Chizuk Emunah Under the Microscope: Chapter 40

The Lord says to my Lord:

“Sit at my right hand,

until I make your enemies your footstool.” (Psalm 110:1)

This can also be interpreted as "Yahweh says to my master." The significance of this verse is that Jesus quotes it to shut the mouths of his opponents.

And as Jesus taught in the temple, he said, “How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, in the Holy Spirit, declared,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord,

“Sit at my right hand,

until I put your enemies under your feet.”’

David himself calls him Lord. So how is he his son?” And the great throng heard him gladly. 
(Mark 12:35-37) 

Peter also quotes this passage in his sermon.

Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,

“‘The Lord said to my Lord,

“Sit at my right hand,

until I make your enemies your footstool.”’

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (Acts 2:33-36)

 Troki replies:

To this I made the following reply:—We attribute to David the composition of the 137th Psalm, commencing, "On the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept," a Psalm obviously treating of the Babylonian Captivity, which took place about four centuries after the death of David. An allusion to so distant a period could only have been made by a holy and an inspired writer.

Troki quotes other psalms such as 2:7, 137, 79, 74, and 96 as psalms written about the time of exile. Troki also makes another insight.

We must mention here, by way of digression, a misinterpretation given to the passage, "And Melchizedek brought out wine and bread." The Christians believe, that the bread and wine were offered as articles of sacrifice, but plain sense compels us to believe that the presentation of these things was merely for the entertainment of his guests.

The wine and bread were not sacrifices, just as the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice. It is a repetition of the imagery used by Melchizedek. Just as Melchizedek brought out wine and bread as part of a sacred meal, Jesus brought wine and bread, so that as long as his followers would observe the Lord's Supper, they would remember what he did for them. It is not a sacrifice, and the bread and wine are still called "bread and wine" even after they have been consecrated. This is not only repeated quite often by the church fathers, but Paul also mentions it in his first letter to the Corinthians.

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world. 
(1 Corinthians 11:23-32)

 When it is eaten, it has already been consecrated. If it had not, then eating in an unworthy manner would not have brought judgment. Yet it is still bread when it is eaten. This means that even though eating without discerning the body brings judgment, the body is still bread! Hence, transubstantiation is false.

Regarding Troki's objections, he still needs to give an answer for the question: "Who is speaking?" Troki says that it is not David, but Troki does not give much of an argument for it. In Psalm 2, it is explicitly God who is speaking. In Psalm 137 the Edomites are being explicitly quoted. In Psalm 74, God's foes are being quoted. In Psalm 96, the author tells his people to say something among the nations. In all instances, the chapter explicitly announces when it is quoting someone else.

No such announcement exists in this psalm. Since this is a psalm of David, one should ascribe Davidic authorship to it. It is ridiculous to state that David wrote this psalm about himself. The language glorifies the subject, especially when it speaks that the people will offer themselves freely on the day of his power, and that Yahweh has sworn to make the subject a priest in the order of Melchizedek. David was no priest, and it would be the height of arrogance for David to proclaim himself as such. Such a psalm, if written by David and about David, would make the man the biggest narcissist in the Bible.

As Michael Brown noted: Imagine a father writing a letter for his kids to read to him. It beings with "Dear Dad, you are the greatest dad who has ever lived." and goes on to pile on lavish praise. No sane father would write such a letter for his kids to recite, and yet we are supposed to believe that King David wanted later generations to recite this about him!

The subject sits at the highest place of honor: at the right hand of Yahweh himself. Since Messianic expectations began in Genesis 49 and began to take further shape after the monarchy was established, why then could not a monarch like David write about the later Messiah?