Psalms 110

Psalms 110THIS is the counterpart of the Second Psalm, completing the prophetic picture of the conquering Messiah. The progressive development of the Messianic doctrine lies in this, that the Kingship of Messiah, there alleged and confirmed by a divine decree, is here assumed at the beginning, and then shewn to be connected with his Priesthood, which is also solemnly proclaimed, and its perpetuity ensured by a divine oath. This constitutes the centre of the psalm, Psalms 110:4, to which all the rest is either introductory, Psalms 110:1-3, or supplementary, Psalms 110:5-7. The repeated, explicit, and emphatic application of this psalm, in the New Testament, to Jesus Christ, is so far from being arbitrary or at variance with the obvious import of the psalm itself, that any other application is ridiculous. The chief peculiarity of form is a frequent change of person, not unlike that in Psalms 91.

1. (Psalms 110:1) By David. A Psalm. Thus saith Jehovah to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The ascription of the psalm to David is not only uncontradicted by external evidence, but corroborated by the internal character of the composition, its laconic energy, its martial tone, its triumphant confidence, and its resemblance to other undisputed psalms of David. In addition to all this, we have the authority of Christ himself, who not only speaks of it as David’s, but founds an argument upon it, the whole force of which depends upon its having been composed by him. See Matthew 22:43, Mark 12:36, Luke 20:42, and compare Acts 2:34.

As a further confirmation of the truth of this inscription, some allege the obvious relation of this psalm to those before it, as forming with them a Davidic trilogy. See above, on Psalms 108:1.

Thus saith Jehovah, or more exactly, a dictum (or saying) of Jehovah. For the origin and usage of this formula, used only in prophetic declarations, see above on Psalms 36:1. My Lord, i.e. David’s, as our Saviour explicitly declares in the passages already cited, yet not of David merely as a private person, nor even as an individual king, but as representing his own royal race and the house of Israel over which it reigned, The person thus described as the superior and sovereign of David and his house, and of all Israel, could not possibly be David himself, nor any of his sons and successors except one, who, by virtue of his twofold nature, was at once his sovereign and his son. See Romans 1:3-4. That the Lord here meant was universally identified with the Messiah by the ancient Jews, is clear, not only from their own traditions, but from Christ’s assuming this interpretation as the basis of his argument to prove the Messiah’s super-human nature, and from the fact that his opponents, far from questioning this fact, were unable to answer him a word, and afraid to interrogate him further (Matthew 22:46).

The original form of expression, in the phrase Sit at my right hand, is the same as in Psalms 109:31. A seat at the right hand of a king is mentioned in the Scriptures as a place of honour, not arbitrarily, but as implying a participation in his power, of which the right hand is a constant symbol.

See above, on Psalms 45:9, and compare Matthew 19:28. The sitting posture is appropriate to kings, who are frequently described as sitting on their thrones. See above, on Psalms 29:10. In this case, however, the posture is of less moment than the position. Hence in Stephen sees Christ standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55-56), and Paul simply says he is there (Romans 8:34). The participation in the divine power, thus ascribed to the Messiah, is a special and extraordinary one, having reference to the total subjugation of his enemies. This idea is expressed by the figure of their being made his footstool, perhaps with allusion to the ancient practice spoken of in Joshua 10:24. This figure itself, however, presupposes the act of sitting on a throne.

It does not imply inactivity, as some suppose, or mean that Jehovah would conquer his foes for him, without any intervention of his own. The idea running through the whole psalm is, that it is in and through him that Jehovah acts for the destruction of his enemies, and that for this very end he is invested with almighty power, as denoted by his session at the right hand of God. This session is to last until the total subjugation of his enemies, that is to say, this special and extraordinary power of the Messiah is then to terminate, a representation which agrees exactly with that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, where the verse before us is distinctly referred to, although not expressly quoted. It is therefore needless, though grammatical, to give the until an inclusive meaning, namely, until then and afterwards, as in Psalms 112:8 below. This verse, it has been said, is more frequently quoted or referred to, in the New Testament, than any other in the Hebrew Bible. Besides the passages already cited, it lies at the foundation of all those which represent Christ as sitting at the right hand of the Father. See Matthew 26:64, 1 Corinthians 15:25, Ephesians 1:20-22, Philippians 2:9-11, Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 1:14; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12-13, 1 Peter 3:22, and compare Revelation 3:21.

2. (Psalms 110:2) The rod of thy strength will Jehovah send forth from Zion; rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. The Psalmist now addresses the Messiah directly. The idea latent in the figures of the first verb, namely that of power, is here expressed. The word translated rod never means a sceptre, as the synonymous term sometimes does, from which it is distinguished by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 19:11), but a rod of correction and of chastisement. See Jeremiah 48:12, and compare Isaiah 9:4; Isaiah 10:5; Isaiah 10:15; Isaiah 14:4-5, Ezekiel 7:10-11. It is here named as the instrument with which the foes are to be subdued.

Compare Psalms 2:9. There may be an allusion to the rod of Moses. See Exodus 14:16; Exodus 14:21, and compare Isaiah 10:24; Isaiah 10:26. The rod of thy strength, or thy rod of strength, thy strong rod, or rather the rod by means of which thine own strength is to be exerted. As this strength is not human but divine, it is said to be sent forth by Jehovah out of Zion, considered as his earthly residence, the seat of the theocracy. See above, on Psalms 20:2.

The verb translated rule is not applied in usage to a peaceful reign, but to coercive or compulsory dominion over conquered enemies. See above, on Psalms 49:14, and compare Numbers 24:19. The imperative here involves prediction in its strongest form. As if he had said, All is ready for the conquest; there is no resistance; there can be no doubt of the result; rule, therefore, in the midst thine enemies, i.e. over the very enemies by whom thou art surrounded, and who threatened to dethrone thee.

3. (Psalms 110:3) Thy people (are) free-will-offerings in the day of thy power, in holy decorations, from the womb of the dawn, to thee (is) the dew of thy youth. Every member of this very obscure verse has been a subject of dispute and of conflicting explanations. The common version of the first words (thy people shall be willing) is entirely inadmissible as an exact translation, since the word translated willing is a plural substantive of the feminine gender, and not an adjective agreeing with the masculine singular noun people. The idea, however, is the same, but expressed with far more strength and beauty. The plural noun just mentioned is the one used to denote spontaneous gifts, or free-will-offerings, under the law of Moses. See above. on Psalms 54:7, and compare Exodus 25:2; Exodus 35:29; Exodus 36:3, Leviticus 22:23.

By supplying the correlative verb, which may be considered as latent in the noun, we obtain the sense, thy people (offer) voluntary gifts. But by supplying the substantive verb, which is far more natural and common, we obtain the still more striking sense, thy people are themselves such gifts, i.e. they freely consecrate themselves to God.

In this sense of voluntary self-dedication, the reflexive form of the verbal root is used even in historical prose (1 Chronicles 29:14; 1 Chronicles 29:17), especially in reference to military service (Judges 5:2; Judges 5:9, 2 Chronicles 17:16). The day of thy power, the day in which it is exerted and displayed in the subjugation of thine enemies. The next phrase literally means, in beauties (or ornaments) of holiness, which may either have its obvious spiritual sense, aTHE Church declares her resolution to praise Jehovah for the deliverance which she has experienced, Psalms 116:1, 2, and which is then described with some particularity, Psalms 116:3-10, followed by a declaration of the way in which the Church means to express her gratitude, Psa11-19. The Septuagintand Vulgate, which combine the two preceding psalms as one, divide the one before us into two, with as little reason in the one case as the other. The state of things referred to in this psalm, as one of mingled joy and grief, and its peculiarities of language, all combine to fix its date immediately after the return from Babylon.s in Psalms 29:2, or that of holy decorations, with allusion to the sacerdotal dress, which is expressly called garments of holiness, Leviticus 16:4. The last is the sense put by the modern interpreters upon the phrase, which then means that the people, when they make this solemn offering of themselves to God, appear clothed in sacerdotal vestments, as the servants of a priestly king (Psalms 110:4 below), and themselves a “kingdom of priests” (Exodus 19:6).

The womb of the dawn (or day-break) is a very strong poetical description of the origin or source of the dew which immediately follows, and the sense of which must determine that of the whole clause. The most probable opinions as to this point are the following.

Some suppose the clause to be descriptive of the multitude of warriors who devote themselves to the Messiah, and who are then described as no less numerous than the drops of dew born from the womb of morning. The objection to this is, that it lays too much stress upon mere members, and expresess that idea by a figure neither common nor altogether natural. Another explanation makes the point of the comparison with dew, not numbers, but beauty, brilliancy thus corresponding to the holy decorations of the other clause. Here again the comparison selected is by no means obvious, much less familiar. Lovely or beautiful as dew is not a combination likely to occur to the mind of any writer. In the two interpretations which have now been given, youth must be taken in the sense of young men, like the Latin pubes and juventus, when applied to a youthful soldiery, or made to qualify the noun before it youthful dew, still meaning the young warriors.

But of such a figure there is not a trace in Hebrew usage, and in the only other place where the word occurs, it evidently means youth, as a period of human life (Ecclesiastes 11:9-10). Free from all these objections is the supposition, that the clause relates not to the numbers or the beauty of Messiah’s people, but to their perpetual succession, expressed by a fine poetical comparison with dew, engendered afresh daily from the womb of the morning.

Youth will then have its proper sense, as denoting the perpetual youth of the Messiah, whose body is thus constantly renewed by the successive generations of his people. This construction also enables us to divine the clause more equally than in the masoretic interpunction, which, at all events, is either incorrect or rather musical than logical.

4. (Psalms 110:4) Sworn hath Jehovah, and will not repent, Thou (shalt be) a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek. The declaration in the last clause of Psa 110:3 is here repeated in another form, and with a statement of the ground or reason upon which it rests. What was there poetically represented as the perpetual youth of the Messiah is here more solemnly described as a perpetual priesthood, indissolubly blended with a perpetual kingship, both secured by the oath of God himself. He will not repent, there is no fear or even possibility of his breaking or retracting this engagement, for such it is, and not a mere declaratory attestation of the present fact or general truth, as it might seem to be from the common version, not only here but in Hebrews 5:6; Hebrews 7:17; Hebrews 7:21, in every one of which places the Greek conforms exactly to the Septuagint version and the Hebrew text, the art being constantly supplied by the translators. That the clause is a promise, and as such relates directly to the future, is clear from the whole tenor of the psalm as a prophetic one, as well as from the oath, which is not used in Scripture to attest mere matters of fact, but to confirm the divine promise and threatenings. The indefinite expression, a priest, is intended to describe the office in itself considered, without reference to temporary distinctions and gradations.

It therefore comprehends whatever appertained to the office of the High Priest, as the head and representative of all the rest. After the order, i.e. according to the manner, character, or institution.

It is remarkable that this phrase (like in Psalms 110:3) is almost peculiar to this psalm and the book of Ecclesiastes, being found besides in only one place (Job 5:8). In all the direct quotations of the verse in Hebrews, the Septuagint version of this word is retained. But in one of the more indirect citations (Hebrews 7:15) another word is substituted, shewing that the essential idea is that of likeness or resemblance. This likeness consists primarily in the union of the regal and sacerdotal offices. See Genesis 14:18. The meaning of the verse in its original connection is, that this royal conqueror is also a priest, who makes atonement for the sins of his people, and thus enables and disposes them to make the dedication of themselves described in the preceding verse.

The perpetuity of this relation, and its confirmation by the oath of God, are attendant circumstances but essential, and as such insisted on by the apostle, Hebrews 7:20-24. The coincidences founded on the meaning of the names Melchizedek and Salem (Hebrews 7:2), and on the want of hierarchical succession in both cases (Hebrews 7:3), are perfectly legitimate, but not essential to the understanding of the verse in its original connection.

The inspired commentary on this sentence, which occupies the whole seventh chapter of Hebrews, is not intended merely to explain its meaning, but also to make use of its terms, and the associations coupled with them, as a vehicle of other kindred truths, belonging to the Christian revelation, and not necessarily suggested by the psalm o its original readers.

5. (Psalms 110:5) The Lord on thy right hand has smitten, in the day of his anger, kings. Some suppose this to be addressed to Jehovah, and the Lord to mean Messiah, on the ground that they could not each be on the right hand of the other. See above, Psalms 110; Psalms 1. That they could be so, however, only shows that the whole description is a figurative one, and that the principal figure has a twofold meaning. On the right hand has precisely the same meaning here as in Psalms 109:31, where it denotes the place of protection or assistance, the figure being probably derived from the usages of war, in which one who succours or protects another may be said to strengthen his right hand as the member which he uses in his own defence. In one sense, therefore, the Lord is at the right hand of Jehovah; in another sense, Jehovah is at his.

This assistance, far from excluding, presupposes his own action, or rather, what Jehovah is described as doing for him he does through him. See above, on Psalms 110:1. The word translated smite is very strong and has repeatedly occurred before. See above, on Psalms 18:38; Psalms 68:21; Psalms 68:23). The day of Jehovah’s wrath is coincident with that of the Lord’s strength in Psalms 110:3. The strength of the Messiah, as a conqueror, is to be exerted in giving effect to Jehovah’s wrath against his enemies.

The position of the word kings at the end of the sentence, although harsh and almost ungrammatical in English, is retained in the translation for the sake of its effect upon the emphasis and point of the description. The objects of Jehovah’s wrath and the Messiah’s strokes are not to be mere ordinary men, but kings, if they continue to oppose themselves. See above, on Psalms 2:2; Psalms 2:10. The tense of the verb may be regarded as an instance of praeteritum, phropheticam, describing what is certainly to happen as already past.

6. (Psalms 110:6) He will judge among the nations— he has filled (them) with corpses— he has smitten the head over much, land (or over the wide earth). By another sudden change of form, the Messiah is again spoken of as a third person. The judgment here ascribed to him is only another name and figure for the conquest just described. The form of expression in the last clause is unusual and obscure. The common version makes both head and land collectives, the heads over many countries. Some interpreters explain the second word in this way, but the first more strictly, as. denoting a single ruler over many countries.

Others invert the torms, and understand by head the various chiefs of nations, but by earth the whole earth with its qualifying epithet of great or wide. Amidst these questions of construction or minute interpretation, the general idea is clear enough, to wit, that of universal conquest on the part of the Messiah, and extending to all earthly principalities and powers.

7. (Psalms 110:7) From the brook in the way he will drink, therefore will he raise the head. According to the masoretic interpunction, in the way does not qualify the brook but he will drink, a distinction of little exegetical importance. Unlike the foregoing verse, the one before us is perfectly clear in its particular expressions, but obscure in its general import and relation to the context. The most probable meaning of thr first clause is, that he shall not be exhausted like those wandering in the desert (Psalms 102:24; Psalms 107:4-5) but refreshed and strengthened, with a reference, as some suppose, to the relief experienced by Samson (Judges 15:18-19). The raising of the head, in the last clause, is an obvious and intelligible figure for exhilaration, or relief from dejection and depression, which is naturally indicated by the hanging of the head. The only question is whether this effect is here supposed to be produced in the conqueror himself or in others.

In favour of the former explanation is the parallel clause, which represents him as assuaging his own thirst. In favour of the other is the analogy of Psa 3:3), 27:6, where God is said to raise the head of man. As in other doubtful cases, where the senses are not incompatible or exclusive of each other, it is safe, if not entirely satisfactory, to leave them side by side, the rather as the words could probably not fail to suggest both ideas to the Hebrew reader.