Psalm 110 is about the Israelite king, not Jesus Christ
July 12, 2025 at 11:38 pm
(This post was last modified: July 12, 2025 at 11:39 pm by GrandizerII.)
For context: Psalm 110 (NIV)
The first verse in Psalm 110 says:
Jesus in the New Testament quoted this verse and somehow stunned the Pharisees into silence because he questioned that a son of David could have been called 'lord' by David himself. Christians of course latch onto passages like this to argue that Psalm 110 is about Christ because look at what Jesus himself said.
The problem is that if you go with the most parsimonious reading of the text, considering the original intent of the psalmist and ignoring all later interpretations in line with later beliefs, there is nothing to suggest that David was the psalmist here, other than perhaps the title/superscription of the Psalm (which would have been a later ascription anyway). One thing clear to me is that the psalm is either ABOUT David or some Israelite king in power at the time, so I don't think any king came up with this psalm, and the psalm was probably authored by some poet/singer who sang praises to the king at the time.
Either way, it is a mistake to confidently ascribe the authorship of this Psalm to David.
Nevertheless, Christians may counter by latching on to a later verse about how this Lord is said to be "a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek". So how could an Israelite king have been a priest also, when only Levites could have been priests?
Fair question, but these Psalms are forms of poetry, and people should not take this verse to mean that the Israelite king was a priest in the Levitical sense. There's a reason it says "in the order of Melchizedek" as opposed to something like "in the order of Aaron".
And if you read elsewhere in the Old Testament, such as in Chronicles, the king was priestly in some of the roles he took on. For example, he would lead the people of Israel in prayer and in sacrifices even. And his relationship with God was not more distant than the one the priest would have with God. So the verse is a poetic way of saying that God approves of the king (including his services on behalf of the people) and in an ethereal and divine sense (like how Melchizedek was in an ethereal sense both a king and priest of God).
So once again, a passage in the Old Testament that Christians interpret as speaking of Christ (in the future legendary sense) when a better reading suggests otherwise.
The first verse in Psalm 110 says:
Quote:The LORD says to my lord:
Jesus in the New Testament quoted this verse and somehow stunned the Pharisees into silence because he questioned that a son of David could have been called 'lord' by David himself. Christians of course latch onto passages like this to argue that Psalm 110 is about Christ because look at what Jesus himself said.
The problem is that if you go with the most parsimonious reading of the text, considering the original intent of the psalmist and ignoring all later interpretations in line with later beliefs, there is nothing to suggest that David was the psalmist here, other than perhaps the title/superscription of the Psalm (which would have been a later ascription anyway). One thing clear to me is that the psalm is either ABOUT David or some Israelite king in power at the time, so I don't think any king came up with this psalm, and the psalm was probably authored by some poet/singer who sang praises to the king at the time.
Either way, it is a mistake to confidently ascribe the authorship of this Psalm to David.
Nevertheless, Christians may counter by latching on to a later verse about how this Lord is said to be "a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek". So how could an Israelite king have been a priest also, when only Levites could have been priests?
Fair question, but these Psalms are forms of poetry, and people should not take this verse to mean that the Israelite king was a priest in the Levitical sense. There's a reason it says "in the order of Melchizedek" as opposed to something like "in the order of Aaron".
And if you read elsewhere in the Old Testament, such as in Chronicles, the king was priestly in some of the roles he took on. For example, he would lead the people of Israel in prayer and in sacrifices even. And his relationship with God was not more distant than the one the priest would have with God. So the verse is a poetic way of saying that God approves of the king (including his services on behalf of the people) and in an ethereal and divine sense (like how Melchizedek was in an ethereal sense both a king and priest of God).
So once again, a passage in the Old Testament that Christians interpret as speaking of Christ (in the future legendary sense) when a better reading suggests otherwise.
