This article consists of an exegetical investigation of Psalm 110 and assumes that the psalms function in one sense as prayers, which can be prayed authentically by modern worshippers. Consequently, the specific images of hostile acts of war present a challenge as prayer. The methodology involves the investigation of the text from a grammatico-historical perspective by using selected sources from the 19th century to the present. The meaning of the violent images of enmity and the defining characteristics of the enemy are determined through understanding the perceived suffering of the psalmist. Special attention is given to the role of the phrase יְהוָה נְאֻם, the identification of לַאדֹנִי and defining the enemy. The conclusions of the exegesis support a more traditional interpretation of לַאדֹנִי and characterise the recalcitrant enemies in an eschatological framework.
Psalm 110 is categorised by most modern scholars as a royal psalm.
<Of David, a Psalm>
An oracle
‘
until I put your enemies as your footstool.”
The LORD sends out from Zion your mighty scepter.
“Rule in the midst of your foes.”
Your people will offer themselves willingly
Arrayed in holy splendor,
The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind.
“You are a priest forever
according to the order of Melchizedek.”
The
he will shatter kings on the day of his wrath.
He will execute judgment on the nations; he will heap up corpses.
He will shatter the heads
He will drink from the stream by the path;
Therefore, he will lift up his head.’
The structure of Psalm 110 has generally been thought to reflect two distinct sections each beginning with an oracular introduction (v. 1 and 4) followed by expansions (Allen
However, suggesting that the psalm has two parallel units or strophes can act to downplay the importance of any dominant element. On closer examination it may be possible to suggest a central emphasis in the psalm. Auffret (
The structural location of Melchizedek at the center of the psalm is significant in this regard. Structurally, the placement of verse 4 in the middle of Psalm 110 parallels its placement in the middle of the narrative account of Abram's defeat of the Canaanite kings in Genesis 14, which strengthens the allusion. I suggest that in Genesis Abram's encounter with Melchizedek functions in one regard to legitimate the claim that Abram has to wage war against the Canaanite kings. The covenant had not been ratified as of this time and so this is a pre-ratified legitimation of Abram's right to possess the land. However, it should be noted that the psalm portrays the Messiah's right to rule beyond any right to rule according to pre-exilic boundary markers and includes the whole earth. In the Genesis text, Abram acknowledges Melchizedek's sovereign right by paying tithes (Von Rad
The traditional Christian interpretation of this psalm until the early 19th century categorised it as a messianic prophecy. Waltke and Houston and (
Comparison with similar prophetic oracles in Jeremiah shows that the psalm-form is a liturgical modification of the pure prophetic form. The phrase יְהוָה נְאֻם occurs 167 out of 267 times in Jeremiah.
It is hard to know for certain to what extent David is responsible for the final form of the psalm.
When we talk about the perceived suffering of the psalmist in this instance we mean the suffering of the
The parallel ideas in the table suggest that the subject of vv. 6 and 7 can be regarded as the
If we assumed that David originally had been ‘prophesying’, it would be difficult to determine the exact meaning he had for the terms for enemies
The subduing of the enemies, symbolised by placing them as
The picture of the enemy is that of a purposeful resistance to what the Messiah enthroned on Zion symbolises. On the basis of Psalm 2:1–2 and Ephesians 6:10–20, Waltke and Houston (
The focus of Psalm 110 is on the utter defeat of the enemies by means of
Whether the text was originally understood as eschatological by those communities, which first used it in the cult, cannot be proved for certain.
The hostile images of war are best understood in the context of the eschatological framework within the psalm. The nations are portrayed as actively and antagonistically engaged in battle against Yahweh and his throne partner, the
Verses | Subject |
---|---|
v. 1aβ | ינִדֹאלַ (lord) is seated at the right hand of éÀäåäÈ |
v. 1b | Subjugation of enemies by Yahweh |
v. 2a | Symbol of might from Zion ךָזְּעֻ־הטֵּמַ (the lord's mighty scepter) |
v. 2b | Subjugation of enemies |
v. 3 | Exaltation of the speaker's lord |
v. 5a | ינָדֹאֲ (i.e., Yahweh) is at the right hand of this ‘lord-priest’ |
v. 5b | Subjugation of kings by Yahweh |
v. 6a | Judgment of nationsןידִיָ (He will judge) |
v. 6b | Subjugation of heads |
v. 7 | Symbolic exaltation of the subject, He will lift up his head |
PhD promoter at GST, Rev Dr KM Rochester, and my North-West University promoter, Prof. Dr Herrie van Rooy. As given in footnote one.
The author declares that he has no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
This article originates from my PhD thesis entitled, ‘Praying the language of enmity in the Psalter: A study of Psalms 110, 119, 129, 137, 139, and 149’. The article consists of a modification of the first third of an exegetical, historical and theological investigation of Psalm 110. I would like to thank my GST PhD promoter, Rev Dr KM Rochester and my North-West University promoter, Prof. Dr Herrie van Rooy. Dr van Rooy's suggestion that I explore the use of the phrase נְאֻם יְהוָה in the prophets, was particularly helpful.
‘Königslied’ (Gunkel
I am assuming that the psalms can function as prayer in the tradition of Athanasius, Diodore of Tarsus and John Chrysostom who all saw in the use of the psalms the voice of the Christian.
The term can refer to people or God in the Masoretic Text (MT) of the Old Testament, although according to The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Brown, Driver & Briggs
Hossfeld and Zenger (
Waltke and Houston (
This appears to be true even for those scholars, like Allen, who do not hold to an original Messianic intent.
The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is used as a base translation. However, lines are divided according to the accentuation in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia Masoretic Text (BHS MT).
NRSV uses the term
NRSV marks off with quotation marks ‘Sit … footstool’, which limits the prophetic utterance to the end of verse 1. The grounds for this are prosopological – the apparent change of voice from 1st person to 3rd person in verse 2. However, as Hilber (
I am choosing to follow the MT in verse 3, although semantically and syntactically the verse has been the subject of many revisions. The The Septuagint (LXX) has
‘Arrayed in holy garments’ can be accepted over some medieval manuscripts (BHS MT:XLVII), the Targum, Symmachus, Jerome and the NRSV's translation, which has בהִרְַרֵי [in the holy mountains]. Kissane (
The LXX reads יְלִדְתִּיךָ [I have begotten you]
NRSV uses the phrase
MT is singular. However, the plural is attested to in some Medieval Hebrew manuscripts. For the singular ראֹש used as plural see Psalm 68:22.
The function of such an allusion in Psalm 110 would work on an argumentative justification, but not necessarily as a theological basis acknowledging any form of Canaanite pantheon just as, for instance, the statement in Psalm 136: ה֭וֹדוּ לֵֽאלֹהֵ֣י הָאֱלֹהִ֑ים [Give thanks to the God of gods], would not be a concession for any Israelite to the existence of other gods. This idea of divine mandate was common in the ancient world, for example, it was believed that ‘Cyrus received his rule from the hands of the Babylonian gods’ (Herrmann
Psalm 110, as an
See Holladay (
Furthermore, if David were carried away in a state of uttering prophecy, as Perowne (
The details of this ceremony would be open to speculation and are not necessarily important to our understanding of the meaning of Psalm 110. For a review of possible suggestions of the king's role prior to the exile in such a ceremony, see Shirley Lucas’ chapter (2011:66-93) entitled ‘Kingship in the Hebrew Scriptures: The Psalms’.
The use of the term
Kirkpatrick (
The implied eschatological argument in this paper is not dependent on the extent to which David is responsible for the written text of Psalm 110, or whether it is indeed David prophesying.
Gillingham's suggestion (
Hossfeld and Zenger (
According to Mitchell (
Perhaps the mandate in verse 2b,