5: Christ is quoted as saying (in Matt. 22:43 and in Mark 12:36) in Greek:
      "THE KURIOS said to MY KURIOS".

      While the finer distinction between "YHWH" and "Adonai" is lost, Christ nevertheless makes very clear that there were already in David's time TWO beings that qualified for the title "Kurios" ("Lord").

    6. Assertion #6: Christ clearly implied that David's "MY KURIOS" applied to Himself, the Messiah.
    7. Assertion #7: Christ also clearly implied that "THE KURIOS" was higher in authority than "MY KURIOS" by the statement that "THE KURIOS" made. It can ONLY refer to God the Father.
    8. Assertion #8: Christ clearly implied that these two were two SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.

    If you want a list of "assertions" that we make, then the above list, WHICH IS BASED SOLELY ON THE SCRIPTURES, is a fair representation. But the list Dr. Stavrinides supplied is meaningless and of no value. To let Dr. Stavrinides draw up a list of "assertions" on our behalf is like a man asking his enemy's lawyer to organize his defence. How can Dr. Stavrinides, who doesn't believe what the Bible says, who says: if in doubt then you are safe to take it AS A FIGURE OF SPEECH, who is not really interested in what the verses actually DO mean, etc. ... possibly represent "the assertions" of those who believe that God does actually mean what He says?79.

  10. In Handout #9 Dr. Stavrinides then proceeds to argue against the "assertions" that he drew up "on our behalf". He once again has the silly little arguments about "space" and "parts" and "extensions" and "perceptible through the senses", etc.. The whole thing is meaningless, no more than another smoke-screen, because WE didn't make those "assertions" ... HE HIMSELF had made them for the purpose of having something to argue against.
  11. He draws the conclusion in his point #15 that:
    "The two Lords are not God."

    That is supposed to be all "very logical" by the standards of the Greek philosophers of old, but it is nonsense, when you examine the REAL facts. Listen ...

    1. Psalm 110:1 states that "YHVH said to Adonai ...". Is THIS "YHVH" God or is He not? The answer has nothing to do with "space", "parts", "extensions", etc.. As I said earlier, those are just silly little distractions.

      Is this YHVH God? Yes, He is!

    2. The One referred to as "Adonai" is rendered as "MY KURIOS" by Jesus Christ in the N.T. and Christ meant that "MY KURIOS" referred to Himself, the Messiah.

      Is Jesus Christ God or is He not God? Yes, He IS God. Therefore Jesus Christ tells us that "MY KURIOS" refers to Himself, who is also God. Therefore "Adonai" in Psalm 110:1 refers to Jesus Christ who is God. All this nonsense about "what is limited is not God" and "what is perceptible through the senses", etc. is just so much carnal reasoning "BELOW THE LINE"!

    3. To whom on earth, do you think, would YHWH say: "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND"? It is presumptuous in the extreme to think that ANYONE other than Jesus Christ will EVER sit at the right hand of God the Father!
    4. If you think that YHWH here refers to Jesus Christ, then who, on earth, has EVER sat at Christ's right hand UNTIL ...? The answer is that NO HUMAN BEING has EVER sat at Christ's right hand! Would you argue with this statement?
    5. LOOK at what this verse actually SAYS! ... something that Dr. Stavrinides doesn't like to do. He concludes:
      "David, THEREFORE, was not speaking of two divine beings."

      The truth is that WHAT THIS VERSE ACTUALLY SAYS could not possibly apply to anyone who is NOT DIVINE!!! How can anyone who is NOT divine possibly ever sit at the right hand of YHWH? "Sitting" implies "RULING WITH" YHWH ... do we understand this?

    This kind of carnal reasoning, that totally ignores what the scriptures actually say, is so typical of Dr. Stavrinides' entire presentation! As I mentioned at the start of PART III, at the top of page 9, we need to realize that we are dealing with the views of an unconverted mind. That point comes across loud and clear all the time. What also comes across loud and clear is Dr. Stav-rinides' hostility to God and to His truth.

  12. Handout #10 is titled "DIGRESSION ON PSALM 110:1" ... and man, is it ever "a digression"! He tries to give us "POSSIBLE explanations of the argument Christ used". He digresses to the views of the NIV, the RSV, the NEB, the NAB revised, and finally HIS OWN VIEW.

    He has forgotten his own introduction that "to quote books means nothing". Who cares what all of these books say? He still avoids very carefully looking at what the verse in question ITSELF actually says. He also avoids looking at what Christ said.

    1. The idea that David was writing about Solomon is totally WEIRD! Christ's whole point in the argument is that you DON'T ever call your own son "Lord"!
    2. The idea that "the Lord is divine, while the lord is human" is EQUALLY WEIRD! How on earth could the content of that verse (what it actually says!) ever possibly be applied to a human being? "Preposterous" is an understatement.
    3. The idea that Christ accepted the Davidic authorship of the psalm because it was "a common view of His time" is just another way of calling Christ a liar!
    4. Under his own view he acknowledges that Mr. Tkach's letters are written by someone else, something most people in the Church would probably already know by now. He implies that this psalm likewise was not written by David, even though David gets the credit for it. This is also calling Christ a liar, since Christ unequivocally stated that DAVID was inspired by the Holy Spirit to make this statement ... and it is contained in one of David's psalms.
  13. In the last section of Handout #10, entitled "Learning from the mistake", he lists 6 points.
    1. Point #1 is nonsense.
    2. Points #2 and #3 are based on a wrong explanation of Deuteronomy 6:4. I have explained this scripture in PART VI, on pages 20 through to 27. So both of these points are also nonsense.
    3. On the foundation of these three wrong points Dr. Stavrinides then builds three other points, which are meaningless. Actually, none of these 6 points have anything to do with Psalm 110:1.

    So much for Psalm 110:1. Let's move on ...

Contra Stavrinides Index
Next Part
Previous Part