The following is taken from Chosen People Answers’ article, Psalm 22 and “They Pierced My Hands and Feet”.

Brian Crawford

Psalm 22:1, 16–18, English Standard Version

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? … For dogs encompass me; a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet—I can count all my bones—they star and gloat over me; they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

כָּאֲרִ֗י יָדַי וְרַגְלָי

 Leningrad Codex, Psalm 22:16 [17]

כארו ידיה̇ ורגלי

Nahal Hever 5/6HevPsalms, Psalm 22:16 [17]

What’s in a Word?

In the sixteenth century, Christian publisher Daniel Bomberg was commissioned to publish the first Mikraot Gedolot (Rabbinic Bible) using the newly invented printing press. Reportedly, as he was preparing the proofs for Psalm 22:16 (v. 17 in Jewish Bibles),^[1] one of his Jewish proofreaders drew his attention to a single word: כארו (ka’aru). This word would not do, the Jewish man told Bomberg. If the word were not changed to כארי (ka’ari), “no Jew would buy copies of his Hebrew Bible.”^[2] There is only one letter in question between the two options: the final Hebrew letter should be either a ו (vav) or a י (yud). One might not think that a single Hebrew letter would be such cause for concern, but in this case, the proofreader’s perception of the Jewish community was likely correct. The inclusion of the vav would make the Psalm teach something remarkably similar to the crucifixion of Jesus. Bomberg took the advice, and Jewish publishers have retained the word כארי (ka’ari) ever since.

By no means, however, has the debate on the word been settled, even to this day. In their recent commentary on Psalm 22:16, biblical scholars Rolf Jacobson and Beth Tanner write, “[This] line may be one of the most debated in all of Scripture.”^[3] They count more than ten monographs and multiple scholarly journal articles that attempt to explain how one should understand the verse. For example, from 1997 onwards, there has been a flurry of articles published in the Journal of Biblical Literature with punning titles about the guesswork involved in solving the verse’s quandaries.^[4]

As one might also guess, the driving force behind this controversy often involves a religious debate relating to belief in Jesus. Christians have often supported a translation of “they pierced my hands and feet,” whereas Jews have supported readings relating to a lion.^[5] Over the history of this debate, each side has fallen into the unhelpful trap of accusing the other side of willful mistranslation, tampering, and conspiracy over this verse—accusations which we find to be speculative bias and harmful to Jewish and Christian relationships.

A selection of various Jewish and Christian translations of the second half of the verse illustrates the disagreement:

Jewish translations:

1.      JPS (1917): “like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.”^[6]

2.      NJPS (1985): “like lions [they maul] my hands and feet.”^[7]

3.      Stone (2013): “Like the [prey of a] lion are my hands and my feet.”^[8]

Christian translations:

1.      NASB (1995): “They pierced my hands and my feet.”^[9]

2.      ESV (2016): “They have pierced my hands and feet.”^[10]

3.      NIV (2011): “They pierce my hands and my feet.”^[11]

4.      NAB (2010): “They have pierced my hands and my feet.”^[12]

The Jewish translations are united in their understanding of a lion being present in the verse, but they differ on the verb. Christian translations have no lion but rather the verb “pierce,” and their translations are all alike. These two options (like a lion/they pierced) are directly tied to whether the Hebrew word underlying the translation has a vav or a yud as the final letter. Even these two translation options might seem to be much ado about nothing, if it were not for the history of Christian usage of this verse in conversation with Jewish people.

Psalm 22:16 and the Pierced Messiah

Psalm 22:16 is never quoted, mentioned, or alluded to in the New Testament. Although the verse frequently shows up in contemporary Christian lists of Messianic prophecies, the New Testament never directly cites Psalm 22:16 as a prophecy about the Messiah. The New Testament’s omission of the verse means there is no controversy or danger for the New Testament’s credibility if the disputed word is translated as “like a lion” rather than “pierced.” Nothing in the New Testament hangs on the verse, unlike passages such as Isaiah 53 or Psalm 110:1, which are quoted repeatedly by Jesus’ followers as prophecies fulfilled by him.

Despite the omission of the verse from the New Testament, it understandable why this line in the Psalm became so attached to Jesus. While Psalm 22:16 is not quoted in the New Testament, the following verse (v. 18[17])^[13] is quoted or alluded to during the crucifixion narratives (Matt. 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, John 19:24), and Jesus himself cried out the opening line of the Psalm as he was dying on the cross (Matt. 27:46, Mark 15:34).^[14] Moreover, the chief priests spoke the words of Psalm 22:8 when they mocked Jesus during the crucifixion (Matt. 27:43).^[15] The entirety of Psalm 22 appeared to be at the forefront of the Gospel writers’ minds as they chronicled the crucifixion.

Reflecting on these New Testament interpretations of Psalm 22, early Gentile followers of Jesus began reading the entire Psalm in light of Jesus’ crucifixion. Rather than a direct prophecy, the Psalm was interpreted as a patterned foreshadowing, where everything that David experienced in the Psalm would be repeated and exceeded by the Son of David, Jesus the Messiah. As Gentile followers of Jesus, these readers were not reading the Hebrew text of Psalm 22, but rather the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of the Psalm, which was translated by Jewish people at least two centuries before the crucifixion. As they read, their eyes became transfixed on the following phrase:

ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας^[16]

English: They pierced/dug through my hands and feet.

The violence of crucifixion was unmistakable in this phrase, these early Gentile followers of Jesus reasoned. They wondered how could this not be a foreshadowing prophecy of Jesus’ brutal death? Or, how could this not be primary evidence that Jesus was the Son of David, the one who repeated the events of David’s life and brought them to completion?

Already by the second century CE, Gentile Christian authors like Justin,^[17] Tertullian,^[18] Irenaeus,^[19] and Barnabas^[20] were citing Psalm 22:16 as primary evidence for the Messiahship of Jesus. Moreover, these early authors often quoted the verse when addressing reasons why the Jewish people should accept Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. The verse was often paired with Zechariah 12:10, in which God speaks about being pierced by Israel on some occasion. This early interpretive tradition eventually became the standard Christian reading of Psalm 22:16, a tradition that holds to this day.

In sum, the translation, “pierced,” has been irrevocably attached to a Christian understanding of the verse, and the translation, “like a lion,” has often been seen as the Jewish understanding of the verse. Any Jewish Bible, like Bomberg’s, that would print anything approaching the Christian understanding would likely not sell many copies to Jewish readers.

Messianic Jews, however, would beg to differ with the current status quo. As Jews who believe in Yeshua, they reject the dichotomy between “Christian” and “Jewish” readings of the verse.^[21] The standard of truth on the verse should not be determined by one’s religious community, but rather by the evidence of the manuscripts of Psalm 22 themselves. Thus, when the Messianic Jewish Tree of Life Bible translates the verse, it reads, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” with a footnote for “or, is like a lion.”^[22] This solution prefers the reading of “pierced” while also giving honor to the Masoretic tradition in the footnote.

It is unfortunate that there is a Christian/Jewish divide on this translational question, because the most likely and accurate answer—כארו, ka’aru, “pierced”—may be traced to the manuscript evidence itself. For the remainder of this article, we will investigate the manuscripts in question, thereby defusing any accusation that “pierced” is a mistranslation or Christian invention.^[23] If David really intended “pierced” in his Psalm, and God intended David’s life to be a foreshadowing of Messiah, then Psalm 22:16 may be a powerful indicator of Yeshua as the Messiah.

The Numerous Masoretic Hebrew Manuscripts of Psalm 22

Before we can begin with our investigation on Psalm 22:16, we need to get one thing out of the way: there is no one Hebrew text or even Masoretic text to consult for the Psalm.

Many Hebrew Bibles, such as ArtScroll’s Stone Edition, which is popular in Orthodox circles, simply reproduce the Leningrad Codex, the best and most reliable complete Hebrew manuscript we have of the Tanakh. They do not let the readers know about alternative manuscripts that have different Hebrew readings. It may be a surprise to some that there are different manuscripts with variant readings for the Psalm. We would encourage such readers to consider our Textual Criticism 101 article to orient themselves with the process of investigating the Hebrew manuscript tradition.

Although the Leningrad Codex is our most reliable Hebrew manuscript, it is problematic to treat it as free from error. There are many other Hebrew manuscripts—also faithfully and meticulously copied by Jewish scribes—that contain consonantal differences when compared with the Leningrad Codex.

When scholars want to determine whether there are textual differences for any particular verse in the Tanakh, they primarily consult two sources: Eighteenth century textual scholar Benjamin Kennicott’s collation of textual variants,^[24] and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS).^[25] The BHS prints the standard Leningrad Codex Hebrew and adds footnotes to words that have different spellings or renderings in other Hebrew manuscripts. For Psalm 22:16[17], the BHS lists alternate readings for “like a lion.” The footnote for the word כָּאֲרִי (ka’ari, “like a lion”) reads:

pc Mss Edd כארוּ, 2 Mss Edd כָּרוּ cf 𝔊(𝔖) ὤρυξαν, α´ ἐπέδησαν, σ´ ὡς ζητοῦντες δῆσαι^[26]

If that made no sense to you, have no fear. Welcome to the cryptic world of textual criticism, where reading a sentence is a multilingual treasure hunt of translations and acronyms. This cryptic line may be understood to mean,

Although most Masoretic manuscripts have כָּאֲרִי (ka’ari), between 3–10 Hebrew manuscripts read כארוּ (ka’aru) and two read כָּרוּ (karu), and one should also consult the ancient Greek Septuagint, the Syriac, Aquila, and Symmachus translations as well.

While it is true that most Hebrew manuscripts have “like a lion,” there are a few that do not. And those few—with the words כארוּ (ka’aru) or כָּרוּ (karu)—each mean “pierced” or “to dig out.”^[27] Perhaps it is now clear why no one should be accorded credibility when they claim that “the Hebrew says ka’ari.” That is an overstatement of the manuscript evidence for “like a lion.”

In addition, it is important that the most recent edition of BHS was published in 1997. It is missing one of the most important ancient Hebrew versions of Psalm 22, which was published for the first time after the BHS went to print.^[28]

Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Earliest Hebrew Manuscript for Psalm 22

In the late 1990s, a series of fragments from the Nahal Hever caves were published. These caves are in the mountains on the west side of the Dead Sea, and they may have been produced by the same community as the famous scrolls found in Qumran. The scrolls date from the mid-first century CE, meaning that they predate the Leningrad Codex and other medieval Hebrew manuscripts by nearly a millennium. One of the fragments, named “5/6HevPsalms,” contains Hebrew text for Psalm 22:16. A facsimile provided by the Leon Levy Digital Dead Sea Scrolls Library is below, with our notes added:

Figure 1 – 5/6HevPsalms, Plate 891, M42.190, The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-280844

This fragment may be badly faded (especially in the original facsimile provided on the official Dead Sea Scrolls site), but imaging software brings out the letters sufficiently. The result is that the text in this ancient scroll does not have כארי (ka’ari), but כארו (ka’aru).  The last letter is definitively a vav, and not a yud. It does not say “like a lion” but rather, “they pierced/dug out.”

In 1999, the authors of The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, an English translation of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls, were among the first to publish the ramifications of this find:

Psalm 22 is a favorite among Christians since it is often linked in the New Testament with the suffering and death of Jesus. A well-known and controversial reading is found in verse 16, where the Masoretic Text reads “Like a lion are my hands and feet,” whereas the Septuagint has “They have pierced my hands and feet.” Among the scrolls the reading in question is found only in the Psalms scroll found at Naḥal Ḥever (abbreviated 5/6ḤevPs), which reads “They have pierced my hands and my feet”!^[29]

In sum, this nearly 2,000-year old Hebrew manuscript—the oldest available for Psalm 22—produced before followers of Jesus ever could tamper with the text, clearly has a verb that matches closely with the sense of one’s hands and feet being violently pierced. This text also matches the Hebrew found in several much later medieval Hebrew manuscripts. Based on the Hebrew manuscript evidence alone—outside of any Jewish or Christian messianic debates—there is good reason to support the word “pierced.”

Additional Linguistic Reasons to Reject “Like a Lion”

In our discussions above, we focused on the evidence for the consonantal Hebrew text of Psalm 22:16. This evidence may be reasonable enough on its own to reject the “like a lion” translation. However, there are additional reasons, beyond mere manuscript evidence, that provide support for accepting “pierced” instead.

The Comprehension Problem with “Like a Lion”

First, the Hebrew ka’ari (כָּאֲרִי) in contemporary Hebrew Bibles, derived from the Leningrad Codex, does not make any sense. A literal, wooden, no-added-words translation of the key phrase with ka’ari is:

כָּאֲרִ֗י יָדַי וְרַגְלָי

“Like a lion my hands and my feet”

There is no verb in the phrase, leading to confusion. Hebrew prose often implies the English verb “to be” (is/are), so one could suppose that this phrase should be supplied a missing “to be” verb:

“Like a lion [are] my hands and my feet”

This addition solves the verb problem, but it does not assist the reader much with comprehension. There is some comparison between a lion and hands and feet, but this comparison is not at all clear. As it stands, the Masoretic majority reading with ka’ari is unintelligible. Multiple scholars have pointed this out: “This yields little sense for the rest of the line as there is no verb.”^[30] “It remains harsh and drawling so far as the language is concerned.”^[31] The text includes an “unorthodox use of grammar and syntax.”^[32] The confusion over the meaning of the phrase is reflected in various Jewish translations, which solve the problem by adding extra words. The previous Jewish translations given above are now repeated, but with the added non-Masoretic words in red:

1.      JPS (1917): “like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.”

2.      NJPS (1985): “like lions [they maul] my hands and feet.”

3.      Stone (2013): “Like the [prey of a] lion are my hands and my feet.”

The JPS added the verb “are” and a preposition of location, “at,” which has an unclear signification itself. The NJPS brings out its verbal idea clearly with “they maul.” The Stone Edition adds a new subject, “prey,” resulting in a comparison between “prey” and “my hands and my feet” rather than with a lion. These added words solve the intelligibility problem, but they are not actually in any Hebrew manuscripts. Although the idea of a lion in this verse matches the presence of animals in other verses of the Psalm (worm, bulls, lion (vv. 13, 21), dogs, oxen), it is implausible that this benefit outweighs the cost of a phrase with no verb and no clear meaning behind the comparison being made.

Each of the solutions in the modern Jewish translations accept an incomprehensible Hebrew phrase as the standard and are thereby forced to fix the unintelligibility with their own creative solutions, none of which agree. A better solution, based on the Hebrew manuscript tradition, is to reject the “like a lion” reading because it is so incomprehensible.

Ancient Versions of the Line Have Verbs and No Lion

The word in the Leningrad Codex, כָּאֲרִי (ka’ari), is composed of a comparative prefix (כָּ) with a singular noun (אֲרִי). The resulting translation is “like a lion.” This grammatical construction (prefix + noun) is an outlier among all ancient versions of the verse, with the exception of Targum Psalms. Instead, the ancient translations of this line, whether produced by Jewish or Christian translators, understood the word in question to be a plural verb.^[33] For example:

·        Septuagint (LXX), third century BCE, Jewish: “They pierced/dug out (ὤρυξαν^[34]) my hands and my feet.”

·        Aquila’s first translation, second century CE, Jewish: “They put to shame (ᾔσχυναν^[35]) my hands and feet.”

·        Aquila’s second translation, second century CE, Jewish: “They bound (ἐπέδησαν^[36]) my hands and feet.”

·        Symmachus’ translation, second century CE, Jewish: “like those who seek to bind (ὡς ζητοῦντες δῆσαι) my hands and feet”

·        Jerome’s translation, fifth century CE, Christian: “They have dug (foderunt^[37]) my hands and my feet.”

Although these translations vary in their meaning, each has a plural verb in place of “like a lion.” None of them include any idea of a lion in their translation, meaning that they did not see ka’ari in their Hebrew manuscripts as they translated. Only one ancient translation, Targum Psalms, included a lion, but it included a plural verb as well:

·        Targum Psalms, unknown dating, third century CE?, Jewish: “They bite my hands and feet like a lion.”^[38] (נכתין היך כאריא אידי ורגלי)^[39]

Apparently, the Hebrew manuscript tradition during these early centuries included a plural verb (“they bite”), but at some point, the plural verb was supplanted by ka’ari. The Greek and Latin translations are witnesses to the early verbal tradition, and Targum Psalms is representative of a transitional phase where the translator attempted to combine both a verbal and noun-based translation. By the time of the Masoretic period, the noun (כָּאֲרִי, ka’ari) had supplanted the verbal tradition as the standard Jewish understanding of the verse. Even so, several Hebrew manuscripts with verbal forms (כארוּ or כָּרוּ) remained in use.

Two of the translations, Aquila’s second version, and Symmachus, included the idea of the hands and feet being “bound.” Scholars have pointed out that this translation may also be explained if the Hebrew behind these translations was כארוּ (ka’aru). If Aquila and Symmachus had the Arabic cognate of kwr in mind, it would explain their translations, since the Arabic word means “to bind.”^[40] Old Testament scholar Brent Strawn summarizes, “The minimum amount of change to the [Masoretic Text] if one emends כארי to כארו and relates the latter to Arabic kwr, and various other indicators, ‘they bind’ might have the interpretive edge in making sense of Ps 22:17b as it now stands.”^[41] This is a plausible option, but it is dependent upon using an Arabic cognate instead of understanding the word through Hebrew. We find that to be helpful in explaining Aquila and Symmachus’ translations, but less than ideal to explain David’s original meaning in Hebrew.

It is very unlikely that the original Hebrew word penned by David was כָּאֲרִי (ka’ari), because all ancient versions understood there to be a verb, rather than a noun, for that word. It is more likely that there was a Hebrew verb for that word, a verb that confused some translators and led to different interpretations. In light of the Hebrew manuscript evidence available to us, the most likely verbal candidate that would explain these phenomena is the Hebrew word כארו (ka’aru). If we give the word’s Hebrew etymology the most weight (which we believe is most appropriate), rather than that of an Arabic cognate, the verb translates as “they pierced.”

Conclusion: Dispelling Mistranslations and Conspiracy Theories

Who knew that a single letter could cause so much trouble? In this investigation, we have illustrated several lines of manuscript and linguistic evidence that make ka’aru (כארו, “pierced”) the most credible of the options. The support for this option includes:

1.      Early Hebrew manuscript support for ka’aru (“they pierced, dug”) in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in multiple Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts

2.      Early Greek translation support for “they pierced” in the Septuagint

3.      “They pierced” is more comprehensible than “like a lion my hands and feet.”

4.      “They pierced” agrees with the plural verb grammatical structure found in all ancient translations (Septuagint, Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate).

It should be noted here that these four points have nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus, the New Testament, or Christian bias. As we have stated, there is no verse in the New Testament that lives or dies based upon our determinations here, although it is highly likely that Yeshua saw his crucifixion experience through the lens of the entirety of Psalm 22. Instead, our investigation has remained close to the manuscript and linguistic evidence, never straying into personal and religious accusations. Our argument does not include a fifth point, which could say something like, “Jewish people corrupted the text so it would not point to Jesus.” Just like there is no evidence for Christian conspiracy theories on Psalm 22:16, there is no evidence for Jewish conspiracy theories here.^[42] Not only is there no evidence for Jewish tampering with the text, but it is additionally unlikely that a conspirator would introduce a grammatically unintelligible phrase into Scripture as if it were a benefit.

If a conspiracy is not afoot on this verse, then what explains the problems here? In our opinion, it was a simple mistake, mindless and innocent. The difference between “like a lion” and “they pierced” in Hebrew is a single stroke of a pen. Make the stroke short—that is, a י (yud)—and we have “like a lion.” Make the stroke long—that is, a ו (vav)—and we have “they pierced.” All it would have taken was one hand-slipping copyist accidentally writing a yud instead of a vav. If that one manuscript was copied into daughter manuscripts, then we could conceivably end up with the results we see in the manuscript tradition.^[43]

Why did the “lion” reading take such precedence in Jewish usage, such that the older readings were forgotten? We can only speculate here, because we have no window into how the popularity of ka’ari grew over time. However, if there were two options before a Jewish scribe, and one word was actively exploited by Gentile Christians to point to Jesus, whereas the other word was not, all things being equal, the scribe was likely to choose the one that the Gentile Christian did not prefer. In her article on the psalm, religious studies professor Kristin Swenson wrote,

Probably in an attempt to avoid the association with Jesus, Greek-speaking Jews eschewed the LXX in favor of Aquila’s and Symmachus’s readings of the verse…. The word כארי, “like a lion,” which was eventually accepted by the Masoretes as the best text, may have gained popularity from a Jewish reaction to the Christian reading.^[44]

Is this true? We cannot know based on the historical record we have available to us. However, it is certainly plausible that an innocent mistake in the textual tradition became magnified and grew in popularity in Jewish circles because of its utility in avoiding arguments in favor of Jesus.

Whether or not religious bias led to the common Masoretic reading of the verse, manuscript evidence ought to triumph over cherished interpretations that are demonstrably incorrect. If the evidence shows that “they pierced my hands and feet” is the most likely rendering of the verse, then readers should go where the evidence leads.

Footnotes

---

^[1] We will use the Christian verse numbering for the remainder of this article, since this will enable functioning verse popups with our default English Standard Bible translation.

^[2] Cited in Gregory Vall, “Psalm 22:17B: ‘The Old Guess,’” Journal of Biblical Literature 116, no. 1 (1977): 48. For this story, Vall cites D. P. Drach et al., Sainte Bible de Vence (27 vols.; Paris: Cosson, 1827–33) 9.464.

^[3] Nancy deClaissé-Walford, Rolf A. Jacobson, and Beth LaNeel Tanner, The Book of Psalms, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2014), 235.

^[4] Vall, “Psalm 22:17B: ‘The Old Guess,’” 45–56; John Kaltner, “Psalm 22:17b: Second Guessing ‘The Old Guess,’” Journal of Biblical Literature 117, no. 3 (1998): 503–6; Brent A. Strawn, “Psalm 22:17B: More Guessing,” Journal of Biblical Literature 119, no. 3 (2000): 439–51; Kristin M. Swenson, “Psalm 22:17: Circling Around the Problem Again,” Journal of Biblical Literature 123, no. 4 (2004): 637–48; James R. Linville, “Psalm 22:17B: A New Guess,” Journal of Biblical Literature 124, no. 4 (2005): 733–44.

^[5] We disagree that the camps are defined by Judaism or Christianity. Messianic Jews, that is, Jews who believe in Jesus, illustrate how there are Jews who accept the “pierced” translation for some of the reasons included in this article.

^[6] Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1917), v. Ps 22:17.

^[7] Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures Jewish Publication Society (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 1985), v. Ps 22:17.

^[8] Nosson Scherman et al., eds., The Stone Edition Tanach, 3rd ed., ArtScroll Series (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 2013), 1453.

^[9] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), v. Ps 22:16.

^[10] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), v. Ps 22:16.

^[11] The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), v. Ps 22:16.

^[12] The New American Bible, (Washington DC: Cofraternity of Christian Doctrine, Inc., 2010), https://classic.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+22&version=NABRE

^[13] “They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.” Psalm 22:18

^[14] “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Psalm 22:1)

^[15] “He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!” (Psalm 22:8)

^[16] Septuaginta: With Morphology, electronic ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), v. Ps 21:17.

^[17] Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 35, 38, Dialogue with Trypho 97–98, 104.

^[18] Tertullian, Against Marcion 3.19, 4.42, On the Resurrection 20, Answer to the Jews, 13.

^[19] Irenaeus, Demonstration 79.

^[20] Pseudo-Barnabas, Epistle of Barnabas 5:13.

^[21] See Michael Rydelnik, “Textual Criticism and Messianic Prophecy,” in The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecy, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Edwin Blum (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2019), 69.

^[22] Messianic Jewish Family Bible Society, Holy Scriptures: Tree of Life Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2015), Ps 22:17.

^[23] Tovia Singer makes the “mistranslation” charge against Christians in Tovia Singer, Let’s Get Biblical, New Expanded Edition (Forest Hills, NY: Outreach Judaism, 2014), 1:37. For another mistranslation charge that the verse was “strategically manipulated,” see Asher Norman, Twenty-Six Reasons Why Jews Don’t Believe in Jesus (Los Angeles, CA: Black White & Read, 2008), 253–55.

^[24] Benjamin Kennicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum : cum variis lectionibus, vol. 1 (Oxonii : Typographeo Clarendoniana, 1776), http://archive.org/details/vetustestamentum01kenn.

^[25] Gérard E. Weil, K. Elliger, and W. Rudolph, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5. Aufl., rev. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997). Gérard E. Weil et al., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 5. Aufl., rev. (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997).

^[26] Weil et al., 1104.

^[27] For examples of the root כָּרָה (karah), see Gen. 50:5, Psalm 7:16, Prov. 16:27. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and M. E. J. Richardson, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Johann Jakob Stam (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2000), s.v. I כרה. There is no Hebrew root כאר, which one might expect for the other variant, כארוּ. However, there is no need to assume an error in this word, since alephs (א) were often added before the Masoretic vowel pointing system to assist with vocalization (called mater lectionis). The word with the aleph inserted is the same as כָּרוּ (karu), meaning, “they dug.” Keil and Delitzsch point to a parallel example of how רָאֲמָה (ra’amah) in Zechariah 14:10 is an expansion of רָמָה (ramah) with an added aleph. Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 5:200; Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1951), s.v. כוּר.

^[28] As of this writing (2023), the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ), an update of the BHS, has not yet had its volume on the Psalms published.

^[29] Jr. Martin Abegg, Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (New York, NY: HarperOne, 1999), v. Ps 22.

^[30] Linville, “Psalm 22:17B: A New Guess,” 733.

^[31] Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, 5:200.

^[32] Swenson, “Psalm 22:17: Circling Around the Problem Again,” 641.

^[33] For the ancient textual variants, see Frederick Field and Origen, Origenis Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt Sive, Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in Totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta. (Oxford, UK: E typographeo Clarendoniano, 1875), 2:119, https://archive.org/details/origenhexapla01unknuoft.

^[34] Walter Bauer et al., eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.v. ὀρύσσω.

^[35] Bauer et al., s.v. αἰσχύνω.

^[36] Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon: With a Revised Supplement, ed. Sir Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, 9th ed. (Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1996), s.v. ἐπιδέω.

^[37] William Whitaker, Dictionary of Latin Forms (Logos Bible Software, 2012), s.v. Fodio.

^[38] Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and Martin McNamara, eds., The Aramaic Bible: The Targum of Psalms, vol. 16 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004), v. Ps 22:17.

^[39] Targum Psalms Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon (Hebrew Union College, 2005), v. Ps 22:17.

^[40] Kaltner, “Psalm 22:17b: Second Guessing ‘The Old Guess,’” 503–6.

^[41] Strawn, “Psalm 22:17B: More Guessing,” 448.

^[42] We would appreciate the transparency, however, if a Jewish translation would include a footnote with “pierced” as a valid interpretive option.

^[43] Biblical archaeologist Randall Price and Christian theologian H. Wayne House concur: “There is no evidence, as some have contended, that Jews or Christians tampered with the text. It is more probable that in one of the manuscripts used by the Masoretes the ink had degraded on consonant waw so that it was read by a scribe as a yod, resulting in the word being read as a noun rather than a verb.” Randall Price and H. Wayne House, Zondervan Handbook of Biblical Archaeology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 155.

^[44] Swenson, “Psalm 22:17: Circling Around the Problem Again,” 638–39.

The following is taken from the monumental work titled The Incarnate Christ and His Critics: A Biblical Defense, authored by Robert M. Bowman Jr. & J. Ed Komoszewski, published by Kregel Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 2024, Part 5: The Lamb upon His Throne: Jesus’ Divine Seat, Chapter 36: Sitting at God’s Right Hand, pp. 677-681.

In my estimation this is THE best and most comprehensive exposition and defense of the biblical basis for the Deity of Christ. Every serious Trinitarian Christian student of the Holy Bible, apologist, and/or theologian must have this book in the library.

LORD, MY LORD, AND THE LORD

Before we discuss Jesus’ use of Psalm 110:1 in his answer to Caiaphas’s question, we need to discuss the different forms of the word “lord” as found in most English Bibles. The ESV translates verse 1, “The Lord says to my Lord,” as do several other modern versions (CSB, ESV, NASB, NKJV, NLT). Other English versions read almost identically: “The Lord says to my lord” (NABRE, NIV, NRSV, TNK). As we discussed earlier in this book (see especially pp. 469–70), where English Bibles have the title “Lord” (with small capital letters), this translates the Hebrew divine name YHWH, commonly represented in English as Jehovah or Yahweh. Thus, a more literal translation of the Hebrew text of Psalm 110:1 would be “Yahweh says to my lord” (cf. ASV, LEB). The Septuagint reads, “The Lord [ho kyrios] said to my Lord [tō kyriō mou]” (Ps. 109:1 LXX), and this is how it is always quoted in the New Testament. It is also likely that Jesus used a form of the Aramaic word for “Lord” (mārēʾ) in place of YHWH when he quoted the verse aloud, as this was the conventional Jewish practice at the time. As Darrell Bock points out, “The minute such a substitution was made, the ambiguity would exist in Aramaic.”⁶ So don’t blame English versions for the two occurrences of “Lord.”

Unitarian apologist Anthony Buzzard leverages the use of ʾădōnî in the MT of Psalm 110:1 as one of his main arguments against the deity of Christ. He complains about translations that say “my Lord,” insisting that the word must be translated with a lower-case l, “my lord.” According to Buzzard, ʾădōnî should always be translated “lord” while ʾădōnāy should always be translated “Lord.” He goes so far as to assert, “The clarity and precision of the Hebrew text was marred by the ‘curse of the capital.’”⁷ Buzzard also especially reproaches “Trinitarian” authors who have erroneously stated that Psalm 110:1 uses the word ʾădōnāy and who infer from this mistaken premise that Psalm 110:1 explicitly identifies the future Messiah as God.⁸ Buzzard actually tries to argue in reverse, claiming that ʾădōnî is the form of the word for “lord” that “expressly tells us that the one so designated is not God, but a human superior.”⁹ In short, according to Buzzard, the fact that Psalm 110:1 calls the future Messiah (Jesus) ʾădōnî proves that Jesus is not God!

We have already thoroughly responded to Buzzard’s view of the title “Lord” in the New Testament, which focused on Acts 2:36 as his main proof text (see pp. 477–81). Here we will address his interpretation of Psalm 110:1, which will require a deep dive into the forms of the Hebrew noun. Buzzard’s argument presupposes that the distinction between ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy predated the time of Jesus; indeed, his argument requires that the distinction was in place when Psalm 110 was written. This is definitely not the case with regard to the written text. We are not dealing with two different nouns. In ancient manuscripts, the noun as represented by these two standard forms ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy would appear exactly the same, with only what we would call the consonants, ʾDNY (אדני).¹⁰ Remember that Hebrew is read from right to left, so aleph [א [is the first letter [transliterated in English letters like this:ʾ]. By the way, the yodh [י[, not to be confused with the English transliteration of aleph, can express a consonantal sound or a vowel sound. That’s why you will see yodh transliterated sometimes with i and sometimes with y.) The full spellings on which Buzzard’s argument depends derive from the little marks, called vowel points, placed under or after the consonants in the medieval Hebrew manuscripts. Thus, ʾDNY becomes ʾaDoNY (ʾădōnî) and ʾaDoNāY (ʾădōnāy, or adonai).¹¹ This distinction between the two forms is not represented in any visible way in ancient Hebrew texts. Looking at Psalm 110:1 in an ancient manuscript, you would see simply ʾDNY.

Buzzard knows this. He admits that the vowel points “were added much later than New Testament times.” However, he argues that the medieval Masoretic scribes who produced the Hebrew manuscripts (the MT) added the vowel points to preserve “how the text was read in the synagogues.” In other words, he claims that while the ancient manuscripts did not distinguish visually between ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy, the Jews used these two different forms when reading or reciting aloud from the Hebrew text. Furthermore, Buzzard asserts that the result is absolutely reliable: “The Masoretes who faithfully pointed the Hebrew text with meticulous care distinguished between a nonDeity lord and the Deity who was the Lord God. . . . The Jews were almost fanatically careful in what they regarded as the sacred task of copying the scriptural text.”¹²

As one might expect, we do not have any way of knowing precisely when Jews began using the two different forms of ʾDNY when speaking the words of Scripture aloud. However, the dominant view in biblical scholarship is that the distinction probably arose long after Psalm 110 was written, and quite possibly after the period of the New Testament. In any case, the idea that the forms of this word were fixed in every occurrence from biblical times down to the Masoretic era is untenable. Even some of the reference works that Buzzard quotes in support of his view make this quite clear. For example, Buzzard quotes selectively from the entry on “Lord” in the Dictionary of Deities and Demons, but he omits (without an ellipsis) the following statements from the same pages he cites:

It is difficult to trace precisely this development from the use of ʾădōnāy as a title to its use as a name, because it cannot be excluded that the Hebrew text of the OT was edited according to new theological and liturgical insights. In the transmission of the text the final form of this name may have been used to replace older forms. . . . We have to reckon with the possibility mentioned above of editors changing the original text, e.g. its vocals, according to later principles.¹³

Buzzard even goes so far as to alter one of the entry’s sentences in a way that clearly changes its meaning. He quotes it as saying, “The reason why [God is addressed] as adonai [with long vowel], instead of the normal adon, adoni or adonai [with short vowel] may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords.”¹⁴ The bracketed words “God is addressed” lead the reader to understand the dictionary to be explaining why people in Old Testament times addressed God with this particular form of the noun. However, what the entry says is this: “The reason why this is written ʾădōnāy instead of the normal ʾādôn, ʾădōnî, or ʾădōnāy may have been to distinguish Yahweh from other gods and from human lords.”¹⁵ In context, the author was explaining why this particular written form of the word was adopted, some centuries after the Old Testament books were originally written.

In another reference work from which Buzzard quotes selectively, he omits the following statement in the same entry: “Original reading probably in all cases ʾadōnay.”¹⁶ That is, according to this reference work (a lexicon, which uses shortened sentence structure), the Hebrew text originally used ʾadōnay where it later, due to the editorial work of the Masoretes, distinguishes between ʾădōnî and ʾădōnāy.

There is something peculiar that follows from the claim that Psalm 110:1 was originally understood as expressing the word ʾădōnî to mean a “non-Deity lord” in contrast to ʾădōnāy. In the MT, the word ʾădōnî occurs 278 times, including Psalm 110:1. Yet it occurs nowhere else in the Psalms (the longest book of the Bible) or in any of the other wisdom books of the Old Testament (Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes). On the other hand, in the MT, the Psalms uses the word ʾădōnāy 54 times. These statistics don’t prove what the word originally meant in Psalm 110:1, but they do raise some doubt about the claim that Psalm 110:1 originally expressed the specific form of the noun found in the MT and did so in order to deny that the future Messiah would be deity.

According to Buzzard, “There should be no need to have to argue that the Hebrew Masoretic text is correct in Psalm 110:1. There is not a shred of evidence of corruption of the text here.”¹⁷ However, just a dozen pages earlier, Buzzard had expressed his approval of the Septuagint wording of Psalm 110:3b, which he quotes as follows: “From the womb, before the morning star, did I beget you” (see Ps. 109:3b LXX).¹⁸ If this wording of verse 3 is correct, though, it means the Masoretes failed to preserve the correct wording, because in the MT Psalm 110:3b says something like, “From the womb of the morning, the dew of your youth will be yours”! Besides the reference to the dew (which is in the Hebrew text but not in the Greek text), the main difference here is that the Hebrew consonantal word YLDTYK can be given vowel points to say “your youth” (yaldūteykā, as in the Hebrew MT) or “I have begotten you” (yelidtîykā, as translated in Psalm 109:3 LXX, exegennēsa se, cf. Ps. 2:7).¹⁹

There are significant textual variants even among the medieval Hebrew manuscripts in Psalm 110:3. For example, the MT in the first part of verse 3 refers to “holy garments” (hadrê qōdeš, see ESV, NLT; cf. LEB, NASB, NIV), while other medieval Hebrew manuscripts as well as some ancient witnesses to the text have “holy mountains” (harrê qōdeš, see NRSV, cf. NET).²⁰ In this instance, the variant is not merely a difference in vowel pointing, but in the consonantal text itself. The bottom line is that serious biblical scholars, while they greatly respect the MT, do not take it as absolute, let alone profess to do so where convenient while elsewhere preferring alternate texts, as Buzzard does with Psalm 110:1 and Psalm 110:3.

Buzzard’s whole line of argument here proceeds from the false premise that if the Bible describes the Messiah in human, non-divine terms, this means he cannot be divine. In orthodox Christian theology, Jesus the Messiah is both human and divine. The divine Son came into the world as a mortal human, lived, died, and rose from the dead. Biblical affirmations of the humanity of the Messiah are a feature, not a bug, from an orthodox perspective. Likewise, the fact that Psalm 110:1 refers to the Father as Yahweh and the Son as “my lord” is no more problematic theologically than the New Testament practice of using “God” for the Father and such titles as “Christ” for Jesus (see pp. 677–81).

As for Buzzard’s assertion that Psalm 110:1 should be translated with “my lord” rather than “my Lord,” many translators and commentators already take this position. They would agree with him that since ʾădōnî is regularly translated “my lord” elsewhere in the Old Testament, we should do so also in Psalm 110:1, assuming we are translating the MT. This is a respectable position, though it does not justify Buzzard’s inflamed rhetoric. There is another side to this issue, however. This is not just anyone who is being addressed as “my lord.” Whoever this figure is, he is being invited to sit at God’s right hand and to rule as a king and priest forever (110:1, 4). As Jesus argued, that makes this figure greater than David; it makes him greater than any other human. Read in this way, the form of address found in Psalm 110:1 goes far beyond the ordinary courtesies of ancient cultural conventions in which someone politely addresses a king or other authority figure as “my lord.”

From a New Testament perspective, ultimately Psalm 110:1 pointed ahead beyond any Old Testament king to the one whom the New Testament calls “the Lord Jesus” or “the Lord Jesus Christ.” If we translate Psalm 110:1 as part of the whole canon of Scripture, it is not wrong to capitalize “Lord” in this context. We turn, then, to consider whether this New Testament perspective is a valid way of reading Psalm 110.

6. Bock, “Use of Daniel 7 in Jesus’ Trial,” 81.

7. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 162.

8. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 157–61. Buzzard’s most notable example of a scholarly work making this mistake is Louis A. Barbieri Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 2:73.

9. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 158.

10. In one instance, ădônāy is spelled with the consonant vav, also called waw (ו), in the middle, functioning like the vowel o (Judg. 13:8).

11. The root noun ʾădōn (אדנ (or ʾādôn (אדונ (occurs 44 times in the OT, 20 times meaning a human lord or master (Ps. 105:21; Jer. 22:18; 34:5) and 24 times the Lord God (e.g., Josh. 3:11, 13; Pss. 97:5; 114:7; Zech. 4:14; 6:5). With the definite article, hāʾādōn or hāʾădōn, the title always means “the Lord,” that is, God (8 times).

12. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 168, 172.

13. Klaas Spronk, “Lord,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 531, 532.

14. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 174–75, bracketed words Buzzard’s.

15. Spronk, “Lord,” 532, emphasis added. 16. BDB, s.v. ʾādôn, 10; cf. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 174.

17. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 173.

18. Buzzard, Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian, 161. Buzzard claims quite implausibly that Psalm 109:3 LXX means that God “begat” the Messiah when Jesus was born of a virgin. The text says that the Messiah was begotten before the “morning star” or perhaps the “morning,” which is more consistent with his preexistence (see above, chaps. 10–12).

19. Willem A. VanGemeren, “Psalms,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Revised Edition), vol. 5: Psalms, ed. Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 815.

20. See NET Bible, 2nd ed. (2019), Ps. 110:3 n.

This next excerpt is from pp. 687-689.

SITTING AT GOD’S RIGHT HAND IN HEAVEN

There are, of course, many other passages in the Old Testament (especially though by no means exclusively in the Psalms) that point forward in various ways to the Messiah. However, Psalm 110 is unique in speaking of the Davidic king (with the Messiah as the full realization of this picture) as sitting at Yahweh’s right hand. A few texts speak of Solomon sitting on the throne of Yahweh (1 Chron. 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8), while others speak of Yahweh sitting enthroned in Zion (Ps. 9:7, 11) or of Jerusalem or the temple as his throne (Jer. 3:17; Ezek. 43:4–7). The Old Testament also occasionally speaks of Yahweh being “enthroned on the cherubim,” that is, sitting on or between the images of the cherubim on top of the ark of the covenant in the tabernacle (Exod. 25:22; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; Pss. 80:1; 99:1). Yet nowhere except in Psalm 110:1 does the Old Testament picture Yahweh and the human king sitting enthroned side by side.

More commonly, the Old Testament pictures God’s “throne” as being in heaven (e.g., 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Chron. 18:18; Pss. 11:4; 33:13–14; 97:1–2, 9; 103:19; 113:4–6; 123:1; Isa. 66:1). Psalm 2, a text that in other respects has several clear verbal and thematic parallels to Psalm 110, actually contrasts Yahweh sitting enthroned in heaven (Ps. 2:4) with the Davidic king sitting on his throne in Zion (2:6).

Evidently, Jesus drew on Psalm 110:1 in his response to Caiaphas because it said something that went beyond what more conventional messianic passages said. While in a purely metaphorical, typological sense, Psalm 110:1 might be read as saying that Solomon or other Davidic kings sat at God’s “right hand” on the throne in Jerusalem, Jesus took the statement in its fullest possible sense—that he was actually going to be ruling alongside God in heaven. Indeed, had Jesus claimed that he was going to rule as Messiah from Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin would not have considered such a claim blasphemous (though presumably they would have vociferously disagreed). Many if not most Jews hoped for a messianic king who would do just that.

On the other hand, Caiaphas probably would not have deemed it blasphemous for Jesus to claim he was going to enter God’s presence in heaven. The Old Testament reported that other human beings had done so without even dying (notably Enoch and Elijah). “The possibility of a heavenly abode offended no Jew who believed in an afterlife for the righteous.”⁴² However, to sit at God’s right side, meaning alongside God in heaven, was another matter altogether. In the religious and cultural milieu of Jesus, to claim to be a king who would sit at God’s right hand in heaven was tantamount to claiming equality with God.

As we explained earlier in this chapter, Jewish literature during the general time period of the New Testament also does not speak of any human or angelic creature sitting alongside God in heaven. There are texts that picture some figure, such as Moses or (possibly) Enoch, sitting on God’s throne, and we will discuss these references in the next chapter. However, even these texts do not speak of such figures sitting at God’s right hand in heaven. As best we can tell, this element of Jesus’ statement was unprecedented.

We may illustrate the point with the story of the King of Siam and Anna, the nineteenth-century English schoolteacher hired to teach his children, most memorably told in Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein’s musical The King and I. Anna flouts Siamese court protocol by barging into the king’s throne room unannounced, standing in the king’s presence when he is sitting, or by sitting with her head as high or higher than the king. Protocol required that all subjects of the king were to keep their heads lower than his at all times. This sort of royal protocol was well understood (and usually scrupulously observed) in most cultures until the rise of democracy in modern times—the very cultural shift celebrated in The King and I. For Jesus to claim that he would sit at God’s right hand was akin to claiming, in what used to be called an “Oriental” cultural context, that he would be entitled to have his head as high as that of the king.

Jesus, then, was claiming the right to go directly into God’s “throne room” and sit at his side. The temerity of such a claim for any mere human would be astonishing to the Jews of Jesus’ day.⁴³ The priests of the Sanhedrin, to whom Jesus made this claim, could not, as a rule, even go into the inner sanctum of the temple, known as the holy of holies. Many of them had probably never been inside it. The holy of holies could only be entered on a specific day in specific ways by one specific person. Failure to follow instructions resulted in death. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest entered the holy of holies with a bull to sacrifice for personal purification and a ram to burn for atonement. This was followed by a change of garments and ritual washings (Lev. 16:3–5). In other words, God’s presence in the temple was entered cautiously.

If entrance requirements to the earthly holy of holies were so strict, we can imagine what the Sanhedrin priests would have thought about Jesus claiming he would enter God’s heavenly sanctuary. Worse still, Jesus claimed he would enter the heavenly holies of holies and sit down. As Darrell Bock puts it, Jesus’ claim “would be worse, in the leadership’s view, than claiming the right to be able to walk into the holy of holies in the earthly temple and live there.”⁴⁴ His statement amounted to claiming that he owned the place!

42. Darrell L. Bock, “Jesus as Blasphemer,” in Who Do My Opponents Say that I Am? An Investigation of the Accusations against the Historical Jesus, ed. Scot McKnight and Joseph B. Modica, LNTS 327 (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 78.

43. What follows in the rest of this paragraph and in the next is essentially repeated from Komoszeswki, Sawyer, and Wallace, Reinventing Jesus, 178.

44. Darrell L. Bock, Jesus according to Scripture: Restoring the Portrait from the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 375.

45. Richard Bauckham, “The Power and the Glory: The Rendering of Psalm 110:1 in Mark 14:62,” in From Creation to New Creation: Biblical Theology and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of G. K. Beale, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner and Benjamin L. Gladd (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2013), 83.

FURTHER READING

PSALM 110 IN EARLY CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Examining Psalm 110:1 — A look at Its Implications on God being a Multi-Personal Being and upon the Deity of Christ

Psalm 110:1 – Another Clear Testimony to Christ’s Deity Pt. 1

The Binitarian Nature of the Shema [Part 1]

DAVID’S MULTI-PERSONAL LORD PT. 2

APPEARANCE OF THE TRINITY TO ABRAHAM AND DAVID PT. 3

Revisiting the implications that Psalm 110 has on the divine identity of the Messiah Pt. 1

Solomon Was Not David’s Lord! Psalm 110:1 Revisited… Again!

JESUS CHRIST: THE LORD AND THE LORD’S SON

THE KING OF ISRAEL IS THE KING OF THE NATIONS