CHAPTER THREE

IN the superscription of this poem the phrase, "a Psalm of David," occurs. The preposition לְ, inherently and apart from all other considerations, could indicate either that David was the Author, that he was the subject of the Psalm, or that it was dedicated to him. The first two positions have able advocates, whereas the third suggestion is a mere possibility without probability. In the superscription of a number of Psalms this same preposition occurs. A study of each makes it plain that in the majority of instances the one whose name appears in the introduction is not the subject of discussion. Hence the remaining possibility, unless there is unmistakable proof to the contrary, must be accepted as the only plausible one, namely, that this preposition indicates authorship. Since in this case negative proof is lacking, we must accept David as the inspired writer.

Viewed simply as a literary production, is it possible that this Psalm was written by David? Did there exist in his time such a highly developed culture as that reflected in the Psalm? Were the literary expressions, together with the political and religious conceptions embedded in this poem, ready to hand in his day? A careful study of those portions of Scripture which unmistakably antedate his time answer these questions in the affirmative. Hence no a priori considerations, such as those suggested by rationalistic critics, can break the force of the positive testimony to the Davidic authorship.

Against the positive evidence of the text, it is sometimes urged that David in all his utterances concerning the Coming One never distinguishes between himself and the Messiah, as is done in this poem. On the contrary, his Messianic Psalms are but reflections of his deep-rooted, ideal way of contemplating himself. As Delitzsch correctly says, the Davidic Psalms, except 110, are "reflected images of his own typical history." The account of his own life in the earlier stages delicately blends with predictions of the coming King. But in each instance it is evident that, although the predictions begin with the king's own experiences, the Spirit of God soon leads him out into a larger circle of reality and events which far transcend the circumstances and conditions of his own life. This literary phenomenon proves conclusively that David's life, though greatly marred by sin, was an adumbration of the Messiah's glorious reign. David's great sin (II Sam. 2) and his efforts at concealment rudely shocked both himself and the nation, awakening all to a realization of the typical character, the fading glory, and the unreality of his reign of justice. From the ruins of the wrecked splendor of his typical reign there arises, in ever-brightening luster and in independence of David's personality, the majestic edifice of Messianic prophecy. As he approached the inevitable hour of departing this life for the great future, David, under the lashing of a guilty conscience and with a smiting realization of his miserable failure in prefiguring the sinless, perfect Messiah, dismounted the throne and reverently laid his typical crown at the feet of his Great Descendant. This dramatic scene and humiliating confession are given in the following quotation.

"Now these are the last words of David. David the son of Jesse saith, And the man who was raised on high saith, The anointed of the God of Jacob, And the sweet psalmist of Israel: The Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, And his word was upon my tongue. The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spake to me: One that ruleth over men righteously, That ruleth in the fear of God, He shall be as the light of the morning, when the sun riseth, A morning without clouds, When the tender grass springeth out of the earth, Through clear shining after rain. Verily my house is not so with God: Yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, Ordered in all things, and sure: For it is all my salvation, and all my desire, Although he maketh it not to grow. But the ungodly shall be all of them as thorns to be thrust away, Because they cannot be taken with the hand; But the man that toucheth them Must be armed with iron and the staff of a spear: And they shall be utterly burned with fire in their place" (II Sam. 23:1-7).

From this time forward the Messianic hope was detached from the person of the Davidic kings. The Messiah, though recognized as coming of the house of Jesse, is seen to be more than a man, His divine nature shining through His perfect humanity. It is natural that David, having come to a fuller knowledge of the Messiah, should speak of Him in Psalm 110 just as he had done in the marvellous revelation of II Samuel 23. The facts favor rather than discredit the Davidic authorship.

Since God often used events and episodes, especially calamities and failures, as occasions for giving further revelations of His will--a fact well known to Biblical students--what was the historical circumstance out of which this poem arose? David's great interest in religious matters and the triumphant termination of the Syro-Ammonite War furnish sufficient material for the historic background upon which the Lord painted the portrait of the righteous, all-conquering King Messiah, who shall be a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Therefore the historical facts prove the Davidic authorship.

A close study of the Psalm shows that in this beautiful ode the sweet singer of Israel struck the note of every hope and aspiration of the nation. He did not develop each point into a doctrine, but assumed that his readers would thoroughly understand and appreciate every reference. If we would understand the predictions only touched upon here, we must study the fuller accounts given in various portions of the prophets. In this short survey we can only discuss briefly the different doctrines suggested in the poem.

Jehovah saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Jehovah will send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion: Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies" (Verses 1 and 2).

The word translated said is the regular term used to refer to a divine revelation. It is never used in any other way. Hence the Psalm purports to be a revelation which the Lord God makes to one whom David called "my Lord."

In the first place let us see how the ancient synagogue interpreted this verse. Perowne in his excellent commentary gives the gist of ancient rabbinical teaching concerning the one whom God addresses in this Psalm.

"In the Talmud (Sanhedrin, f. 108, 2) it is said: 'God placed king Messiah at his right hand, according to Ps. CX. 2, and Abraham at his left. But the face of the latter grew pale, and he said: 'The son of my son sitteth at thy right hand, but I at thy left.' And God appeased him, saying: 'The son of thy son is at my right hand, but I (according to ver. 5) am at thy right hand." In the Midrash Tehillim on this passage, it is said, 'God spake thus to the Messiah;' and on Ps. xviii. 36 we read (fol. 14,3): 'R. Judah in the name of R. Channa, the son of Chanina, says: In the age to come (i.e., the new Messianic dispensation) will the Holy One--blessed be he!--set the Messiah at his right hand (as it is written in Psalm cx.), and Abraham at his left.'"

Let us now examine the text. The word אֲדֹנָי is applied both to men and to heavenly visitors. As the contexts of the following passages indicate, it refers to men in Genesis 24:12; 44:5; Exodus 21:5; I Samuel 30:13,15, etc. But in Joshua 5:14 it is addressed to "the Prince of the Lord's host." Again, it is applied to "the Angel of the Lord" in Judges 6:11-15. The heavenly visitor is called in verse 11 "the angel of Jehovah"; but in verse 14 the inspired writer calls this Angel the Lord Himself. Thus the context clearly indicates that it was the Lord God who appeared to Gideon and who was addressed as אֲדֹנָי. Since the term is used in speaking both to men and God, it is necessary to examine the context of each occurrence to ascertain its significance.

What does the word mean in Psalm 110? The imagery of verse 1 will assist us to learn its significance in this passage. The scene is majestic and awe-inspiring. God is seated upon His throne, the throne of the universe in the heaven of heavens (cf. Ps. 2:4;103:19f). In majesty and dignity He speaks to David's Lord, inviting Him to take His seat at His right hand. The oriental conception of such an honor might be illustrated by Solomon's causing his mother to sit at his right hand. "And (he) sat down on his throne, and caused a throne to be set for the king's mother; and she sat on his right hand" (I Kings 2:19). Solomon recognized his mother as his equal and accorded her the highest honor. In the Semitic world the high honor of being seated at the right hand of the sovereign was accorded only to equals. To think that God would thus honor a mere human being is inconceivable. Nowhere in the Scriptures is any angel, even the highest, so favored. These facts point conclusively to the position that the one to whom the Lord God accords this special dignity is of equal standing with Himself. One is led to conclude that He who is thus honored by the Lord is one of the Divine Personalities referred to in the Great Confession of Israel (Deut. 6:4).

The facts presented in the last section prove that there are at least two personalities in the Divine Being--God, the speaker, and David's Lord, the one addressed. This language reminds one of the statement in Genesis 1:26: "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." God, the speaker, here addresses one or more who existed in the same image and form as Himself. He could not have been speaking to angels, for they are not in the true image and likeness of God. They are created beings whereas God is self existent and eternal. Strength is added to this position by the fact that one of the words translated God is in the plural number. Upon a close examination of Isaiah 48:12-16 one learns that there are three of these Divine Personalities. The speaker in this passage is Creator of the entire universe. He declares to Israel that the Lord God has sent Him and His Spirit (the Holy Spirit). Only three Divine Personalities are ever referred to in the Scriptures. Hence one must conclude that the Divine Being consists of three Personalities subsisting in the same divine essence.

Though there are three Personalities, they constitute a unity, as is set forth in Israel's Great Confession (Deut. 6:4). An accurate and literal translation of this passage is, "Hear, 0 Israel, Jehovah our Gods is Jehovah a unity." Therefore in the light of this verse it is clear that One of the Divine Personalities was addressing Another of them in Psalm 110. (For a full discussion of these points see my volume The God of Israel.

The statement, "Sit thou at my right hand, Until I make thine enemies thy footstool," carries certain implications: first, that the hostility of certain ones toward Messiah presupposes personal contact with them; second, that prior to the incident referred to He has come to the place of His enemies; and third, that at the time of the Oracle He is in the midst of foes. Speaking dramatically, one would say of this Psalm that when the curtain rises Messiah is seen in the midst of enemies.

The force of the first inference is evident from a casual glance at the following principle: since one can assume neither a friendly nor a hostile attitude toward another with whom he has had no contact, the enmity of certain foes toward Messiah implies that He has come into close association with them. The passage does not state to what extent their hostility drives them. This information must be gathered from other predictions.

The second inference, namely, that Messiah has come to the place of enemies prior to the manifestation of their hostility toward Him, demands careful attention. Since, as has been seen, He is one of the Divine Personalities and since He is in the midst of enemies, He evidently had to leave heaven for the place where He meets such opposition. This portion of Scripture gives no information concerning His condescension in visiting this earth, nor any details of His coming into the midst of enemies. It assumes this knowledge on the part of the reader. The facts connected with His appearance upon earth must be gathered from other predictions.

Who are these enemies? The answer to this question gives us a solid rock foundation upon which to stand as we endeavor to unravel further the secrets connected with this great event. A casual glance at verse 2 gives the desired information. "Jehovah will send forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion: Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies." The two statements of this quotation constitute what is known as Hebrew parallelism. This peculiarity of Hebrew poetry enables one to understand what, in many instances, would otherwise be difficult. The poet makes a statement in certain words and immediately repeats the same thought, using different phraseology and frequently adding a new shade of meaning. Thus the second statement serves as a comment on the first. Zion of the first statement answers to enemies of the second. Hence the enemies of Messiah are the people of Zion, of Jerusalem, of the nation Israel.

From the facts presented in the last paragraph it is clear that Messiah comes to Zion, the capital of the Jewish nation. But how does He come? As the Angel of the Lord who appeared at various times to the patriarchs? Hardly in such an awe-inspiring manner, for no human beings would have the boldness to oppose him under such conditions. This coming, therefore, must be in a less spectacular manner. Without doubt the desired information is given in two statements found in the Book of Immanuel (Isaiah 7-12). Having turned from the faithless Ahaz, the prophet addressed the "house of David" in the following words: "Therefore Jehovah himself will give you a sign: behold, the virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isa. 7:14). The word Immanuel means "God with us." A study of the entire context of this statement shows that the prophet foresaw the coming of one of the Divine Personalities to earth in the form of a little child, born of the virgin who was the subject of former predictions. Hence this child is what His name indicates-- "God with us." But who is meant by us? Evidently the Jewish people, since the Hebrew prophet was talking to the Davidic house of the future. A second passage from the same discourse gives additional light upon this subject. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isa. 9:6). This child is properly said to be born to the nation as no other could be. He is the gift of heaven to Israel. The reason for His sustaining this special relationship to the nation is that He is God in human form. He, according to verse 7, is to mount the throne of David and to extend His kingdom to the uttermost parts of the earth.

Since this child is born king of the Jewish nation, and since He is God in human form, it is evident that He is the one of whom the poet speaks in Psalm 110, who, as has already been seen, is God in the midst of enemies in Zion. Thus Isaiah's statement supplements the information given in the Psalm. (For a full discussion of the foregoing points see "An Abridged Manual for Lovers of Israel" to be published later).

The third implication, namely, that at the time of the oracle Messiah is in the midst of foes, is likewise of great importance. It has already been seen that the subject of this Psalm is King Messiah, God incarnate, in the midst of enemies in Jerusalem. The fact that נְאֻם, translated saith, is the regular word used by the prophets to refer to a revelation by the Lord to man is positive proof that the Messiah, though one of the Divine Personalities, is limited by the restrictions incident to His assuming human form. His self-limitation is voluntary and temporary, yet real. While He is restricted by the limitations of the flesh God in heaven makes the disclosure or revelation to Him. The language shows that the hostility of the people of Zion is the occasion of the giving of the oracle. Hence Messiah in His incarnate condition is in the midst of hostile Zion when the Lord in heaven makes the revelation to Him.

The three necessary implications discussed in the preceding paragraphs show conclusively that, according to the divine forecast of Messiah's earthly career, He comes to Zion, but instead of being cordially received by His people He is rejected by them. God has made man a free moral agent. Therefore He never forces His will. On this account Messiah leaves the people to themselves until they, as we shall see, realize their mistake.

The Psalmist gives only the bare fact of their rejection of Him and omits the details. This information must be gathered from other predictions.

If God, displaying His might and glory, should descend from heaven, men would be awe-stricken and would yield submissively to any demands. In this event their wills would be coerced and they could no longer exercise freedom of choice. Therefore God would not approach man in this manner. If perchance He should do so, He would thwart His own holy purposes, and man would have no margin for the exercise of his will or faith,--the very thing in which God delights.

But if He should conceal His might and glory within a human body and visit this earth, would not His divine nature inevitably shine through the thin veil of flesh? Furthermore, would not His divinity be reflected in every thought and action? In this case, how could men fail to recognize Him? And recognizing Him, would they not immediately render homage and worship? Human judgment would answer in the affirmative. A further and more specific query presses upon us for answer: if the subject of this Psalm is one of the Divine Personalities in the midst of Jerusalem, why do not the devout worshippers, the holy men of Israel who prefer to lay down their lives in defense of the sacred Torah rather than break the least commandment, recognize and accept Him? This insistent question must be answered. The truth relative to this paradox is to be found in two different realms: first, in the field of psychology; and secondly, in the Word of God.

From a study of psychology we learn that evidence, though conclusive and even overwhelming, does not necessarily produce conviction. As the late Dr. Gulick has correctly pointed out, there are organs of evidence other than the intellect, namely, the will and affections. When either or both of these are allowed a voice relative to any matter, the force of the clearest evidence may be either modified or broken. Why do the courts of the land when selecting a jury for an important trial, such as a murder case, ask every prospective juror if he is related to the defendant either by affinity or consanguinity? Answer: the law recognizes that the affections bias the judgment. Again, why is each one asked if he has formed or expressed an opinion concerning the case in hand? The answer is that the law recognizes man's mental and spiritual make-up to be such that when once he has committed himself, all things being equal, he will allow this preconception to color the evidence and influence his judgment. An illustration from daily life will further emphasize this truth. Two persons may have a disagreement in regard to a certain matter. Realizing that affections and personal interests warp the judgment, and not wishing to do any injustice to one another, they submit their respective testimony to a neutral committee and agree to be governed by its decision. This custom proves that men realize the will and affections also to be "organs of evidence." The cumulative experience and wisdom of centuries have crystallized in the well-known proverb: "You cannot teach an old dog new tricks." Therefore when men have once committed themselves to a certain position, or when their private interests and affections are involved, it is very difficult for them, especially when old, to rid themselves of preconceptions and look at evidence impartially.

Sometimes it is assumed that only the unlearned masses are governed by preconceptions and prejudices. The following quotation from Thinking As A Science, by Henry Hazlitt, is illuminating on this point.

"'Why do so few "scientists" even look at the evidence for telepathy, so called? Because they think, as a leading biologist, now dead, once said to me, that even if such a thing were true, scientists ought to band together to keep it suppressed and concealed. It would undo the uniformity of nature, and all sorts of other things without which scientists cannot carry on their pursuits.' Darwin writes that when a youth he told Sedgwick the geologist of how a tropical Volute shell had been found in a gravel pit near Shrewsbury, Sedgwick replied that some one must have thrown it there and added that if it were really imbedded there, it would be the greatest misfortune to geology, as it would overthrow all that we know about the superficial deposits of the Midland Counties'--which belonged to the glacial period.

"Some readers may object to calling the last case prejudice. They may say that Sedgwick was perfectly justified. That, however, is not the present question. Prejudice itself may sometimes be justified. But Sedgwick tacitly admitted that he not only believed the shell had not been imbedded, he actually desired that it had not been. And our desires always determine, to a great extent, the trouble we take to get evidence, and the importance we attach to it after we have it."

The axioms and principles discussed in the preceding paragraph lead one to a consideration of the following universal principle: "If one tells another the exact truth about an event in a way in which he does not believe it should occur, he will not believe it to be the truth." This principle is strikingly illustrated in the following incident, told me by a friend.

"I recall the case of a crime as reported in the papers a few years ago though I cannot now give names, date, or locality. A murder was committed in a large office-building in one of our big cities: the police examined the situation and concluded definitely that the killer had eluded them by means of the fire-escape: nevertheless, as a general precautionary measure, they set guards over the building for a few days. The next day a man going out was accosted by a guard and asked to identify himself: Why, he said with a smile, I am the fellow that killed --------.' It seemed so foolish to the police and so much like a joke that they passed him through and let him go. Later it turned out that he actually was the killer and had thus escaped by a shrewd bit of brazenness.

"But the Old Testament has two clear instances of these phases of self-deceit. The Book of Jeremiah gives several instances of the lesser one. Jeremiah, in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Captivity, brought repeatedly to the Jews messages direct from the Lord. They did not suit the Jews' ideas of what should be. The priests and princes gathered together their group of prophets and nullified Jeremiah's prophecies in the minds of the masses by having these prophets utter prophecies, purporting to come from the Lord, that agreed with what the people wished and had persuaded themselves would take place.

"There is an instance of the major phase in the case of the intercourse between Joseph, as regent of Egypt, and the sons of Jacob. They imagined they knew beyond peradventure that Joseph was dead. So Joseph went in and out before them without the least disguise and even did special things to call their attention to himself, yet without stirring in their minds the least consideration of his remarkable resemblance to their dead brother. Finally he had to take extreme steps to get their attention and had to go into distinct proof to convince them."

(Continued on the next page)