The Lord Said to My Lord
Why Psalm 110 Matters
The interpretation of Holy Scripture was never meant to be an isolated act. As Carl Trueman observes, Scripture is to be read not in detachment from the church, but within the witness of those who have faithfully received, preserved, and expounded it across time.[1]
To be clear, this does not undermine sola Scriptura, but rightly orders it, where Scripture functions as the final and norming authority, and tradition serves as a subordinate, “normed norm,” offering faithful summaries rather than rival claims.
Reading Psalm 110 within this framework situates the interpreter within the historic confession of the church, where its meaning is not invented, but received and clarified.
It is within this stream of interpretation that Charles Spurgeon explains how magnificent the one hundred and tenth Psalm is when he states that it speaks of something that Israel, nor any man of Israel, had ever seen, a Priest King.[2]
Additionally, it should be noted that Psalm 110 is directly cited, quoted, or alluded to more frequently in the New Testament than any other Psalm. Among these understandings of the text, what may be the most important of them is that Jesus Himself applies the text to Himself (Matt. 22:42-45).
By doing so, as John Calvin points out, Jesus is affirming that God has conferred on Him the supreme dominion and invincible power.[3] He continues that Jesus is affirming that the Father would extend all the boundaries of the kingdom, by concurring his enemies, or compelling them to Himself.[4]
It is this Psalm that confers on the reader the supremacy of the Father, the sending and conferring of the Son, and the mission of the Spirit, while speaking of the incarnation, passion, and ultimate glorification of the saint of God in the coming kingdom.
While there may be some valid argument about authorship, the superscription of the Psalm reads that it is a Psalm belonging to David, noting this to be the historic view. In addition, as Peter Lee points out, the New Testament authors, including Jesus Himself, also attribute this Psalm to David as well.[5]
Thus, any reading of the psalm that denies the Davidic authorship must reckon with the apostolic witness of the Son of God (Matt. 23:43). Psalm 110 belongs to the genre of the royal psalm, yet it stands apart within that category for its double prophetic structure. In addition, authors such as Spurgeon, Hossfeld, and Zenger describe the psalm as a “programmatic covenant text” uniting royal enthronement and priestly installation.[6]
Given Jesus’ confirmation of Davidic authorship, the setting may be David’s own enthronement, or a Psalm that would be used for later kings. However, as Calvin argues, it is most likely a prophetic revelation given to David regarding his heir.
In his commentary, Calvin’s argument follows that the psalm cannot refer to David himself since David never sat at the LORD’s right hand, was never installed as a Melchizedekian priest, and never exercised the universal kingship described in verses five and six.[7]
The psalm, therefore, as Calvin states, looks ahead to “the Messiah in whom all kingly and priestly offices are gathered up and perfected.”[8]
[1] Carl R. Trueman, The Crisis of Confidence: Reclaiming the Historic Faith in a Culture Consumed with Individualism and Identity (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 26.
[2] Charles Spurgeon, The Treasury of David, vol. 3 (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1988), Psalm 110.
[3] John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), 285.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Peter J. Lee, “Psalm 110 Reconsidered,” Reformed Faith & Practice 2, no. 2 (September 2017): 19.
[6] Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011), 150.
[7] Calvin, Psalms, 4:285.
[8]Ibid.