Psalm 110: A Direct Messianic Prophecy or Indirect?

In the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate, it is Psalm 109[1]. Hermann Gunkel[2], who pioneered form-critical studies in the Psalms and identified six major genres or types of psalms, labeled Psalm 110 as a royal psalm. The typical characteristics of royal psalms are[3]:

1. Praises of the king.
2. Affirmations of Yahweh’s favor to the king.
3. Prayers for the king (or his own prayer) and royal oracles.
4. Portrayals of the king’s righteousness and piety.

We may highlight numbers 2, 3 and 4 as characteristics in Psalm 110. It is without a doubt talking about a king, mentioning his scepter and rule (v.2) and the victory he will have over other kings and rulers of the earth (vss.5,6), and the oracle is basically the entire psalm (verse one calls this a נְאֻ֤ם, n^eum, of Yahweh, a declaration or inspired word, an oracle). And his prowess, spiritually and physically, seems to be described in vv.5-7. He must be a king of Israel, but which king?

VERSE 1

Who Is Psalm 110 Written By and To?

The superscription, which is part of verse 1 in the Hebrew, reads: לְדָוִ֗ד מִ֫זְמֹ֥ור, a mizmor or psalm of (by, to, for, or belonging to?) David. The Hebrew letter lamedh in front of David can bear either of these meanings[4]. However, when used in the description of the Psalms, the phrases l^eDavid mizmor, l^eDavid shiggenoth, l^eDavid miktam, l^eDavid maskil, l^eDavid tehilla,  and l^eDavid tepilla, seem most likely to be the lamedh of authorship (by David). The last two phrases (a praise and a prayer of David) can seemingly only bear the meaning “of” or “by” (it is not a praise for or a prayer for David, and certainly not a praise or a prayer to David) and so by extension we would expect the other phrases to also be the lamedh of authorship (a mizmor or psalm by David, a shiggenoth [musical or poetic expression?] by David, and a miktam [?] of or by David). It is also clear that the songs of ascent (Psalms 122, 124, 131, and 133) labeled as l^eDavid are not songs for or to David, but by David (he is the author of them).

Some[5], however, have argued that Psalm 110:1 must be understood as a mizmor or psalm about or to David. David may have written it, but it is intended as a message to him, a declaration (נְאֻ֤ם, n^eum) of Yahweh to my lord David. He would be “lord” or “master” to all his subjects, one of whom would be reciting this psalm before David in a public setting. They argue that Psalm 72:1, labelled LiShlomo or LiSolomon, would also mean to Solomon. It is not at all clear, however, the LiSolomon there means “to Solomon.” Rather, it most likely means a psalm by Solomon that is really a prayer to Yahweh, as the content of the psalm makes clear.

It is not entirely impossible that l^eDavid mizmor means a psalm to David, but it is unlikely given that the usage of l^eDavid tehilla and l^eDavid tepilla clearly means authorship. This does not preclude the possibility that the king being talked about in this psalm is David. l^eDavid mizmor can mean David is the author of the psalm and yet that נְאֻ֤ם יְהוָ֨ה׀ לַֽאדֹנִ֗י, “a declaration of Yahweh to my lord” can be a reference to David, “my lord” coming to “mean nothing more than ‘I’ or ‘me’ when employed by the royal speaker.”[6] However, “there is no other clear reference in the Old Testament to an individual addressing himself in this manner.”[7] It is best not to assume that “my lord” is David, or some other king, but rather look for confirming evidence for or against it in the rest of the psalm.

How Does the Author Characterize This Psalm?

נְאֻ֤ם יְהוָ֨ה׀ לַֽאדֹנִ֗י, “A n^eum,” or declaration, “of Yahweh to my lord.” This is how David begins the psalm. It is a message, an oracle to the king, “to my lord” (לַֽאדֹנִ֗י, ladoni). Here, the lamedh before adoni almost certainly means “to” as the adon (the “lord” or “master”) is almost certainly being addressed by Yahweh. N^eum is the commonplace word (over 340 times) of the prophets for Yahweh’s declarations through them.

It was by a n^eum, a declaration, of Yahweh that He swore to Abraham that He would bless his offspring (Genesis 22:16). It was equally a n^eum of Yahweh that he would drop the bodies of the rebellious Israelites in the wilderness for their failure to trust Him and take the land of Canaan (Numbers 14:28). It was an oracle, a n^eum, of Balaam from Yahweh that, despite Balaam’s intentions, blessed Israel (Numbers 24:3,4,15,16) three times. It is equally a n^eum of Yahweh that contradicts His promise to bless the house of Eli forever and instead cuts off his strength so there remains no male in his household to serve as priest (1 Samuel 2:30). There is a n^eum leDavid, an oracle by David (lamedh of authorship, surely), the sweet psalmist of Israel, that teaches that the one who rules in the fear of God will be blessed, and in David’s case, has been given an everlasting covenant (2 Samuel 23:1). David has another n^eum (Psalm 36:1, see New English Translation note), but the vast majority of times the term is used, it is used of the n^eum of Yahweh, or of Lord Yahweh, or the n^eum of the King whose name is Yahweh of Hosts.

The Divine n^eums or declarations of Yahweh are addressed often to kings, even foreign kings, like Sennacherib (2 Kings 19:33 and Isaiah 37:34), Josiah (2 Kings 22:19 and 2 Chronicles 34:27), Zedekiah (Jeremiah 21:13,14 [see NET note]; 22:5; 23:1,2,4,5,7; 27:15; 32:5; 34:5,17,22), Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 22:16), Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22:24), Pharoah (Ezekiel 31:18; 32:8), and Zerubbabel (Haggai 2:4,8,9,23), who, though, not a king, was the closest thing to one that Israel had after the exile. Some of these are positive, like the one in this psalm, but most are negative. The n^eums are not reserved for kings. There are divine declarations for Joshua the high priest (Zechariah 3:9,10), the prophets of Jeremiah’s day (Jeremiah 1:8; 15:20; 32:30,44; 39:17,18; 23:11,12,23,24,29,30,31,32,33), the false prophets among the exiles of Israel (Ezekiel 13:8,16), Jeremiah’s amanuensis, Baruch (Jeremiah 45:5), those in exile from Israel and Judah (Jeremiah 29:9,11,14,19,23,32), the exiled elders of Israel (Ezekiel 20:3), the leaders of Israel (Ezekiel 34:8,15; 45:9,15), the priests of Israel (Ezekiel 44:12,15), the wealthy women of Bashan (Amos 4:3,5), the exiles of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 42:11; 44:29), and wicked counselors during the exile (Ezekiel 11:8).

The nations get their fair share of n^eums. The northern kingdom of Israel[8] and her sister Judah[9] get more than their fair share, even as a combined nation[10] and in future existences[11]. Other nations are spoken to by Yahweh[12].

N^eum is used, falsely, in the mouths of the false prophet Hananiah in Jeremiah’s day (Jeremiah 28:4) and in the false prophets of Israel among the exiles in Ezekiel’s day (Ezekiel 13:6,7; 14:11). And there is one n^eum given by Yahweh to, depending on your interpretation, the Messiah, the divine shepherd of Israel (Zechariah 13:7). This may not be the only n^eum spoken to Messiah if he is the king and priest intended by Psalm 110’s author.

Who Is “My Lord”?

Should the word “lord” (adon) be capitalized or not? It has been asserted[13]:

In Biblical Hebrew the Tanach uses the word ‘adoni’ more than 130 times. In every instance it means a “master” or “lord,” and refers to a human being. In addition to Psalm 110:1 the word “To my master” (l’adoni) appear 20 times and always refers to a human being.

It is quite accurate to say that the exact phrase, לַֽאדֹנִ֗י, l’adoni, “to my lord,” does always in other Scriptures refer to a human being. But it is not accurate to say that the word adoni, “my lord,” always refers to a human being. Psalm 16:2 says, “I say to Yahweh, you are my Lord (adoni).” In Psalm 38:22 David urges Yahweh, “Come quickly to help me, my Lord (adoni) and my Salvation” (see also, Psalm 2:4). It is not accurate to say, then, that in Psalm 110:1 “to my lord” cannot possibly be “to my Lord.” If David is the author and the psalm is not a psalm recited to him or some other king, but a message from Yahweh to David’s superior, the Messiah, then it could or should be capitalized. But how do we decide whether this is a psalm written to a human king or to the Messiah? We will have to look for clues in the remainder of the psalm.

The Invitation to Sit

שֵׁ֥ב לִֽימִינִ֑י, šēḇ limini, “Sit at my right hand.” This is the only place in the Old Testament that this command is given. The command is from Yahweh to whomever “my lord” is, that is, to whomever this king is. For this king to sit at Yahweh’s right hand seems to suggest that he will share power and authority with Yahweh, just as when Solomon set up a throne for Bathsheba at his right hand[14]:

When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand. (1 Kings 2:19)

Interestingly, we are never told that David had Solomon sit at his right hand on a throne while he was still king, even though Solomon had been chosen by David to be his successor, king upon his death. Solomon sits on the throne of his father David after David dies (1 Kings 2:12). We are not told that David bows to Solomon, as he did to his mother. So it seems unlikely that Solomon is the king being talked about here. David does not evidence calling Solomon his lord or master, but rather acts as Solomon’s lord, instructing Solomon how to handle certain people after David’s departure (1 Kings 2:1-9).[15]

On the other hand, of Solomon it is said,

So Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh as king in place of his father David. He prospered and all Israel obeyed him. (1 Chronicles 29:23)

Could this be an equivalent to sitting at Yahweh’s right hand? It seems instead to mean sitting on the throne that rules Yahweh’s kingdom, hence, Yahweh’s throne. It is a singular designation, depicting Yahweh ruling through the regents David and Solomon, but it does not mean sitting at Yahweh’s right hand.

In fact, no king in Scripture has ever been charged to sit at Yahweh’s right hand. It is possible that the king is considered Yahweh’s right hand (Psalm 21:8), an entirely different concept than sitting at Yahweh’s right hand, though there are considerations that would suggest he should not even be considered that (Psalm 44:3).[16] And it is possible that a king sitting at God’s right hand is envisioned in Psalm 80:

Let your hand be on the man (ʾiš) of your right hand, on the son of man (ʾāḏām) you have made strong for yourself. (Psalm 80:17)

But there is a question that “son of man” refers to the king, and even if so, it does not specify he is “sitting” at Yahweh’s right hand. Rather, he is Yahweh’s right hand, as perhaps in Psalm 21:8.[17] Even Psalm 2, with its powerful declaration that the king is God’s son, does not speak of the king as sitting at Yahweh’s right hand. If, in Psalm 110, David is the king he himself is composing this psalm about, he is making a bold claim not made anywhere else in Scripture, that Yahweh has asked him to sit at Yahweh’s right hand and co-rule with Him. Indeed, the very concept of a king sitting at God’s right hand seems foreign to any culture, let alone Israel’s. It seems unlikely, then, that David is the “lord” in this psalm.

The Extent of Yahweh’s King’s Rule

עַד־אָשִׁ֥ית אֹ֝יְבֶ֗יךָ הֲדֹ֣ם לְרַגְלֶֽיךָ, ad-ʾāšiṯ ʾōyḇeḵā hadōm l^eraḡleḵā, “until I make your enemies a stool for your feet.”

Yahweh wants the king, the lord, to sit at His right hand while He accomplishes the defeat of the king’s enemies. It could sound as if the king would himself be passive in this effort, did we not have the remainder of this psalm. But what is being emphasized is that Yahweh will empower the king and his troops for the day of battle and completely humble the king’s enemies.

There are those who are inclined to take עַד, ad, as a noun instead of a preposition, a noun that means throne or dais, in which case Yahweh is saying, “I will make your enemies a throne, a stool for your feet.”[18] And this would make sense in context. But it is questionable whether such a noun actually is used in the Old Testament, and the prepositional meaning makes equal sense.

There are many places in the Old Testament where it speaks of the people’s enemies as Yahweh’s or “Your enemies,” and of Yahweh as fighting (or not fighting) against His people’s enemies (ʾōyēḇ)[19], but, interestingly in the Psalms “your enemies” always refers to Yahweh’s enemies, not His people’s enemies, unless, that is, Psalm 110 is an exception.[20] If “your enemies” in Psalm 110 is a reference to Yahweh’s enemies, it would identify the king whom Yahweh has made to sit at His right hand as the Messiah, who can also be identified as Yahweh (as in Genesis 19:24 [see Yahweh and the Angel of Yahweh]) who has enemies.

If “your enemies” does not refer strictly to Yahweh’s enemies, it would not make it more likely that the king referred to in this psalm is not the Messiah but David, or some Canaanite king,[21] or even Solomon, nor any other human king whom David could appropriately refer to as his lord or master. The Messiah would have enemies whom Yahweh would enable him to subdue.

The king’s session sitting at Yahweh’s right hand is “until” (עַ֤ד, ad) Yahweh makes his enemies a stool for his feet (a footstool). Aloisi rightly suggests of the Hebrew preposition ad that it:

signifies the time until an event occurs, but it does not necessarily mean that David’s Lord will cease to occupy a position of honor after his enemies have been defeated. Though the text does not address the issue, it seems likely that the king will continue to be honored after his enemies have been put down.[22]

With this Brown, Driver, and Briggs agree:

In poetry, עַ֤ד is sts. used to mark not an absolute close, but an epoch or turning-point, in the fut., as ψ110:1[23]

That turning point in the future is the making of the king’s enemies his footstool, the absolute humbling of his enemies to the point of him standing on their heads.

This is the final extent of the king’s rule sitting at Yahweh’s right side, the subjection of his enemies, figuratively depicted as making them his footstool. The term used for footstool is הֲדֹ֣ם (hadōm) and it is used only five times in the Old Testament:

• King David rose to his feet and said: “Listen to me, my fellow Israelites, my people. I had it in my heart to build a house as a place of rest for the ark of the covenant of Yahweh, for the footstool of our God, and I made plans to build it. (1 Chronicles 28:2)
• Exalt Yahweh our God and worship at his footstool; he is holy. (Psalm 99:5)
• Let us go to his dwelling place, let us worship at his footstool (Psalm 132:7)
• This is what Yahweh says: “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be?” (Isaiah 66:1)
• How Yahweh has covered Daughter Zion with the cloud of his anger! He has hurled down the splendor of Israel from heaven to earth; he has not remembered his footstool in the day of his anger. (Lamentations 2:1)

It is clear from this usage that this footstool is in Yahweh’s dwelling place, the Tabernacle or the Temple, as the case may be, and there is a good argument that it is to be equated with the gold cover on the ark of the covenant that was beneath the cherubim.[24] The footstool (the hadōm) depicts the resting place at the foot of Yahweh’s throne. There is one other mention of a footstool in Scripture at 2 Chronicles 9:18, the gold footstool at the base of Solomon’s throne, but it uses a different word, כֶ֨בֶשׁ (ḵeḇeš), not the word used to describe Yahweh’s footstool, הֲדֹ֣ם (hadōm). Hadōm is Yahweh’s footstool only, in Scripture, and its use here in Psalm 110 strongly suggests that the adon or king addressed here is not David, or any other human king, but Yahweh Himself, or as Israel would have expressed it, Mashiach or Messiah.[25] The Messiah must be Yahweh to have the “enemies” and the “footstool” of Yahweh.

By way of summary of verse 1, David is the author of this psalm, an oracle from Yahweh to David’s Lord, the Messiah, who sits at Yahweh’s right hand, ruling to the defeating of their enemies and bringing them into subjection to Messiah’s throne.

 

VERSE 2

The Power Behind the King’s Rule

מַטֵּֽה־עֻזְּךָ֗ יִשְׁלַ֣ח יְ֭הוָה מִצִּיֹּ֑ון, matte uzzeḵā yišlaḥ Yahweh mitZiōn, “Yahweh extends Your mighty scepter from Zion.”

Yišlaḥ is qal imperfect, which usually denotes incomplete action, whether in the past, present, or future, and sometimes a modal nuance.[26] Hence, the modern versions translate the verb with the English future tense (Yahweh will extend your scepter, ASV, CSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, e.g.), or as the Complete English Bible translates it with a more modal nuance (may Yahweh extend your scepter), or as The Living Bible represents it with an English past tense (Yahweh  has extended your scepter), or as some versions translate it as English present (Yahweh extends your scepter, ESV, NET, NRS, RSV). With the command that follows the passage could read:

• Yahweh will extend your scepter, therefore rule in the midst of your enemies, or
• May Yahweh extend your scepter. Rule in the midst of your enemies, or
• Yahweh has extended your scepter, therefore rule in the midst of your enemies, or
• Yahweh extends your scepter, therefore rule in the midst of your enemies.

With three of these the command to rule seems a logical consequence of Yahweh extending the Messiah’s scepter. Each of these tense/modal renditions seems possible. When we get to verse 3 there are no verbs to give us tense, but the most logical tense sense is future (Your people will be freewill offerings…). So for consistency it is probably best to see this phrase as a future.

It is Yahweh who will extend (יִשְׁלַ֣ח, send or reach forth) Messiah’s scepter, much like the perverted one sends (sows) discord (Proverbs 6:14), or the dishonest one sends (spreads) strife (Proverbs 16:28), sending with the intent of it spreading out. Yahweh is the power behind the Messiah’s martial success.

Though the matte(scepter) could be any kind of staff or rod,[27] when placed in the hand of the one sitting at the right hand of Yahweh, a king who is told to rule, it becomes a scepter, a symbol of the king’s might and power. Yahweh tells the king that his scepter is mighty and that He, Yahweh, is stretching or extending the rule of His king’s scepter from Zion and beyond. The king in Psalm 2 is made king during an uprising of the nations against Yahweh and his anointed, and are terrorized by Yahweh, who promises His king that He will make the nations His king’s inheritance. That is what we may suppose Yahweh is communicating here to His king, the Messiah, that He will give him authority over the nations who oppose him, that He will use Messiah’s rod[28] or scepter to crush them. Zion is not enough for this king to rule (Isaiah 49:6). The whole world must submit to him (Daniel 7:13,14).

רְ֝דֵ֗ה בְּקֶ֣רֶב אֹיְבֶֽיךָ, r^ede b^eqereb ōy^eḇeḵā, “Rule in the midst of your enemies.”

The word r^ede (rule) is the word used in Genesis 1:26,28 of mankind having dominion over the creatures of earth. In Leviticus 25:43,46,53 it is used of dominion over a slave, which rule in the case of an enslaved Hebrew should not be harsh. In language similar to Psalm 110, in another Messianic passage, Numbers 24:17-19, Balaam describes his vision of a star and scepter that comes out of Israel or Zion, a ruler who will have dominion. And here, in psalm 110, the Messiah is commanded to have dominion in the midst of his enemies.

 

VERSE 3

The Character of Messiah’s Army

עַמְּךָ֣ נְדָבֹת֮ בְּיֹ֪ום חֵ֫ילֶ֥ךָ בְּֽהַדְרֵי־קֹ֭דֶשׁ מֵרֶ֣חֶם מִשְׁחָ֑ר לְ֝ךָ֗ טַ֣ל יַלְדֻתֶֽיךָ, ʿamm^əḵā n^əḏāḇōṯ b^əyō^wm ḥē^yleḵā b^əhaḏrē^y-qōḏeš. Mēreḥem mišḥār l^əḵā ṭal yalḏuṯe^yḵā, Your people will be freewill offerings in the day of your strength in the splendor of holiness. From the womb of the dawn will be the dew of your youth.

Heil[29] notes, “Verse 3 is rife with near-insoluble difficulties.” To begin with, עַמְּךָ֣, as pointed by the Massoretic text, means “your people.” But the Septuagint reads it as עִמְּךָ֔ (“with you,” the preposition instead of the noun “people”), a different pointing. This could make sense, reading “with you will be volunteers in the day of your strength.” However, “your people will be volunteers…” seems to make a bit better sense.

Then, where the Massoretic text reads “garments” (הַדְרֵי,haḏrē), an “argument can also be made for emending the text of the third line, on the basis of the Greek version of Symmachus (followed by Jerome in the Latin Vulgate), but also attested in the Hebrew manuscripts: הַרְרֵי (“mountains of”) instead of הַדְרֵי”[30] (“garments of”). You can see the possibility of reading a daleth (ד) instead of a resh (ר). This too could make sense, “Your people will be volunteers in the day of your strength, on the holy mountains,” instead of “Your people will be volunteers in the day of your strength, in the garments of holiness.”

Or, “holy” or “holiness” (קֹ֭דֶשׁ) could be translated “the Holy One,” giving us another alternative meaning (“on the mountain of the Holy One,” or “in the garments of the Holy One”). And could רחם (raḥēm) also be understood as a divine name (“the One who shows compassion”)[31] rendering something like, “From the Compassionate One comes the dawn, the dew of your youth”? Good sense can be made of each of these alternatives. We will follow the Massoretic text.

עַמְּךָ֣ נְדָבֹת֮ בְּיֹ֪ום חֵ֫ילֶ֥ךָ, “Your people will be freewill offerings in the day of your strength.”

In the Psalms, the phrase “your people” always, with one exception (Psalm 45:10) refers to Yahweh’s people, Israel.[32] Messiah’s people will be a  נִדְבַ֥ת (niḏḇaṯ), a freewill offering (as in Deuteronomy 16:10), or נְדָבֹת֮ (n^eḏāḇōṯ), freewill offerings (as the Massoretes point it here in Psalm 110). Freewill offerings, sacrifices, were voluntary gifts expressing devotion, worship, and thanks. Messiah’s people, his army, will be willing volunteers, ready to sacrifice themselves for Messiah’s victory over his enemies, Yahweh’s enemies.

The “day” of Messiah’s strength is the event of demonstrating his power and might over his enemies. Whether we are to think of this as one decisive battle or a whole campaign is not determined by the word “day.” That it is Messiah’s army makes clear that he is doing the battle that Yahweh has equipped him for when He sat him on the throne at His right hand.

But what are we to make of בְּֽהַדְרֵי־קֹ֭דֶשׁ מֵרֶ֣חֶם מִשְׁחָ֑ר לְ֝ךָ֗ טַ֣ל יַלְדֻתֶֽיךָ? Is it “in garments of holiness, from the womb of the dawn will be the dew of your youth,” or “in the splendor of holiness, from the womb of the dawn will be the dew of your youth”? Brown/Driver/Briggs prefer “garments of holiness” referring to “sacred, festal garments, acc. To Thes al. cf. RVm” (that is according to Gesenius and others and the Revised Version margin).[33] The only other places where this phrase is used are 1 Chronicles 16:29 and Psalm 29:2, where it is translated “worship Yahweh in the splendor of holiness.” However, in both these cases the noun “splendor” הַדְרַת, is feminine, whereas in Psalm 110 הַדְרֵי is masculine. There doesn’t seem to be much difference in the Hebrew between the feminine and the masculine in terms of meaning, so this may be of no consequence. “Garments” of holiness, especially if with BDB they signify “sacred, festal garments” would go well with the second half of this psalm, which speaks of Messiah’s priestly role. “Splendor of holiness” goes equally well, however, as a description of Messiah’s army acting in holiness, arrayed in righteousness as their armor, a more immediately appropriate idea at this point in the psalm.

With this phrase, “in the splendor of holiness,” the psalmist then seems to end the description of Messiah’s army. It is characterized by willing volunteers, who see their service as a freewill offering to Yahweh, volunteers who are also holy, righteous soldiers set apart to God. But there is a possibility that this segment could be attached to what follows, giving further description of the leader of the army, Messiah, being arrayed in the splendor of holiness.

The way the Masoretes point the last phrase it reads “From the womb of the dawn will be the dew of your youth.” יַלְדֻתֶֽיךָ (yalḏuṯeḵā, your youth) is masculine singular, and so could only refer to Messiah, the leader of the righteous army. Yahweh will provide him with youthful energy to finish the task. “If, however,” Emadi writes, “יַלְדֻתֶךָ (“your youth”) is repointed as a Qal perfect first person singular verb with a 2nd person masculine singular suffix, the resulting phrase is “I have begotten you” (יְלדְתּיךָ). By repointing the prepositional phrase לְךָ (“to you”) as an imperative לֵךְ (“Go!” from the root הלך), the final phrase becomes, “Go forth! I have begotten you as the dew.”[34] This is a fascinating possibility. Whether it is the intended meaning is impossible to say. So either the verse finishes out with a description of the provision Yahweh makes to Messiah as he leads this army, a provision of youthfulness symbolized by the fresh dew on the grass at dawn, or with a command for Messiah to go forth in battle as Yahweh’s begotten one. יַלְדֻתֶֽיךָ (yalḏuṯeḵā, your youth) is masculine singular, and so could only refer to Messiah, the leader of the righteous army.

VERSE 4

The Oath of Messiah’s Priesthood

נִשְׁבַּ֤ע יְהוָ֨ה׀ וְלֹ֥א יִנָּחֵ֗ם אַתָּֽה־כֹהֵ֥ן לְעֹולָ֑ם עַל־דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק, Nišba Yahweh w^əlō yinnāḥēm ʾattā^h -ḵōhēn l^əʿō^wlām ʿal-diḇrāṯi^y malkiy-ṣeḏeq,Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind: You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.

Whereas the first three verses have been focused on Messiah’s kingly role, this next verse describes his priestly role. Heil remarks,

The precise meaning and derivation of the verb נִשְׁבַּ֤ע (nisba) remains in question, other than that it would seem to be related to the number seven (שׁבע). The verb could essentially be denominative in this regard (viz., to do something seven-times, or seven-fold), though the basic denotation, of the Hebrew verb (in the Niphal stem), is to take/swear an oath. In translating this verb, I have generally assumed that the fundamental meaning is something like “confirm/affirm seven-fold” (through an oath).”[35]

The Hebrew word is used of humans taking an oath and of Yahweh taking an oath, or swearing an oath.[36] Yahweh’s oaths include the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinaitic covenant, as well as the Davidic covenant. But we have no record outside of Psalm 110 that Yahweh swore an oath to anyone that they would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. What is the psalmist’s, David’s, justification for making this declaration about the king of Psalm 110? Is this a previous revelation that David had concerning the king of Israel, or is it a revelation David is given concerning the Messiah?

Answering this question might be helped if the kings of Israel were ever considered priests, cohenim (כֹּהֲנִ֖ים)? Priests had a number of functions or duties:

1. They were to bless God’s people with God’s blessing (Genesis 14:18; Deuteronomy 21:5; 2 Chronicles 30:27)
2. They were to consult the Urim and Thummim (which was contained in the ephod) to answer yes/no questions (Numbers 27:21; 1 Samuel 30:7; 1 Samuel 23:9–12; Ezra 2:63)
3. They were to blow trumpets before the ark (Numbers 10:8; Joshua 6:4; 1 Chronicles 15:24; 2 Chronicles 16:6; 5:12) and in worship (2 Chronicles 5:12; 7:6)
4. They were to go in and out before Yahweh (1 Samuel 2:30, entering the Holy Place, and in the case of the high priest, the Holy of Holies)
5. They were to examine for skin diseases and mold, and do a cleansing ritual if the disease or mold was resolved (Leviticus 13; 14)
6. They were to present the firstfruits offering from the harvest (Leviticus 23)
7. They were to determine the values of vows and dedicated items (Leviticus 27)
8. They were to accompany Israel’s armies to war (Numbers 31; Deuteronomy 20:2-4)
9. They were to help the judges settle disputes (Deuteronomy 19:17; 21:5; no doubt using their knowledge of the Law)
10. They were to read and teach the Law (Deuteronomy 31:9-13)
11. They were to burn incense before Yahweh (1 Samuel 2:28)
12. They were to keep the sanctuary in repair and secure (1 Chronicles 28; 23:4)
13. They were to offer sacrifices (Leviticus 1-6; Numbers 15:25; 19; )

There is no record of Israel’s kings performing these tasks, except blessing the people and perhaps offering sacrifices, and in one case, an action that was severely punished, when Uzziah burned incense (2 Chronicles 26:16-21). Uzziah’s action suggests strongly that some kings of Israel, perhaps copying the behaviors of pagan kings, perceived their kingship carried a priestly privilege. But was this condoned by Yahweh? We see in the case of Uzziah that it was not.

Solomon blessed the people at the inauguration of the temple (1 Kings 8:54–61), but this is not represented as a regular priestly responsibility. It then says, “Then the king and all Israel with him offered sacrifices before Yahweh” (1 Kings 8:62). Is this a priestly action of the king? If so, it is also the priestly action of the people. It is noted that when David took the ark of the covenant up to Jerusalem it is said,

¹³ When those who were carrying the ark of Yahweh had taken six steps, he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. ¹⁴ Wearing a linen ephod, David was dancing before Yahweh with all his might, ¹⁵ while he and all Israel were bringing up the ark of Yahweh with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (2 Samuel 6:13-15)

The wearing of an ephod could be construed as a priestly garment, but not necessarily so. And David is said to have sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf every six steps. Does this mean he was sacrificing as a priest would? Doubtful. Though David was the bringer of the sacrifice, he likely did not do the actual slaughtering or offering of the sacrifice but had Levites and priests doing that. Much the same as any offeror of sacrifice in Israel would do, the offeror brought the sacrificial animal, laid hands on it, and the priest performed the sacrifice. This is not sufficient evidence that kings took priestly privilege to themselves.

It has been suggested that Zechariah 6:9-14 speaks of the high priest Joshua being given kingly authority, thus bleeding the king’s and priest’s responsibilities together:

⁹ The word of Yahweh came to me: ¹⁰ “Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah and Jedaiah, who have arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. ¹¹ Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jozadak. ¹² Tell him this is what Yahweh Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of Yahweh. ¹³ It is he who will build the temple of Yahweh, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.’ ¹⁴ The crown will be given to Heldai, Tobijah, Jedaiah and Hen son of Zephaniah as a memorial in the temple of Yahweh.

But a more accurate interpretation of this word to Zechariah is that Joshua is prefiguring the Messiah, the Branch, who will build the temple and unite the priestly and kingly responsibilities, bring harmony between the two, in his person and rule, suggesting that they are not yet so in the current experience of Israel.

There is, however, one other piece of evidence that suggests that kings of Israel might have been considered priests of some kind. In 2 Samuel 8:18 we are told that David’s sons held the title of priest. Yes, in 1 Chronicles 18:17 they are called “officials” rather than priests, and the Septuagint and Targum of 2 Samuel 8:18 reads chief officials rather than priests. Was this an attempt to clarify that David’s sons were not equated with Levitical priests, or was it to deny priesthood of any kind to them? It is hard to say. Would David and his sons be considered Melchizedekian type priests? But here it seems strange that not David, but only his sons, were ever termed priests (cohenim).

There does not seem to be enough evidence to clearly indicate that the Davidic kings, at least, had priestly functions, or that they were ever considered priests of any kind. Psalm 110 would be the sole reference to this if the king of Psalm 110 is David or another Davidic king. Given the language used of this king in the first three verses, however, language that seems only appropriate for Messiah, it seems best to conclude that the priestly function of the king of Psalm 110 is also solely that of the Messiah.[37]

The question of where this revelation of Messiah’s priestly role came from seems answered in the prophetic vision of David. Yahweh is telling him his future offspring will be both priest and king, presumably, as we may suppose Melchizedek was, and thus able to offer sacrifices, though to what end we are not told. It falls to the author of Hebrews to inform us that the priestly offering of sacrifice was Messiah’s offering of himself to secure forgiveness for all of us.

Yahweh swears that the Lord is a priest “forever.”  Heil notes,

The Hebrew לְעֹולָ֑ם is typically explained as the common temporal expression “for/into (the) distant (future)”, i.e., “forever” — “You (are) a priest forever”. However, Dahood (III, p. 117) makes a strong argument for reading לְעֹולָ֑ם here as a Divine title—literally, “Distant (One)”, but properly “Eternal (One)”.[38]

As Melchizedek is described as “priest of God Most High” (כֹהֵ֖ן לְאֵ֥ל עֶלְיֹֽון) there is a verbal parallel, as also in Genesis 21:33 (Yahweh the Eternal God, יְהוָ֖ה  אֵ֥ל  עֹולָֽם). But in both of those instances “God” or “Yahweh” precedes the descriptor, “most high” or “eternal” unlike here. It seems best to take this as an adjective, a priests “forever.”

Is this forever-a-priest in contrast to Aaron’s priesthood? Certainly not in regard to the perpetuity of Aaron’s priesthood (Exodus 27:21; 29:9; 40:15; Numbers 25:13; 1 Samuel 2:30) which was also regarded as eternal. The Messiah’s priesthood could be said to be one in perpetuity, like Aaron’s, as his offspring take the role after him, but it seems unlikely that Messiah’s offspring would be in mind here. What is more likely is that this priesthood’s eternity is “restricted to a single person.”[39]

 

The Melchizedekian Connection

עַל־דִּ֝בְרָתִ֗י מַלְכִּי־צֶֽדֶק, ʿal-diḇrāṯi^y malkiy-ṣeḏeq, according to the order of Melchizedek. The translation of this prepositional phrase, al-dibrati, has produced some difficulty. In its usage in other Old Testament authors it appears to have the general meaning, “with regard to,” which itself can have unstated meanings:

• Defining the topic or domain of pertinence (Ecclesiastes 3:18; Psalm 110:4?)
• Causal (Ecclesiastes 8:2)
• Result, “so that” (Ecclesiastes 7:14)
• Purpose, “in order that” (Daniel 2:30; 4:14)

Its meaning in this psalm seems to fit best with defining the domain of pertinence, that is, the domain of Melchizedekian priesthood. Messiah is a priest, as the Septuagint translates it, kata tēn taxin, after the order of, Melchizedek.

But why Melchizedek? There were, before the Aaronic priesthood instituted by Yahweh in His law, many who took or were appointed to the role of priest, several of which are mentioned in Scripture:

• Potiphera the priest of On (Joseph’s wife is his daughter): Genesis 41:45,50;46:20
• The priests of Egypt in general: Genesis 47:22,26
• Reuel (Jethro), priest of Midian (Moses’ father-in-law): Exodus 2:16; 3:1; 18:1, and of course
• Pre-Levitical priests in Israel: Exodus 19:22,24
• Melchizedek: Genesis 14:18-20, ¹⁸ Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, ¹⁹ and he blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. ²⁰ And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.” Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

How these individuals rated priesthood is not explained, but much like other firstborn sons or patriarchs (Noah, Job, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) they acted as mediators between God and their people, offering sacrifices and leading worship. So why is Messiah not a priest forever after the order of Jethro (Reuel)?

The answer seems to lie in the fact that Melchizedek was not only a priest, but also a king. He was the king of Salem (Jerusalem), which David later captured and made the capital of Israel, the twelve tribes, which Yahweh chose as the place for the central worship center of the nation (Deuteronomy 17). And it possibly lies in the fact that Melchizedek’s priesthood (and his kingship, for that matter) has no mention of it being inherited. This seems to be the argument of the author of Hebrews (7:3, Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever.)[40] The Messiah will have the priesthood, not by having the right genealogy, but by direct appointment from Yahweh. As the author of Hebrews further argues,

¹³ He of whom these things are said belonged to a different tribe, and no one from that tribe has ever served at the altar. ¹⁴ For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. ¹⁵ And what we have said is even more clear if another priest like Melchizedek appears, ¹⁶ one who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life. (Hebrews 7:13-16)

Yahweh appoints Messiah to his priesthood forever because he has an indestructible life, not needing offspring to perpetuate his priesthood, but living forever. Messiah becomes a priest by divine oath, not by genealogy.

Is this Melchizedek connection made by God (revealed to David) or by David (from his own meditation on Genesis 14). Emadi makes a strong case that this insight about Messiah being a priest after the order of Melchizedek “is the outgrowth of David’s reflection on Genesis 14 in light of the Davidic covenant and the patterns of his own life.”[41] David, it is argued, saw Melchizedek as the true priest of the Adamic/Noahic/Abrahamic covenant and the pattern for his own potential priesthood/kingship role in Israel (one he failed at through his sinfulness), and his greater son’s actual role. Yahweh has promised a king/priest Messiah in 1 Samuel 2:35,

And I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest who will do according to what is in My heart and in My mind. And I will build him a sure house and he (or it, the house) shall go in and out before My Anointed forever.

David reasons that this priest/king will not be from Aaron’s line, but rather Melchizedekian in nature, appointed outside the line of Aaron, in David’s line.

This is certainly possible. However, it could just be that Yahweh revealed this to David about his future offspring, the Messiah.

 

VERSE 5

The Wrathful Conquest of Earth’s Kingdoms

אֲדֹנָ֥י עַל־יְמִֽינְךָ֑ מָחַ֖ץ בְּיֹום־אַפֹּ֣ו מְלָכִֽים, ʾăḏōnāy ʿal-y^əmi^yn^əḵā māḥaṣ b^əyō^wm-ʾappō^w məlāḵiym, The Lord is at Your right hand. He will shatter kings on the day of His wrath.

Though the Masoretes point adon as adonai, the Lord, it could just as easily be pointed as it was in verse 1 as adoni, my Lord, and form a more consistent flow: Yahweh said to my Lord…My Lord is at Your right hand. At question is whether adonai (or adoni) is the Messiah or Yahweh. If the latter, David is saying that Yahweh is at the Messiah’s right hand as he goes into battle, a concept we have seen (Psalm 16:8; 121:5), and He Yahweh, is shattering kings on the day of His, Yahweh’s, wrath. If the former, it is restating the Messiah is seated on a throne on Yahweh’s right side, from whence he is conducting a battle, shattering kings on the day of his, Messiah’s wrath. The former seems more consistent to me. Adon is identified as Messiah, Yahweh is referred to as Yahweh. And the rest of the psalm finishes speaking about Messiah, judging nations and drinking from the brook after his successful campaign (verses 6 and 7). This is a somewhat startling concept, as it is usually Yahweh who is doing the battle for the king, whereas here the Messiah is doing battle for Yahweh, another possible signal that the Messiah is deity.

Messiah shattering kings (the word can convey a number of destructive actions: piercing, crushing, wounding, thrusting through, smashing, striking) on the day of his wrath recalls Psalm 2,

⁸ Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession. ⁹ You will break them with a rod of iron; you will dash them to pieces like pottery…¹² Kiss the son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Messiah’s career will involve the final destruction of all God’s enemies, the making of them into Yahweh’s footstool.

 

VERSE 6

The Executing of Divine Judgment

יָדִ֣ין בַּ֭גֹּויִם מָלֵ֣א גְוִיֹּ֑ות מָ֥חַץ רֹ֝֗אשׁ עַל־אֶ֥רֶץ רַבָּֽה, yāḏi^yn baggō^wyim mālēʾ ḡ^əwiyyō^wṯ māḥaṣ rō⁽ʾ⁾š ʿal-ʾereṣ, He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses, shattering the rulers over the whole earth.

The Messiah’s warfare against the nations is an act of divine judgment. The only place where this word is used of humans rendering judgment is Genesis 49:16. All other usages speak of Yahweh’s judgment (Deuteronomy 32:36;1 Samuel 2:10; Job 36:31; Psalm 7:8; Psalm 9:8; Psalm 72:2; Psalm 96:10; Psalm 135:14, another indication that the Messiah is divine). And here it is a judgment of death, destroying all the wicked rulers (literally “heads” though not intended literally) throughout earth.

 

VERSE 7

The Ultimate Victory of Messiah

מִ֭נַּחַל בַּדֶּ֣רֶךְ יִשְׁתֶּ֑ה עַל־כֵּ֝֗ן יָרִ֥ים רֹֽאשׁ, minnaḥal baddereḵ yišthe ʿal- kēn yāri^ym rō⁽ʾ⁾š, From the brook along the way he will drink, and so he will lift up his head.

As Emadi says, “He will lift his head in triumph, signaling in Bruce Waltke’s words that ‘[he] is worthy of honor and dominion (cf. Gen 40:13; Judg 8:28; 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 3:3 [4]; 27:6), and is full of joy (Ps 27:4, 9).’”[42] Here is the final and ultimate victory of Yahweh’s Messiah, David’s offspring and Lord.

Conclusion

It should be clear from this exposition and interpretation of Psalm 110 that the psalm is intended as a direct prophecy concerning the anticipated Messiah, not an indirect one about a current Israelite king whose life is typical of the coming Messiah.

____________________________________________

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_110

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Gunkel

[3] A Form-Critical Classification of the Psalms according to Hermann Gunkel, by Tyler F. Williams, https://three-things.ca/form-critical-classification-of-psalms

[4] 1 Samuel 17:17, Jesse said to David; 1 Samuel 30:6, distress was to (i.e., belonged to or came to) David; 2 Samuel 3:9, do for David; 2 Samuel 16:23, Ahithophel’s advice was esteemed by David and Absalom; Psalm 17:1, a prayer by David.

[5] https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/psalm-110-a-jewish-perspective/

[6] Royal Priesthood: An Old Testament Messianic Motif, Eugene H. Merrill, Bibliotheca Sacra, 150:597 (Jan 1993), p.55

[7] Ibid. See Merrill also for a discussion of the pronominal ending having no force at all, rendering the translation, Yahweh said to the lord. (pp.55,56)

[8] Isaiah 41:14; 43:10,12; 54:17; 55:8; 59:20; 66:2,17,22; Jeremiah 3:12,13,14,16,20; 4:1; Jeremiah 5:11,15,18,22; 16:14,16; 18:6; Hosea 2:16,21; 11:11; Amos 2:11,16; 3:10,13,15; 4:6,8,9,10,11; 8:3,9,11; 9:7,8,12,13; Micah 5:10

[9] Isaiah 22:25; 30:1; 31:9; 49:18; 52:5; Jeremiah 1:15,19; 2:3,9,12,19,22,29; 3:1,10; 4:9,17; 5:9,29; 6:12; 7:11,13,19,32; 8:1,13,17; 9:3,6,9,22,25; 13:11,14,25; 15:3,6,9; 16:5,11; 17:24; 19:6,12 and 21:7,10 and 25:7,9,12,29,31 and 27:22; 35:15; Ezekiel 5:11; 12:25,28; 14:14,16,18,20,23; 15:8; 17:16; 24:14; Joel 2:12; Micah 4:6; Zephaniah 1:2,3,10; 3:8; Haggai 1:9,13; 2:14,17; Zechariah 1:3,14,16; 2:6,10; 5:4; 8:6,11,17; 11:6; Malachi 1:2

[10] Jeremiah 30:3,8,10,11,17,21; 31:1,14,16,17,20,27,28,31,32,33,34,36,37,38;33:14; 46:28; Ezekiel 11:21; 16:8,14,19,23,30,43,48,58,63; 18:3,9,23,30,32; 20:31,33,36,40,44;  21:13,18; 22:12,31; 23:34; 33:11; 34:30,31; 36:14,15,23,32; 37:14; 39:29; Amos 6:8,14; Zechariah 10:12

[11] Ezekiel 43:19,27; 44:27; 47:23; 48:29; Zechariah 12:1,4; 13:2, and Israel in the first century, Zechariah 13:8 (?)

[12] Babylon, Isaiah 14:22,23; Jeremiah 50:4,10,20,21,30,31,35,40; 51:24,25,26,39,48,52,53,57; Syria, Isaiah 17:3,6; 49:26; Egypt, Isaiah 19:4; Jeremiah 46:5,18,23,26;  Ezekiel 29:20; 30:6; 31:18; 32:14,16,31,32; Moab, Jeremiah 48:12,25,30,35,38,43,44,47; Zephaniah 2:9; Ammon, Jeremiah 49:2,5,6; Zephaniah 2:9; Edom, Jeremiah 49:13,16; Ezekiel 25:14; 35:6,11; Obadiah 4,8; Kedar and Hazor, Jeremiah 49:30,31,32; Elam, Jeremiah 49:37,38,39; Tyre, Ezekiel 26:5,14,21; 28:10; Gog and Magog, Ezekiel 38:18,21; 39:5,8,10,13,20; and Assyria (Ninevah), Nahum 2:13; 3:5; and in general the nations around Israel and Judah, Jeremiah 12:17 and 27:8,11

[13] Rabbi Bentzion Kravitz © 2005 Jews for Judaism, https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/psalm-110-a-jewish-perspective/

[14] BSac 157:626 (Apr 00) p. 160, Is Psalm 110 a Messianic Psalm? Barry C. Davis: The Hebrew Scriptures link יָשַׁב (when defined as “to sit,” not “to dwell”) and יָמִין (“right side”) on only four occasions (1 Kings 2:19; 22:19; 2 Chron. 18:18; Ps. 110:1). In two of the four (1 Kings 22:19 and 2 Chron. 18:18), יהוה (“the LORD”) is the one pictured as sitting. Those who are depicted as being at His right side are angels, who are portrayed as standing. In the remaining two passages, in which someone other than יהוה is identified as sitting (Bathsheba in 1 Kings 2:19 and אֲדֹנִי here in Psalm 110:1), that person is viewed as being highly important, royalty in fact.

[15] A case has been made by Herbert W. Bateman IV, “Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 149 [October-December 1992]: 438-53) that Solomon is the “lord” or king of Psalm 110, David speaking of Solomon as his lord because he will be king in David’s place.

[16] Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition): Old Testament, commenting on Psalm 21:8-10, says, “The people look for a demonstration of the royal power and glory bestowed on the king by the Lord. They view the anointed king as God’s means of establishing God’s kingdom on earth by ridding the earth of the enemies. To him belong the blessings of the covenant (vv.3, 6). The Lord has given the king the keys to the kingdom, because it is through the “hand” of his anointed that the foes will be removed.” But Psalm 44:3 contends that Yahweh is more directly the power that gives victory, “It was not by their sword that they won the land, nor did their arm bring them victory; it was your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face, for you loved them.”

[17] The NIV Application Commentary, Copyright © 2018 by W. Dennis Tucker Jr. and Jamie A. Grant., on Psalm 80:17, notes, I understand “son of man” in Psalm 80:17 as a reference to the nation of Israel in its original context. This view seems to make the most sense in the flow of the vine “narrative” that we read in verses 12–18. But several commentators point out that the “son of man” language is often used in the Psalms and other books of the Old Testament to refer to the Davidic king. While I do not believe the poet intended this meaning in the original setting of the psalm, clearly the concept of the “son of man” takes on royal (and, later, messianic) overtones with the passage of time, and ultimately the reference to the “son of man” in verse 17 came to be read in this manner. The Greek translation of Psalm 80 sees this verse as referring to a future kingly figure. The translators ensure this eschatological focus by translating “son” in verse 15b as “son of man” as well. So the whole section (vv. 14–18) takes on a much more messianic overtone—­through the restoration of the “son of man” the people will be enabled to remain faithful. The Aramaic Targum of the Psalms goes even further by rendering verse 15b as “the King Messiah . . . who you made strong for yourself.”

[18] Steven Heil, Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 110 (Part 1), https://nextstepbiblestudy.net/index.php/2024/08/26/sunday-psalm-studies-psalm-110/

[19] Genesis 49:8; Exodus 23:22; 23:27; Deuteronomy 6:19; 20:1,14; 21:10; 23:9,14; 28:7,25,48; 30:7; 33:29; Joshua 7:13; 1 Samuel 24:4; 25:26,29; 2 Samuel 7:9,11; 1 Kings 3:11; Jeremiah 15:14; 17:4; Micah 4:10; 5:9

[20] Davis, op.cit., p.164; Psalm 8:2; 21:8; 66:3; 74:4,23; 89:10, 51; 92:9. Numbers 10:35 stands alone outside the Psalms speaking of “your enemies” as the enemies of Yahweh.

[21] Bateman, op. cit., p440

[22] Who Is David’s Lord? Another Look At Psalm 110:1, John A. Aloisi, Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 10:1 (Fall 2005), p. 108.

[23] A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1975, p.725.

[24] BIBLICAL Horizons, No. 50, The Footstool of His Feet, Peter J. Leithart, June, 1993

[25] Cf. Davis, op. cit., p.164

[26] https://www.coursesidekick.com/linguistics/5586613;  https://hebrew.billmounce.com/BasicsBiblicalHebrew-15.pdf;   https://hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_Ten/Qal_Imperfect/qal_imperfect.html; https://www.becomingjewish.org/learning_biblical_hebrew/pdf/qal_imperfect-hebrew.pdf

[27] Genesis 38:18; Exodus 4:2; 1 Samuel 14:27

[28] A different word is used in Psalm 2, שֵׁ֣בֶט, šēḇeṭ

[29] Heil, ibid, https://nextstepbiblestudy.net/index.php/2024/08/26/sunday-psalm-studies-psalm-110/

[30] Ibid

[31] Ibid

[32] Psalm 3:8; 28:9; 44:12; [45:10]; 52:9; 60:3; 68:7,10; 72:2; 74:19; 77:15,20; 79:2,13; 80:4,16;; 83:3; 85:2,6; 94:5; 106:4; 132:9; 145:10; 147:13

[33] A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs, Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1975, p.214b.

[34] You Are Priest Forever: Psalm 110 And the Melchizedekian Priesthood of Christ, Matthew Emadi, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (Spring 2019), p. 61

[35] Heil, Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 110 (Part 2)

[36] Yahweh swore to Abraham, “To your offspring I will give this land” (Genesis 24:7; 50:24; Exodus 13:5,11; Numbers 14:16; Deuteronomy 1:8; 6:10,18,23; 8:1; 11:9,21; 19:8; 26:3; 28:11; 30:20; 31:7; Joshua 21:43). He swore that He would not allow any of those who rebelled against Him when He first directed them to take Canaan, but would kill them in the wilderness over the 40-yrs they wandered (Deuteronomy 2:14; Joshua 5:6). He swore to keep the covenant He made with Israel at Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:31; 28:9; 29:12). He swore to keep the covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Deuteronomy 7:8,12,13; 8:18; 9:5; 13:17; Joshua 21:44). The Angel of Yahweh makes an oath not to drive out the nations before Israel’s tribes in Canaan because of their making covenant with them (Judges 2:15, which says Yahweh made this oath to them). Israel swore they would give none of their daughters in marriage to Benjamin (Judges 21:1). Yahweh swore to transfer the kingdom from Saul to David (2 Samuel 3:9,10). David swore that he would not rest until he found a place for Yahweh’s temple (Psalm 132:2-5). Yahweh swore to remove Assyria’s yoke from Israel’s shoulder and Babylon’s (Isaiah 14:24,25; Jeremiah 51:14). Yahweh swore never again to allow anyone to conquer Israel (Isaiah 62:8). Yahweh swore to the destruction of the northern kingdom (Amos 4:2; 6:8; 8:7).

[37] The Order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:3),  Maarten J. Paul, Westminster Theological Journal, Volume 49:1 (Spring 1987), pp.196-201: “H. J. Kraus thinks that the dignity of the office of Melchizedek could be transferred to the new king of Jerusalem. Jebusite cultic traditions were still adhered to. So the king was a priest not because of his belonging to the tribe of Levi, but because of his inheritance of Melchizedek…In 2 Samuel 24 it is told that David builds an altar and sacrifices burnt offerings and peace offerings (v 25). And his son Solomon blesses all the assembly of Israel at the consecration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:14, 55–56). Apparently, the king could draw near like the high priest. As prooftext Kraus cites Jer 30:21, “Their prince shall be one of themselves, their ruler shall come forth from their midst; I will make him draw near, and he shall approach me, for who would dare of himself to approach me? says the LORD.”…It is likely that David put on the ephod to express his devotion to the Lord. As head of the priestly nation of Israel he could wear it….Rowley aptly remarks: “What is required is not evidence that the King played a priestly part in certain festival rites, but that he ordinarily exercised the functions of the priest, and was truly the priest de facto as he was the King.” [Rowley, “Melchizedek and Zadok,” 471.]…According to the old Wellhausian view of history the kingly priesthood became rather important under David’s reign. During the Exile period priests increased their privileges and the Priestly Code reduced the rights of the priest-king. Aaron drove out the king. So it is explainable why the story of Uzziah is included in the Chronicles. Wellhausen thought that this story is only later reflection, influenced by the Priestly Code…We have seen that the evidence of the existence of a priest-king in the time of the monarchy is rather weak. Now we will attempt to judge the presupposed emancipation of the priests during the Exile period. It is very remarkable that, in the temple mentioned by Ezekiel, the king still has to fulfill his duties. He has not only some rights, but also some duties with regard to the cult (44:3; 45:16–17, 22–25; 46:2–8). Therefore certain evidence appears to contradict the view that, during the Exile period, there was strong opposition against the king, in order to reduce his rights. David, who organised the Levitical service, is glorified especially in the Chronicles. Thus, the books which are labelled most “priestly” by Wellhausen put the Davidic house in the center of their interest…One of the main texts used to illustrate the transfer of power from the king to the high priest is Zechariah 6. Zechariah had to make a crown for Joshua the high priest. Usually this crown is understood to be a king’s crown, but I do not agree with this. The OT contains two words for “crown.” The official crown of the king is the nēzer (in Greek: hagiasma). The other word is ʿătārâ (in Greek: stephanos) which denotes a wreath, a garland. This wreath is more than once mentioned in connection with other ornaments worn by women (e.g. Ezek 16:12 and 23:42). Therefore, it is not necessary to conclude that Joshua the high priest was crowned with a king’s crown. The function of the garland was to encourage the high priest.15 Zechariah utters the promise that later a man, whose name is “the Branch,” shall grow up in this place and build the temple. The man, moreover, shall be a priest on his throne. He shall be king and priest at the same time. As a pledge and as a reminder the wreath of Joshua should remain in the temple. So Zechariah tells us that in the future there will be a king who will also be a priest. However, he attributes no royal dignity to the high priest…A poet in the time of the Maccabees (who were of the family of Aaron) would not attribute to the king a priesthood like that of Melchizedek…Our conclusions are: (1) The Wellhausian reconstruction of history with regard to the relation between king and priest is not justified by facts; (2) Israel did not have a king who was also a priest. This principal and fundamental separation of functions distinguished Israel from the surrounding nations; (3) Israel remembered Melchizedek who was king and priest at Salem in a far past; (4) Israel looked for-ward to the future Messiah, who should recombine the two offices; (5) Psalm 110, speaking of a priest-king, cannot address one of the kings of Israel…This last conclusion is a very difficult one. Many interpreters try to avoid it…de Vaux…sums up the priestly actions of the kings, but he says that this evidence does not necessarily prove that the king himself was a priest. He only had to fulfill certain priestly functions in exceptional circumstances. Psalm 110, therefore, declares that the king was a priest in the limited way in which an Israelite king could be a priest.20 J. P. M. van der Ploeg elaborates on this suggestion. It appears to him that the sense of v 4 in this psalm can be related to war. Melchizedek blessed Abraham with the words, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, maker of heaven and earth; and blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your enemies into your hand!” (Gen 14:19–20). From this seems to follow the parallelism: Melchizedek king of Salem (= Jerusalem) blessed Abram and his men after defeating the four allied kings, so the successor of Melchizedek on the throne of Jerusalem shall bless Abram’s descendents when they go to war. To bless is a priestly function. Other relations between Genesis 14 and Psalm 110 can be ignored. Thus when the king blesses the people he acts as a priest…the parallelism is not perfect. Melchizedek blessed Abraham when the war was finished, while the Israelite king had to bless the people before the war took place. Secondly, it is noteworthy that blessing the people was the task of a priest at that time, as we read in Deut 20:2, “And when you draw near to the battle, the priest shall come forward and speak to the people.” In Deuteronomy 17, where the duties of the king are summed up, nor elsewhere, this blessing is included in the task of, the king. Thirdly, it cannot be maintained that only priests were allowed to bless, so that consequently giving a blessing was a priestly function of the king. In the fourth place, it is a little arbitrary to select merely the blessing from the deeds of Melchizedek. He brought out bread and wine and he also received the tithe. Thus Melchizedek not only gave a blessing as a priest but he functioned completely as a priest. He was not a priest in a limited sense. When Psalm 110 speaks of the king as a priest like Melchizedek, we do not have the right to reduce’ this priesthood to only blessing the people. Therefore I cannot agree with Van der Ploeg. At the same time, the solution of De Vaux becomes unlikely. F. Delitzsch rightly says: … The king of Salem was, according to Canaanitish custom, which admitted of the union of the kingship and priesthood, really a high priest, and therefore, regarded from an Israelitish point of view, united in his own person the offices of David and of Aaron…. If David were the person addressed, the declaration would stand in antagonism with the right of Melchizedek as priest recorded in Gen. ch. xiv., which, according to the indisputable representation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, was equal in compass to the Levitico-Aaronic right, and, since “after the manner of” requires a coincident reciprocal relation, in antagonism to itself also…The conclusion is therefore inevitable: Psalm 110 speaks about a person who is king and priest. But in the history of Israel there never was such a king. The only probable solution is that the psalm speaks about a future king-priest. It deals not with a historical king, but with the Messiah.

[38] Heil, Sunday Psalm Studies: Psalm 110 (Part 2)

[39] The Order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:3),  Maarten J. Paul (p.204)

[40] See The Order of Melchizedek (Ps 110:4 and Heb 7:3),  Maarten J. Paul (pp.207-209)

[41] You Are Priest Forever: Psalm 110 And the Melchizedekian Priesthood of Christ, Matthew Emadi, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (Spring 2019), p. 72

[42] You Are Priest Forever: Psalm 110 And the Melchizedekian Priesthood of Christ, Matthew Emadi, Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (Spring 2019), pp. 62,63