Hermeneutical Principles and the Interpretation of Psalm 110

By Elliott E. Johnson

[Professor of Bible Exposition, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas]

In the developments within dispensationalism several passages of Scripture become focal points. Psalm 110 is one such focal point. Three issues in its interpretation are faced by the evangelical community as a whole. One issue is hermeneutical. When Psalm 110 is read in its historical context, what valid role does the added revelation of the New Testament have in reaching a proper interpretation of the psalm? In other words how does the meaning derived from the exegesis of Psalm 110 compare with the New Testament interpretation of the psalm?

The second issue is theological. What relationship, if any, does the Messiah’s session “at the right hand” of God the Father (Ps 110:1, 5) have to the kingdom of God today? Is Jesus’ present session in some sense related to the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant? The third issue is practical. What do the answers to the preceding questions imply for the ministry of the church today?

To address these issues, four questions will be discussed. (1) What hermeneutical principles are relevant to the interpretation of Psalm 110? (2) What range of interpretations are possible within a literal interpretation of Psalm 110? (3) What range of interpretations remain after the analogy of faith has been used to interpret Psalm 110? (4) What practical implications follow from the interpretation of Psalm 110?

Hermeneutical Principles

The dispensational tradition is known for its literal interpretation. Ryrie says literal interpretation is part of the sine qua non of dispensationalism.[1] But what is meant by “literal” interpretation?

Some like Ryrie stress the “plain sense,” while others such as Walvoord stress the “literal” reference.[2] Still others stress “normal language” usage. The most widely accepted understanding of literal interpretation among dispensationalists today is grammatical, historical interpretation. However, this is not distinctive to dispensationalism. Grammatical, historical interpretation is shared broadly by evangelicals.

Is there then no principle of hermeneutics distinctive to dispensationalism? The distinctiveness is not in the definition of grammatical, historical interpretation but in the consistent use of the principles in grammatical, historical interpretation. Common to dispensationalists is the application of the principles to discern the meaning of a passage or verse in its context. For example God promised Abraham and his descendants a land (Gen 12:1, 7). Subsequent revelation in the Scriptures did not absolve or alter that promise spiritually. This use of the literal principle—ascertaining the determinate meaning of a text in its context—is the hermeneutical sine qua non of dispensationalism.

The Reformed tradition also stresses the principle of the analogy of faith. This principle, as defined and used by Berkhof[3] and others, rests on the unity of meaning expressed in the Scriptures as a whole. Since the biblical revelation is true, then what the Bible says about a given subject in various passages must be compatible. The New Testament must not be interpreted in a way that contradicts the Old. This principle of the analogy of faith is also valid.

The two traditions have faced conflict over interpretations of particular passages because priority is given either to literal interpretation or to the analogy of faith. The one principle has often overridden the contribution of the other. But another solution is to be preferred. Since both principles are valid, the resolution does not rest in giving priority to one over the other, but in harmoniously utilizing both principles. In the case of Psalm 110 the question becomes, What interpretation provides a harmonious understanding of both the near context as well as the entire context of the Bible?

An Interpretation of Psalm 110 according to the Literal Principle

Interpreters of Psalm 110 are generally agreed that the subject of this psalm is an Israelite king-priest. The psalm affirms that this king-priest will totally defeat and subjugate his earthly adversaries after a session at Yahweh’s right hand.[4] In applying the literal principle to Psalm 110, interpreters face the question of the identity of the Israelite king-priest. No less than 10 historic occasions are proposed for the setting (the Sitz im Leben) of this short psalm, and each view influences how the psalm is interpreted.[5]

In seeking to determine the exact historical occasion of the psalm, two questions must be considered. (1) Who is speaking in the psalm? (2) To whom does the psalm refer? However, the psalm gives only limited clues about the psalm’s historical background. This explains the large number of reconstructions of the occasion of the psalm. The options are reduced somewhat if the superscription (לְדָוִד) is accepted as historically reliable. It has the force of an early commentary either speaking of David as the original author (“of David”) or of David as having received the psalm in some sense.

The choice between these alternatives in answering question one is clarified by the use of the analogy of faith. A more complete discussion of the use of this principle will be developed shortly, but its use here clarifies the interpretation. When Jesus said David spoke the words of Psalm 110:1 (see Mark 12:36–37), David must have spoken the psalm in some sense. Further, when Jesus said David referred to “my Lord,” David must necessarily have been speaking of a personal relationship. This would naturally be the case if David spoke as author.

The answer to the second question is more difficult to determine. Following the literal principle, David could have referred to the Messiah, himself, his son Solomon, or another descendant of his as his Lord. When Yahweh invited David’s Lord to sit at Yahweh’s right hand (Ps 110:1), was the throne a heavenly and distinctively divine throne, or Yahweh’s throne represented by David’s throne, or Yahweh’s throne symbolized in the Davidic order? Without any further clues in the psalm itself, the literal principle cannot by itself resolve this question decisively.

Thus in following the literal principle of interpretation, “my lord” in Psalm 110 results in a range of possible meanings based on the immediate context—the future Messiah, David himself, or a descendant of David. These different meanings are the result of various plausible reconstructions based on the text. However, while each reconstruction is independently plausible, they are not necessarily capable of being combined as stages in the progress of fulfillment. In other words “my lord” cannot mean “David’s descendant” in David’s day and also “David’s Messiah” in some future day. The reason is that Psalm 110:1 refers to “my lord” as a person given a position of honor. The question that follows is this: Is the person who in one reconstruction fills a position of honor also able to fill the position of honor in the other reconstruction? The answer is no. In one reconstruction, “my lord” refers to a merely human person (David or a descendant of his), and in the other reconstruction “my lord” deals with a divine person. In a historic reconstruction, “my lord” refers to a position of royal authority on David’s throne much as the chronicler wrote that “Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father” (1 Chron 29:23). In a future reconstruction “my lord” seated at Yahweh’s right hand refers to a position of shared, heavenly honor with God Himself. No man shares or even sees God’s full disclosure of glory (Exod 33:18–20). That position thus necessarily entails a divine Person who alone would be worthy to share God’s glory without reservation. While all would agree that the position is possible, not all see that the conclusion is necessary. However, the conclusion will be demonstrated to be necessary based on Jesus’ interpretation of Psalm 110:1. That interpretation will be examined in more detail shortly.

So while the two reconstructions are textually plausible, the two interpretations of “my lord” refer to persons who would be mutually exclusive—one a mere human who could not share God’s glory and the other, a divine Person who naturally and necessarily shares God’s glory.

An Interpretation of Psalm 110 according to the Analogy of Faith

An examination of Psalm 110 suggests two possible, though mutually exclusive, views on the identity of “my lord.” However, using the hermeneutical principle of the analogy of faith means that the two possible contextual meanings are no longer both viable. Only one meaning is viable, namely, the Messiah. This is seen in New Testament passages that quote Psalm 110. They include Mark 12:35–37 and its parallels, which address the Person of the Messiah (Matt 22:42–45; Luke 20:41–44); Acts 2:33–34, which speaks of the exaltation of the Messiah; and Hebrews 5:5–6; 7:17, 21, which refer to the ministry of the Messiah.

The Person of the Messiah

During Jesus’ defense of His claims in the temple (Mark 12:35–37), His interpretation of Psalm 110:1 establishes “my lord” as a reference by David to Christ as deity.[6] After answering each question from the Jewish leaders, He posed a question for them: “How is it…that the Christ is the son of David? …David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; and so in what sense is He his son?” (vv. 35, 37). The scribes accepted the teaching of Scripture that Messiah was David’s son. Jesus’ question challenged that conclusion, since Psalm 110:1 teaches that Messiah is Lord. The challenge rested in the dilemma that Messiah was presented both as David’s son and as David’s Lord.

The Jewish leaders could have met the challenge and resolved the dilemma in various ways. They could have denied that Psalm 110:1 referred to Messiah, but they did not. Or they could have rejected Jesus’ interpretation of the verse that “my lord” meant God, but did not. Had they held the historic reconstruction that “my lord” meant someone positioned on David’s throne, they could easily have removed the dilemma. For Solomon was both David’s son and lord in this sense, but their silence conceded Jesus’ point. Thus Jesus’ interpretation of Psalm 110:1 confirms the future reconstruction, which treats David’s words as a direct prophecy of the Messiah.

The Exaltation of the Messiah

In Peter’s sermon on the day of Pentecost he affirmed that the Messiah must be raised from the dead (Acts 2:31–32). Then he quoted from Psalm 110 to point out that David’s “Son” (i.e., Christ, David’s Descendant), having been raised from the dead, is also exalted to God’s right hand (Acts 2:33–35). This exalted position is one of equal honor with God.[7] As Jesus anticipated returning to this position with the Father (John 13:3, 32), He prayed that He would be glorified with the glory He had with the Father “before the world was” (John 17:5).

Is Jesus’ present position at God’s right hand one of royal, Davidic status? Several observations about Psalm 110:1 and Peter’s quotation of it in Acts 2:34–35 help show that the answer to that question is no.

1. The Messiah’s present seating awaits a future conquest. The word “until” in Psalm 110:1 distinguishes present opposition from a future conquest over the enemies as affirmed in Psalm 110:5–7. (Also note the use of “until” in Acts 3:21 and 1 Cor 15:25.) The “seating” does not suggest that “my Lord” is presently inactive. Instead the point is that He is in a position of honor in the presence of God in spite of a continuing presence of enemies.

2. The Messiah’s present position does not include the image of coronation. The only present activity mentioned is seating,[8] and the only activities implied are in the priestly decree. None of the actions associated with anointing a king—including the blowing of trumpets, celebration, or the taking of an oath of allegiance from subjects of the kingdom—is mentioned. Nor is there any mention in verse 1 of crowns, scepters, robes, or installation ceremony (cf. Pss. 2, 72).[9]

3. The Messiah’s present seating involves what Yahweh decreed. When David’s Lord was seated at God’s right hand, He assumed a position already enjoyed by Yahweh. Therefore it follows that the Messiah shares in Yahweh’s honor and in some sense in Yahweh’s throne prerogatives and thus in His reign. But are these prerogatives to be associated with Davidic rights to rule and kingdom promises? Bock answers yes, by pointing to the verbal link between Psalm 132:11–12 (“The Lord swore an oath to David …One of your own descendants I will place on your throne…their sons will sit on your throne for ever and ever,” NIV) and Psalm 110:1 (“The Lord says to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand’“).[10] Bock sees these as identified in the common motif of being seated, based on Peter’s use of Psalm 132:11 in Acts 2:30 and his use of Psalm 110 four verses later in Acts 2:34. However, it is preferable to see David’s earthly throne as different from the Lord’s heavenly throne, because of the different contexts of Psalms 110 and 132. Psalm 110 refers to the Lord’s throne (v. 1) and a Melchizedekian priesthood (v. 4) but Psalm 132 refers to David’s throne (v. 11) and (Aaronic) priests (vv. 9, 16).

These two have traditionally been regarded as distinct. However, Ladd says Peter reinterpreted these passages, so that Psalm 132:11 refers to Jesus’ present messianic reign from God’s right hand in heaven, not from a throne in Jerusalem.[11] “In His exaltation Jesus becomes the Messiah in a new sense: he has begun his messianic reign as the Davidic king.” However, this involves a radical reinterpretation of the Old Testament prophecies.[12] In such a reinterpretation the principle of the analogy of faith wrongly overrides and “corrects” the principle of literal, contextual interpretation.

A better approach is to allow the meaning of God’s sharing His throne rule affirmed in Psalm 110:1 to be determined by the decree which He made, as mentioned in verse 4 (“The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind: ‘Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek’“). This leads to the third aspect of the interpretation of Psalm 110 in the New Testament.

The Ministry of the Messiah

Twice the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews quoted Psalm 110:4—in Hebrews 5:6 and 7:17 —to point up the fact that Christ has been decreed by God the Father as a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. What is that order or pattern? According to Genesis 14:18–20 five facts are true of Melchizedek: (1) Melchizedek was king of Salem, who (2) brought out bread and wine (for Abram), (3) blessed Abram on God’s behalf, (4) blessed God in Abram’s stead, and (5) received a tithe from Abram. The priestly aspects of this pattern are important in the argument of the Book of Hebrews. Like Melchizedek, Christ ministers as a priest by dispensing blessings.

Peter said that the Messiah, having been exalted to God’s right hand, received the promise of the Father, namely, the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:33). Then at Pentecost, Christ dispersed (“poured out,” Acts 2:33) the blessing of the Holy Spirit, doing so as a priest, much as Melchizedek distributed blessings to Abram.

This gift of the Holy Spirit by the Messiah further demonstrates Jesus’ deity. Only a Person of the Godhead could receive the gift of the Spirit with authority to dispense the Spirit and His blessings to whomever He wills. While men are given the Holy Spirit, they do not have the authority to give the Spirit according to their own will (Acts 8:19).[13]

As already noted, Melchizedek’s dispensing of blessing to Abram was the work of a priest. Similarly, when Christ, who is a priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:6, 10; 7:11, 17), gave the blessing of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, He did so from His position as a priest. However, Melchizedek was also a king. He was a king-priest. Does the Spirit’s presence on earth involve any rule on Christ’s part? A positive answer is suggested in that Christ through the Holy Spirit enables righteousness and grace to reign in a believer’s life (Rom 5:17, 21; cf. 6:12, 14). At salvation God’s work of justification brings peace (5:1). These two features of the Holy Spirit’s work unmistakably resemble the work of Melchizedek, king of righteousness and peace (Heb 7:2). Christ rules now, not from David’s throne, but from God’s right hand, bringing righteousness and peace to hearts of individuals who believe.

This model of the kingdom of God on earth today is compatible with the variety of positions held by dispensationalists.[14] All would agree that whatever is meant by the kingdom of God today, this must be distinguished from the Davidic form of the kingdom of God on earth for the future. That Davidic form, while continuing the eternal ministry of Melchizedek in righteousness and peace, will extend the reign through earthly political structures originating in Jerusalem. In addition, dispensationalists agree that this future reign will be established in Messiah’s judgment of the nations of this world (Ps 110:2, 5–7) as disclosed in the Book of Revelation. This Davidic form of God’s kingdom will completely fulfill all of Israel’s hopes and the promises of God to Abraham and David.

In addition, this view of the ministry of Messiah in the kingdom of God today provides a clearer understanding of what this kingdom entails. It is a kingdom defined by the order of Melchizedek. This is compatible again with the basic views among dispensationalists. On the one hand it supports those who desire to preserve the Davidic identity of the Old Testament revelation of the coming kingdom and thus see no kingdom on earth today. It sharply preserves the future Davidic kingdom while also explaining the many New Testament references to a kingdom of God present on earth today. On the other hand it is compatible with those who see a present spiritual expression of the kingdom that is distinct from the future kingdom. But it enhances that view by specifying the spiritual ministry of Christ in accord with the pattern of Melchizedek.

The Practical Consequences of Psalm 110 in the Church

This hermeneutical examination of Psalm 110 suggests several conclusions.

Messiah’s Present Session Does Not Involve His Reigning on David’s Throne

Because the Messiah is the anointed Descendant of David and the Davidic Heir, He presently possesses the right to reign though He has not yet assumed David’s throne. This was also true of David, who assumed the throne over Israel years after he was anointed.

Before Christ will be seated on David’s throne (Ps 110:2), He is seated at the right hand of God (v. 1). His present session is a position of honor and power, but the exercise of that power is restricted to what God has chosen to give the Son. God the Father reigns and has decreed that Christ dispense blessings from the Holy Spirit to believers in this present age. When Christ returns to earth to begin His messianic reign on David’s throne, He will conquer His enemies (Ps 110:2, 5–7). Until then, He is now seated at God’s right hand (v. 1), exercising the decreed role of the Melchizedekian King-Priest (v. 4), the believer’s great High Priest (Heb 2:17; 4:14–15; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11; 10:21).

Messiah’s Present Session Corresponds to Melchizedek’s Ministry as King-Priest

Genesis 14 does not emphasize the political or legal aspects of Melchizedek’s ministry. Instead in a spiritual ministry, he brought sustenance to Abram (14:18), spoke spiritual blessings from Yahweh to Abram (v. 19), and presented Abram and his worship to the Lord (v. 20). Similarly Christ today, as the Melchizedekian royal Priest, provides spiritual sustenance and blessings through the Holy Spirit (e.g. Rom 8:15–17, 26–39; 1 Cor 12:7, 13; 2 Cor 3:12–4:18 }; 2 Thess 2:13; Titus 3:5–7; cf. Eph 1:3, 7–9). In addition, as the Melchizedekian royal Priest, Christ represents believers (John 17) in their walk in the world and in their worship of God (Heb 5:1–8:28).

Believers Today Are Priests

Christ’s authority as King-Priest is mediated through the Holy Spirit in His body, the church. The church does not have any political agenda as such, though individual believers may pursue roles in the political arena as citizens. As priests, believers are salt and light in the world, and they seek to bring righteousness and peace to others’ lives by encouraging them to receive salvation from sin through faith in Christ. Indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9), believers, as priests, also intercede for and serve each other (Gal 5:13; James 5:16) and offer sacrifices of praise and sharing (Heb 13:15–16). In their ministry of righteousness and peace, the focus of their expectations is not toward social structures or political transformation apart from the return of Christ in judgment on this evil world. Rather they expect righteousness and peace to be realized in the lives of believers individually and collectively. But this expectation does not ignore the reality of continuing conflict with evil and the evil one who seeks to thwart a ministry of righteousness and peace (Ps 110:1–2).

Notes

1. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 45.
2. John F. Walvoord, “The Theological Context of Premillennialism,” Bibliotheca Sacra 108 (July-September 1951): 272-74, 276. He also does talk about “grammatical, historical” interpretation.
3. Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1950).
4. Jay J. Butler, “An Exegetical Study of Psalm 110” (ThM thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1980).
5. Those who say the psalm refers to Israel’s cultic worship generally view it as one of three fall festivals. (1) A New Year enthronement festival (Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh, trans. G. W. Anderson [Nashville: Abingdon, 1954]; idem, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, trans. D. R. Ap-Thomas [Nashville: Abingdon, 1967]; Elmer Leslie, The Psalms [Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1949]; Pius Drijvers, The Psalms: Their Structure and Meaning [New York: Herder and Herder, 1964]; Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J. A. Baker, 2 vols. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961, 1967]; John B. Gammie, “A New Setting for Psalm 110, ” Anglican Theological Review 51 [1969]: 4-17; J. W. Bowker, “Psalm CX,” Vetus Testamentum [1967]: 31-41; Othmar Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World:Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms [New York: Seabury, 1978]). (2) Covenant renewal festival (Arthur Weiser, The Psalms [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962]; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, 2 vols. [New York: Harper and Row, 1962, 1965]). (3) A royal Zion festival (Hans-Joachim Kraus, Worship in Israel: A Cultic History of the Old Testament, trans. Geoffrey Buswell [Richmond, VA: Knox, 1966]; J. H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms [Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1967]; K. R. Crim, The Royal Psalms [Richmond, VA; Knox, 1962]; A. R. Johnson, Sacral Kingship in Ancient Israel [Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1967]; A. G. Herbert, “The Idea of Kingship in the Old Testament,” Reformed Theological Review 18 [1959]: 34-35). Those who say the setting of the psalm is a more specific historic occasion have made seven suggestions. (4) Instructions for conquering Jerusalem (B. Eerdmanns, The Hebrew Book of Psalms [Leiden: Brill, 1947]). (5) Celebration after conquering Jerusalem (G. W. Anderson, “Psalms,” in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. Matthew Black and H. H. Rowley [London: Nelson, 1962], 437–38). (6) Moving the ark to Jerusalem (F. G. Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1873; reprint, Minneapolis: James Family, n.d.]); J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms, 4th ed. [London: Geo. Bell and Sons, 1878; reprint, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976]). (7) Granting of the Davidic Covenant (Charles Augustus Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms, International Critical Commentary, 2 vols. [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907]). (8) Instructions to the king as he goes to war (Heinrich A. Ewald, A Commentary on the Psalms [London: Williams and Norgate, 1880]; E. W. Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, 3 vols. [reprint, Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack, n.d.]; Franz Delitzsch, Psalms, trans. James Martin, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes [reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975]). (9) A meditation on Psalms 2 and 21 (Edmund Kalt, Herder’s Commentary on the Psalms, trans. Bernard Fritz [Westminster, MD: Newman, 1961]). (10) Coronation of Solomon (J. W. Rogerson and J. W. McKay, Psalms 101–105, Cambridge Bible Commentary [London: Cambridge University Press, 1977]).
6. George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 167–68, 341; Vincent Taylor, The Names of Jesus (London: Macmillan, 1953), 50–51; Thomas C. Oden, The Word of Life (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989), 2:15.
7. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1988), s.v. “Right (Hand),” by K. C. Hanson, 4:191. He acknowledges the metaphorical use of “the right hand” as the hand of power and the idiomatic use of “sit at the right hand” as the place of honor.
8. E. W. Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible (1898; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), 7.
9. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1988), s.v. “Throne,” by A. E. Hill, 4:844–45. See also 2 Samuel 2:4 and 5:1–5 .
10. Darrell L. Bock, “The Reign of the Lord,” in Dispensationalism, the Church, and Israel, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992).
11. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 336.
12. George E. Ladd, “Historic Premillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1977), 21.
13. While the apostles laid hands on the Samaritans, who then were given the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17), the gift of the Spirit came in response to their prayer to God (v. 15).
14. Some dispensationalists see His present work of bringing individual righteousness and peace as a preliminary stage of the Messiah’s ultimate reign on earth (J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1990], 272–73; Charles L. Feinberg, Millennialism: The Two Major Views [Winona Lane, IN: BMH, 1985], 51, 58; and William Kelly, An Exposition of Acts of the Apostles [London: Paternoster Row, 1914], 30). Other dispensationalists view the New Testament references to the kingdom of God as referring only to the Davidic, messianic kingdom, and thus affirm that there is no form of God’s kingdom on earth today (Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959], 432–34), and Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew [Portland, OR: Multnomah, 1980]).