The right hand of God.

[Ben C. Smith]

This thread is inspired by another one that I posted a while ago: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2397.

Psalm 110.1 (LXX 109.1) reads:

Yahweh [יְהוָ֨ה, ὁ κύριος] says to my Lord [לַֽאדֹנִ֗י, τῷ κυρίῳ μου]: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

This text is quoted or alluded to many times in the NT, but I find it interesting that, while the quotations follow it pretty well, the allusions almost never use the circumlocution "Lord" for Yahweh; instead, it is almost always "God".

A direct quotation may be found in Matthew 22.44 = Mark 12.36 = Luke 20.42; here "the Lord" is used, just as we find in the LXX. Acts 2.34 is another direct quote using "the Lord".

On the thread linked to above, we discussed Matthew 26.64 = Mark 14.62 = Luke 22.69, in which a different circumlocution is used: "the right hand of Power". Another interesting circumlocution is found in the epistle to the Hebrews; 1.3 uses "the right hand of Majesty", while 8.1 has "the right hand of the throne of the Majesty". Finally, Revelation 5.1, 7 has "the right hand of him seated upon the throne"; referring back to 4.8, 11, we find that this figure is called the "Lord God Almighty" or our "Lord and God".

But more common either than direct quotations with "Lord" or than different circumlocutions like Majesty or Power is the simple term, "right hand of God". This expression, or a variant of it, can be found in Mark 16.19; Acts 2.33; 5.31; 7.55-56; Romans 8.34; Ephesians 1.20 (refer back to 1.17); Colossians 3.1; Hebrews 1.13 (refer back to 1.5); 10.12; 12.2 (right hand of the throne of God); and 1 Peter 3.22.

The stats are as follows, counting synoptic parallels as multiple instances in parentheses but as single instances outside of them:

Direct quotations with "Lord": 2 (4).
Allusions with a circumlocution besides "Lord" or "God": 5 (7).
Allusions with "God": 11 (11).

I conservatively counted the two instances from Revelation 5 in that middle category ("him who sat on the throne"), but they could also reasonably be placed in that last category (that figure is "Lord" and "God").

There are no otherwise direct quotations of the entire verse (or at least most of it) which substitute anything in for "the Lord": when our authors quote the verse, they quote it. Acts 2.33-34 is intriguing in this regard: the passage is first paraphrased with "God", but then quoted with "the Lord"! But, when they are not quoting it, they seem to prefer "God" to "the Lord" by a fairly wide margin. Why? Is it possible that this is a measure taken to distinguish God the Father from Jesus, who is himself commonly called Lord? Or do you think there is some other explanation?

Ben.

[MrMacSon]

It often seems that, in the OT, Lord is often an angel ie. an agent of Yahweh/God.

[Secret Alias]

As usual another tangent. Ben, your name in Samaritan Hebrew is Benyamim (son of days = old age) rather than of the right hand. The Samaritan name fits the story in Genesis better so it can't be attributed to "covering up " the anthropomorphism. The Jews instead had an interest in making God have a right hand.

[Secret Alias]

And perhaps even more interesting is how badly the Psalm is interpreted in the Catholic tradition. Let's look at the whole Psalm:

Yahweh says to Adonai
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
Yahweh will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies!”
Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy splendor,
your young men will come to you
like dew from the morning’s womb.
Yahweh has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”
Adonai is at your right hand;
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.
He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.
He will drink from a brook along the way,
and so he will lift his head high.

The fact that Jews (and Samaritans) have learned to use Adonai as a substitute for Yahweh is comical enough. For clearly there are two different divine names here. But the idea that Christians interpreted THIS PSALM as if it pertains to David is ludicrous WHEN YOU NOTICE THAT HEBREWS INTEREST IN THE LINE OF MELCHIZEDEK COMES FROM THIS PSALM.

Clearly Jesus = Adonai. There can be no doubt about this from the context because Adonai is the priest from the line of Melchizedek. That there was a pronounced Jewish and Christian understanding that Melchizedek was a divine being is well established. But what is most ridiculous is the later Christian effort to make it seem as if Jesus was originally identified as THE SON OF DAVID is wholly implausible from the Psalm.

We could start with the gospels but clearly it is Against Marcion (a text which as I have argued was actually written before canonical Mark, Matthew and Luke were established) where we get the clearest statement of the logic. Here Irenaeus (or whomever you suppose wrote the original text) argues:

If now the scribes regarded Christ as the son of David, and David himself calls him Lord, what does this mean to Christ? It was not that David was correcting a mistake of the scribes, but that David was paying respect to Christ, when David affirmed that Christ was his Lord even more than his son— and this would not be in character with a destroyer of the Creator (as the Marcionites allegedly supposed). But on my side how very apposite an interpretation. He had recently been called upon by that blind man as son of David: what he then refrained from saying, as he had no scribes present,
he now in their presence brings forward without suggestion from them, so as to indicate that he whom the blind man, following the scribes' doctrine, had called merely David's son, was also David's Lord. So he rewards that blind man's faith, by which he had believed him the son of David, but criticizes the tradition of the scribes, by which they failed to know him also as Lord. Anything that had bearing on the glory of the Creator's Christ, could only
have been sustained in this form by one who was himself the Creator's Christ.

As I have long noted the material in Against Marcion is now all jumbled up. Originally the author (whomever he was) was refuting an inference that the Marcionites made regarding Psalm 110. Perhaps in the Marcionite version (as I suppose) the reference occurred within the blind beggar narrative (in Luke 19). As the author of Against Marcion notes the Marcionites read the passage as if the blind man called Jesus 'son of David' originally when Jesus took him aside and 'opened his eyes' calling him thereafter 'Lord.' In other words, Jesus was not the son of David but the Lord.

I suppose that this reference to Psalm 110 appeared as the crux of the blind beggar narrative. Jesus not only opened the eyes of the blind to see that he was the Lord BUT ORIGINALLY TOLD HIM SO by referring to this Psalm. The Catholic tradition as a result developed from the author of Against Marcion's refutation of the Marcionite passage. Now of course the section has been moved from its original place but we can still see the 'connecting tissue' in the author's continued reference to the blind man while discussion this now separated section. Jesus's point was originally to say 'look at Psalm 110, there I am.' The Marcionite inference was that Jesus is the Lord. But the Catholic inference was at once to confirm that Jesus was the Lord but at the same time he was also the 'son of David.' The existing narrative in Against Marcion preserves the confused logic while divorcing the passage from its original literary context. Yet we have in De Recta in Deum Fide I think an imprint of the original Marcionite inference. Let me dig it up ...

[Secret Alias]

Unfortunately I will have to dig up my copy of De Recta in Deum Fide because the reference happens towards the end of the book and Google Preview doesn't go that far. In the meantime it might be useful to see the Patristic interpretation of the passage which makes absolutely clear that it has to be about a 'second power' in heaven. No mistake about it - https://books.google.com/books?id=kqNzB ... on&f=false

[Secret Alias]

It's going to take some time to find this book (how I hate hard copies!). But I think Barnabas will suffice. I will argue Barnabas knows the Marcionite version of the blind beggar narrative as outlined above. Notice the proper (and natural ) inference from Ps 110 that Jesus is a God (and the LXX translation of Isaiah that follows)

Behold again it is Jesus, not a son of man, but the Son of God, and He was revealed in the flesh in a figure. Since then men will say that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesieth being afraid and understanding the error of sinners; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand until I set thine enemies for a footstool under Thy feet.

And again thus sayith Isaiah; The Lord said unto my Christ the Lord, of whose right hand I laid hold, that the nations should give ear before Him, and I will break down the strength of kings. See how David calleth Him Lord, and calleth Him not Son.

[Secret Alias]

Yes I found I can see the section in Adamantius where Ps 110:1 and it confirms what I suggested about the blind beggar Bartimaeus originally containing the Psalm 110:1 reference. The problem is that I can only see it on Google Books through my phone. So I will - for the benefit of the group here - spend the night transcribing the text.

Please remember that the earliest allusions to the Dialogue make clear the original text was only a debate between Adamantius and Megetheus. 'Marinus' another heretic is introduced later in the dialogue along with other 'heretics' IMO in later corruptions of the text to distract from knowing too much about what the Marcionites actually believed. Helms hinted he suspected as much. But notice even in the section I am about to transcribe that Megethius suddenly 'pops' into the discussion because it was implausible to ascribe the words to anyone other than a Marcionite (i.e. the original words couldn't have been passed on to anyone but Marinus).

Here is the section:

MAR. Of what man is He the son?
AD. Of the seed of David, according to the flesh, just as the Gospel states.
MAR. In the Gospel it is recorded that when the Jews said that Christ was son of David, Christ Himself gave judgement against them; if you will allow me, I will read it.
EUTR. Read it please.
MAR. Jesus says, "What do you think of Christ? Whose son is He? They say to Him: David's. Jesus says to them: How then does David in spirit call Him Lord, saying, 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit on My right hand"'? If David then in spirit calls Him Lord, how is He his son?"88 Observe that He gives judgement against those who said that he was son of David by denying it Himself.
AD. The "how" is not a denial but an inquiry. In (200) fact, this word occurs in the Scriptures, not once, but often, to express not denial but an inquiry. For instance: "how can one chase a thousand?"89 Again ["How has the faithful city Sion become a prostitute?] 90 And, "How has Lucifer fallen from heaven who used to rise in the morning?"91 Christ did not say 'how' to deny but to make an inquiry.
MAR: David acknowledges Him to be Lord92, not Son.
AD. David does not acknowledge Him to be Lord according to the flesh, but according to the spirit, which means that the Word of God is Lord, not only of David, but also of "all rule, authority and dominion and every name called upon, not only in this age but also in that which is to come" 93 He knew, since he had foreknowledge94, that the Jews were sceptical of what was "according to the spirit"95. So He asked, "If David then, in spirit96 calls Him Lord, how is He his son?"97 Christ did not say, "If David, then, in the flesh calls Him Lord" but "in spirit" so acknowledging Him to be Lord in the spirit but son according to the flesh. I will demonstrate more clearly from the Gospel how Christ himself agrees that this is the saving and steadfast faith. With your permission I read.
EUTR. Read, please.
AD. Because Megethius98, who holds Marcion's teaching, is present, I will read from their Gospel: "Now it happened as He drew near to Jericho, that a certain blind man sat by the way-side, begging. When he heard the crowd passing by he asked what this meant, and he was told that Jesus was passing by he called out "Jesus son of David have mercy on me!" ...

I will have to get the book because this is the end of the free preview but notice that like Against Marcion the reference to Ps 110.1 is associated with blind Bartimaeus.

[Secret Alias]

Notice the almost identical wording in Barnabas:

David calleth Him Lord, and calleth Him not Son.

Δαυεὶδ λέγει αὐτὸν κύριον, καὶ υἱὸν οὐ λέγει

and the opponent of Adamantius in De Recta in Deum Fide:

David acknowledges Him to be Lord, not Son.

Δαυῒδ κύριον αὐτὸν ὁμολογεῖ, οὐχὶ υἱόν

[Secret Alias]

So too what precedes it:

Barnabas:

Since then men will say that Christ is the son of David, David himself prophesieth being afraid and understanding the error of sinners; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on My right hand until I set thine enemies for a footstool under Thy feet.

Adamantius's opponent:

'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit on My right hand"'? If David then in spirit calls Him Lord, how is He his son?" Observe that He gives judgement against those who said that he was son of David by denying it Himself.

The point again is that the heretics and their gospel read Psalm 110 as it naturally read on the page. The claim that the text allows for a human figure to be enthroned beside God is wholly unwarranted and is a later addition to the tradition. Our gospels were similarly developed after the original Christian interpretation of Psalm 110 was already established.

Of course the question naturally arises - which is the more original? Barnabas claims that David knew that men in the future would identify the messiah as his son and so wrote Psalm 110. This can't be the original understanding because it's stupid. Adamantius's opponent however mentions specifically Jesus rebuking those who said that he (Jesus) was the son of David. This is certainly plausible and just so happens to be the context of the blind beggar Bartimaeus story.

More importantly, the fact that BOTH texts say that David wrote Psalm 110 (see the parallels in the post above). But clearly the opponent of Adamantius gets the idea that Jesus specifically rebuked those who thought that he was the son of David. This has to be the original Marcionite version of blind beggar Bartimaeus with Psalm 110 incorporated into the narrative. That's why Bartimaeus immediately follows in Adamantius.

[Secret Alias]

Ephrem knows of a different text. Hill notes that one important reflection of the Diatessaron. In answer to Jesus's question 'What do you want me to do for you?" The blind man says:

My lord and master, that thou mayest open mine eyes, and I may see thee

https://books.google.com/books?id=hlcrA ... at&f=false

Hill sees the reading reflected in Ephrem's commentary. This would certainly help explain why the Marcionites thought that the change from "Son of David" to "Lord." Indeed in Cureton's Matthew and Luke we read:

He said to him, My Lord, that my eyes may be opened, and I may see thee

https://books.google.com/books?id=VkVMA ... 22&f=false

This is even closer to the original I suspect. Even in Ephrem there is some sense that Jesus 'opened his inner eye' here. The Pharisees also seem to be present.