I have blogged in the past on some of the strange ways the NT interprets the OT, and linked to an essay by Peter Enns that helps make sense of it. As helpful as it is, I am still baffled by some of the ways the NT interprets the OT. Here is another troubling example: Jesus’ and Peter’s interpretation of Psalm 110:1.
The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
It’s important to understand the structure of this verse. The person speaking in verse 1a is a prophetic voice in the royal court, delivering a message from YHWH (“LORD”) to the prophet’s “lord.” The prophet’s lord is the king, David. Verses 1b and 4 constitute YHWH’s message to David via the unnamed prophet. In verses 2-3 the prophet addresses David, and then speaks to God about David in verses 5-7.
In the original context, then, the “Lord” was David, and the person who spoke the words, “The LORD said to my Lord” was the unnamed prophet speaking to David. When we turn to the NT, however, the original context is turned on its head. According to Jesus and Peter, the “Lord” is a reference to the Messiah, and the person who spoke the words, “The LORD said to my Lord” was David (See Matthew 22:43-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44; Acts 2:34-36).
It should be pointed out that Jesus did not invent this interpretation of Psalm 110:1. The Jews already had a long-standing interpretive tradition of identifying the “Lord” as the coming Messiah. They reasoned that if what was spoken applied to David, it also applied to all of His royal descendents, including (and especially so) the promised Messiah. As for attributing the words of verse 1a to David, presumably it was reasoned that since David was the author of the psalm, He could be cited as having said those words. A similar phenomenon appears elsewhere in the NT when the words of YHWH are attributed to the prophet who authored the book containing YHWH’s words, or when the words of prophets are attributed to YHWH.
Be that as it may, there is something else even more troubling than these semi-understandable changes to the original meaning. In the NT, Jesus and Peter appeal to Psalm 110:1 as an argument for the deity of Christ. It was common knowledge that the Messiah would be the son of David. So Jesus asked those present, “How is it that the experts in the law say that the Christ is David’s son? David himself, by the Holy Spirit, said, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’ If David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (Mark 12:35b-37a).
To understand Jesus’ argument one must understand ancient-near-eastern culture (ANE). According to ANE culture the father is superior to his offspring. Why, then, does David call the Messiah his Lord? To call him such implies that his son is superior to himself, which is unthinkable. This was a paradox that could only be solved if one granted that the Messiah was more than a mere man—He was divine as well.
What I find troubling about this argument for the deity of Christ is that it only works if one takes the OT passage out of context. One has to change the identity of the original subjects in order for it to work. And yet, as with other strange uses of the OT in the NT, the crowds found the argument powerful and persuasive.
Thinking to Believe 
April 9, 2008 at 10:19 am
Maybe because the crowd understood the words of prophets to be just that prophetic and perhaps having an immediate and a more far-reaching meaning.
Peter explains his interpretation technique of a different prophecy of David in Acts 2:25-28 of which Peter quotes from Ps 16:8-11 in Acts 2:29-31.
24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
LikeLike
April 9, 2008 at 10:21 am
Sorry, I meant to add Peter’s interpretation of Ps 16 is found in Acts 2:29-31.
LikeLike
April 9, 2008 at 10:49 am
David’s prophetic utterances, in their original context, do not appear prophetic at all. They were only interpreted as prophetic later. But that’s the problem under discussion. These passages only prove what the NT authors make them prove, by interpreting them in a way that is inconsistent with the original context.
Again, as Enns points out, there is some rhyme and reason for this, and this practice was common in the Judaism of the day. But it still doesn’t sit well with my stomach. When an argument for fulfilled prophecy or some other point can only be made by reinterpreting the meaning so that it means something else, it loses its force.
BTW, please use a name in the future. There are too many anonmyouses out there. Thanks!
Jason
LikeLike
April 12, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I agree with the OP.
What if I said that we know that Joseph Smith (of Mormon fame) was God because Jesus himself, by the Holy Spirit, said, “The Lord said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.’ If Jesus himself calls Joseph Smith “Lord,” must he not be God?”
Your response would be (correctly) that Jesus never said any such thing. To allow this sort of “reasoning” would prove too much, as anybody and everybody could be proven God through this form of exegesis.
Another possibility: perhaps there is an apocryphal book of scripture, accepted by the crowds, in which David made such a comment about Jesus?
This scripture reminds me of Jesus’ baptism. At the baptism, God quoted Isaiah 43:1-7 (“You are my son; this day I have begotten you.”) The Church later changed the Scripture to remove adoptionism from the Bible, so Luke 3:15-22 now says “You are my beloved son; in you I am well pleased..” Paul references the original NT Scripture to prove that Jesus is greater than the angels: “For to which of the angels did he ever say ‘you are my Son today I have begotten you'” (Heb 1:5). That argument was forceful to those who had the uncorrupted Scriptures, but makes no sense to us today; Paul’s audience knew that God said those words to Jesus at his baptism.
In the same way, perhaps the original NT Scriptures had David saying that Jesus is his Lord. Or, as I wrote above, perhaps there is an apocryphal book of the Bible wherein David makes that claim.
-Arthur
LikeLike
April 20, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Bro. Jason,
How did you come to the understanding that in the original context the “Lord” was David, and the person who spoke the words, “The LORD said to my Lord” was the unnamed prophet speaking to David? As I understand it, Jesus clearly attributed the authorship of Psalm 110 to David, not to an unnamed prophet (Matt. 22:41-45).
It seems to me that in the original context, David, as a prophet, is reporting a direct prophetic statement of God in which Yahweh is described as speaking, not David himself, but rather to David’s Lord, the Messiah. Psalm 110:1 is understood to be a directly Messianic psalm.
Thanks,
John
LikeLike
April 20, 2008 at 9:05 pm
John, re: Psalm 110
“The Christian interpretation of this Psalm has another difficulty. Whoever this verse is talking about will remain seated at G-d’s right hand until G-d makes his enemies a footstool for his feet. But Jesus, at the second coming, is supposed to leave the Father’s right hand and personally make his enemies a footstool for his feet. What Christianity should have is the wicked being destroyed supernaturally just prior to the second coming.”
“But who would David’s master be, seeing that David, the composer of this Psalm, was the king of Israel? When confronted with the fact that the second occurrence of “Lord” really should be “master”, Christians often contend that the only person David could have called “master” is G-d Himself. But recall that, while most of the Psalms were composed by David, they were played and sung by the Levites in the Temple (and in the tabernacle before the Temple was built). The Levites, of course, would have called David their master, since he was king over them. Since David was called a man after G-d’s own heart, and since the Messiah must come from his descendants, it makes perfect sense to speak of him as sitting metaphorically at G-d’s right hand. He also had many enemies during his reign and certainly ruled in the midst of them (Psalm 110:2). The Messiah, on the other hand, will rule in the absence of his enemies, as they will have been incinerated by G-d (Malachi 4:1-3).”
http://shalach.org/JewishContentions/Psalm3.htm
LikeLike
April 21, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Forevertruth,
Very good question. Yes, David wrote the psalm, but that doesn’t mean that every word in the Psalm has to be coming from David’s mouth. He could be recording the words of other persons in the psalm (just as he does elsewhere), such as the words of the LORD. On this view, then, what David wrote in 110:1a and 110:5-7 is a record of what the unnamed prophet told him.
One of the reasons we should understand the identity of the “Lord” in the original context to be David rather than the Messiah is verse 2. It is said that the rule of this “Lord” will be extended. That is not descriptive of the Messiah, who has universal reign, but it is descriptive of David who extended the borders of his kingdom through battle. Verse 3 says the Lord’s people willingly follow him into battle. Again, this cannot be said of the Messiah, but it can be said of a human king (when Jesus returns and does battle against man, he fights alone). David is the king, so he cannot be saying these words about himself. He had no other Lord than the LORD god. So whoever described David as “Lord” must not be king. He was a prophet, but unnamed. In 110:1a, then, David is recording the words of the unnamed prophet, as he announced to David the message of the LORD in 110:b and 110:4.
This psalm came to be understood in a messianic way, but as with many OT messianic passages, what we learn about the Messiah is not something gleaned from a grammatical-historical exegesis of the passage in its original context, but a reinterpretation of the passage by the pre-Christian Jews and/or Jesus and His early followers.
Jason
LikeLike
April 22, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Arthur,
Let me respond to the Jew you were speaking through.
Where does the Bible say Jesus leaves God’s right hand to come back for judgment? I don’t find that anywhere. In fact, according to Mt 26:64 He is seated on the right hand of God while He is returning in the clouds for judgment (see also Mk 14:62).
The Jew argues that if Jesus destroys His enemies at His return like the NT says He will, this would contradict Psalm 110:1 which (on the messiance interpretation) says God will destroy the messiah’s enemies for him. But he ignores the fact that this did not mean David would not be involved in the destruction of his enemies. Obviously David went to battle. God made David’s enemies his footstool through David’s fighting. Just as God used David’s sword to “make the footstool” for David, likewise God will use the sword of Jesus’ mouth to make the footstool for Jesus. Besides, the NT affirms the same thing as Ps 110. Heb 10:12-13 says Christ is at God’s right hand, waiting for God to make Christ’s enemies Christ’s footstool. The two ideas are entirely consistent.
His second paragraph consists of a straw man. First, Christians don’t argue that David was referring to God; they argue that he was referring to the Messiah. Second, we have no problem with a man being said to be seated at the right hand of God. It simply refers to a place of honor.
Finally, he is mistaken to say the Messiah will rule in the absence of all enemies, and using Malachi 4 as evidence that all evil-doers will be destroyed. Malachi 4 does not demand such an interpretation. Furthermore, Zechariah 14:16 indicates some evil-doers will survive: “Then it will come about that any who are left of all the nations that went against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to celebrate the Feast of Booths.” Here are people who had gone to war against Jerusalem and are now living in what Christians might call the Millennium. The fact that they were fighting Jerusalem shows us that they were not Christians. I see no other conclusion but that these were unbelievers who survived Christ’s destruction at the Second Coming, which shows that the intent was not to wipe everyone out.
Daniel says something similar. He says the first three beasts (kingdoms) which he saw were allowed to live after Christ returns and the antichrist is destroyed (Daniel 7:11-12). These are also distinguished from the kingdom which is given to “the saints” (vv. 17-18). In fact, this book is very clear that all other kingdoms will serve and obey this kingdom (vv. 14, 26-27). It seems from these two passages, then, that nations or “kingdoms” will live on into the Millennium and be subject to the kingdom and rule of Christ.
Jason
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 2:01 pm
According to Jesus though these were the words of David speaking through the Spirit
Mat 22:43 He said to them, “How is it then that ,David, in the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying,
Mat 22:44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet’?
Mat 22:45 If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?”
LikeLike
April 24, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Jevan,
Yes, I realize that. That’s the problem. The NT interprets this verse very differently than anyone would do so if they only had the OT.
It’s clear in the original context that David was not the one who uttered “the LORD said to my Lord,” and it’s clear that the “Lord” was the king, not the Messiah.
Again, I’m not saying Jesus and the apostles invented this meaning. It was already accepted among the Jews. My point is that the way they (Jews, Jesus, and early Christians) interpreted the OT was not always with the grammatical-historical method.
Jason
LikeLike
May 19, 2012 at 4:26 pm
I don’t really see how the context says that the “Lord” or “lord” in Psalms 110:1 was King David.
LikeLike
April 9, 2014 at 12:25 am
As with many Biblical matters it takes the fullness of time to bring their complete understanding into light; and who better to provide that light than the Messiah Himself. There are numerous examples and situations throughout the Gospels where Yahshua brings clarity and totality of knowledge to bear on what we would consider to be enigmas of the Old Testament. For instance, it wasn’t until Yahshua spoke to Nicodemus as recorded in John chapter 3 that the explanation of the brazen serpent of Moses’ day (Num. 21:4-9) being a foreshadowing of Messiah’s sacrifice by crucifixion becomes evident. We have the distinct advantage of hindsight over the early saints so we need to reach conclusions from that perspective. At times we are also dealing with a pregnant prophecy, i.e., a prophecy within a prophecy such as that found in Isaiah 7:10-16.
In the case of Psalm 110:1 illumination comes from the Resurrection chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians.
“20. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept. 21. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23. But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. 24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25. For he must reign, till he hath put all all enemies under his feet. 26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27. FOR HE HATH PUT ALL THINGS UNDER HIS FEET. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
A key concept to grasp finds expression in these verses: 1 Cor. 15:27, 28. “Then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him”, here Paul refers to the subordination of the incarnate Son’s function or ministry to the Father’s will. However, in essence they remain one (John 10:22-30). Again, we need to equip our conception within the framework of the fullness of time, i.e., dispensation. Presently rule of the messianic kingdom is given to the Son (cf. Matt. 28:18; John 5:21-30). Yahshua reigns to execute the Great White Throne Judgment by which all corruption, even death itself, will have been removed completely from God’s creation (Rev. 20:1-15). Once the messianic kingdom has fulfilled its divine purpose it concludes; the Eternal State commences, power of authority returns to the Father “that God may be all in all.”
Because He received the promise from the Father of Psalm 110:1 and because He inhabits eternity (Isaiah 57:15) Yahshua’s perspective offers this promise:
“Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.” (Rev. 3:12)
LikeLike