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.
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!
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!
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!
"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".
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!
"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").
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.
"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 ...
Is this YHVH God? Yes, He is!
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"!
"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.
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.
So much for Psalm 110:1. Let's move on ...