Psalm 110 and the Assumption of the Davidic Throne

Psalms 2 and 110 are often described as “coronation” psalms. J. Day offers these observations:[1]

  • Jehoiada the priest put the crown upon Josiah and gave him the testimony (2 Kgs 11:12). This could be the “decree” of Psa 2:7, which contains Yahweh’s promise to the king to subdue the nations.
  • In Psa 110:7, it is said that the king will “drink of the brook by the way”; this may be an historical reflection of the anointing of Solomon at Gihon (1 Kgs 1:38-39), which was then encoded in a coronation ritual.

Vincent likewise follows the majority view and affirms that the “presence of another speaker who speaks about the king suggests a special occasion such as a coronation at which such a prophetic oracle or blessing might be given”.[2] Other “Introductions” to the Psalms reflect this consensus.[3] In his commentary, G. Booker does not set Psalm 2 against the backdrop of a coronation ceremony,[4] but he does compare Psalm 110 to the coronation of Solomon.[5] However, tying a psalm to one particular coronation does not require Psalm 110 to be a “coronation psalm”—a psalm repeated at coronation ceremonies.

Booker offers the following significant points in favour of a Solomonic reading of Psalm 110:

  • David is the speaker referring to Solomon as “my lord” (v. 1).
  • Solomon was crowned in the midst of a rebellion (v. 1).

The advantage of a specific Solomonic reading over against the consensus view is that it allows the NT interpretation to have an easy application. The point of the citation in Acts 2 is that David is the speaker, i.e. the present king is speaking. The NT does not allow the presence of another speaker talking about David or the Davidic king.

“For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,” Acts 2:34

While we could insist that Psalm 110 only has messianic application, if it has an immediate application, then Solomon is the only candidate.

Van der Meer has offered an analysis of Psalm 110 that contextualizes the psalm as one of restoration of kingship rather than enthronement. He affirms that the opening verses of the psalm (particularly v. 1b) “could indicate accession to kingship, but it can also be viewed as a reinstatement to power”.[6] His reading is that David is invited to sit at the right hand of Yahweh’s throne until Yahweh makes his enemies his footstool. Van der Meer emphasizes the crisis setting of the psalm (it is not a psalm of ceremony and ritual): David is ruling in the midst of enemies (v. 2) and needs the help of Yahweh to subdue them and deliver him (v. 1). The promise is that David will lift his head above his enemies (v. 7, Pss 3:3), and the assurance is that he has been anointed a king-priest of Jerusalem for ever after the order of Melchizedek (v. 4).

Van der Meer discusses possible historical catalysts for the psalm and its redactional development,[7]and avers that the revolt of Absalom may be a catalyst for the original psalm. However, the problem with this proposal is that David is the centre of focus in his reading; he claims that Yahweh invites David to sit at his right hand. However, Luke’s interpretation places the “son of David” to the centre of focus. This allows the suggestion that it is Adonijah’s rebellion that is the catalyst for the Psalm. Nevertheless, van der Meer’s insight about the theme of the Psalm—that it is about restoration of kingship—is useful. The insight is useful because it can be reconfigured—the Psalm is not about the restoration of David to the throne (or about a coronation) but rather it is about a rebellion that prevents the orderly transfer of power to Solomon.

The language of the Psalm connects with the historical traditions of David and Solomon:

  • The promise to David is that he would have a son who would have rest from his “enemies” (1 Chron 22:9); likewise, the psalm is about the “enemies” of David’s son.
  • The son is to build the temple which will hold the “footstool” of Yahweh (1 Chron 28:2). In a corresponding way, Yahweh will make the enemies of David’s son his “footstool”.
  • It is Solomon whom David identifies as the one chosen to “sit” upon the throne of the kingdom (1 Chron 28:5); but the Psalm intervenes and invites David’s son to “sit” at the right hand of Yahweh.
  • The description of Solomon by Yahweh is, “I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father” (1 Chron 22:10, 28:6) which is used of Christ along with Pss 110 in Hebrews 1 (vv. 5, 13).
  • Bathsheba refers to the solemn “oath” by David in the name of Yahweh that Solomon would sit on the throne (1 Kgs 1:13, 17, 30).[8] Likewise, Yahweh had “sworn” that Solomon would sit on the throne (Pss 110:4).
  • Bathsheba and Nathan the prophet refer to David as “lord”, and this explains David’s choice of “my lord” for Solomon in this psalm. It is at this time of rebellion that the dying king needs to express his recognition of Solomon as king.
  • Solomon is assured that he is a priest-king after the order of Melchizedek and this assurance contrasts with the split in the priesthood in Jerusalem with some of the priests supporting Adonijah (1 Kgs 1:7).
  • Solomon is anointed by the brook Gihon (1 Kgs 1:33), and this reflects David’s words, “he will drink of the brook by the way” (Pss 110:7).
  • Benaiah confirms David’s intentions in language reminiscent of Psalm 110: “the Lord was with my lord” (1 Kgs 1:37) reflects “the Lord said to my lord”.
  • Adonijah and Solomon’s enemies in the city lost courage when Solomon entered the city to assume the throne and Adonijah bowed himself before Solomon (1 Kgs 1:53).
  • In this act of obeisance by Adonijah, Yahweh lifted up Solomon’s head above his enemies (Pss 110:7, cf. Pss 3:3).

The rhetoric of Psalm 110 reads very well against this background. Yahweh assures Solomon through the word of prophecy from David that he will sit on the throne, but in the interim, he must sit at his right hand until his enemies are forced to bow as a footstool. It would be Solomon who would rule out of Zion. It would be Solomon who would be the king-priest of Jerusalem and subdue the nations.

The typology of Solomon’s anointing and Adonijah’s rebellion fits the purpose of Luke in Acts 2:34. Adonijah has seized the throne and he represents those who crucified Jesus—they had the power. However, God had exalted Jesus to sit beside him whilst he made his enemies his footstool. The courage of Adonijah and his supporters evaporated when Solomon was anointed king and entered Jerusalem. Jesus’ accession to the throne of David in Jerusalem is similarly delayed because of his enemies who will be made his footstool. In Luke’s narrative rulers who crucified Jesus lose power in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

The interpretation of Psalm 110 is not without doctrinal significance. Some scholars argue that the kingdom of God has been inaugurated in the ministry of Jesus and his apostles. One way in which the metaphor of inauguration can be given meaning is to argue that Jesus has been enthroned upon the Davidic throne. M. M. B. Turner asserts that Jesus “becomes the Davidic king, exercising royal functions, through resurrection ascension”.[9] This interpretation is partly based upon his reading of Luke’s use of Psalm 110 in Acts 2:34-35 in connection with Jesus’ resurrection and ascension.[10] However, the Davidic throne was in Jerusalem, and Luke’s story holds out the prospect of a “return” of Jesus to Jerusalem (Acts 1:11, 3:20). It is more likely therefore that Luke anticipates that Jesus will assume the Davidic throne in Jerusalem upon his return (Luke 1:32-33). If as we have argued, Psalm 110 is about Solomon’s accession to the throne in the midst of rebellion, Jesus does not presently sit upon the Davidic throne in heaven, but is waiting until his enemies are made into his footstool.

Additional Notes from Paul Wyns

  1. “Zion” means a “dry place” – hence the psalm mentions “dew” in v. 3 – Zion will be inundated with the “dew of youth” (cf. Pss 133:3).
  2. The Lord swore to Solomon that he was a priest after the order of Melchizedek (v. 4) and would therefore be king. The act of swearing refers to the covenant promise of 2 Samuel 7, which is described as an oath in Pss 132:11: “The Lord hath sworn in truth unto David, He will not turn from it; of the fruit of thy body will I set upon the throne”.
  3. Accordingly, Yahweh would not withdraw his covenant mercy as he had done from Saul. The expression “will not repent” (v. 4) echoes “It repented me that I have set up Saul to be king” (1 Sam.15: 11).

[1] J. Day, Psalms (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 92.

[2] M. Vincent, Exploring the Psalms (Birmingham: CMPA, 2001), 351.

[3] For example, K. Seybold, Introducing the Psalms (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1990), 77; J. L. Crenshaw, The Psalms: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 78; and D. A. Brueggemann, “The Evangelists and the Psalms” in Interpreting the Psalms (eds., P. S. Johnson and D. C. Firth; Leicester: Apollos, 2005), 263-278 (267).

[4] G. Booker, Psalm Studies (2 vols; Austin: Bible Books, 1989-1990), 1:24-30, 2:641-

[5] Psalm Studies, 2:649

[6] W. Van der Meer, “Psalm 110: A Psalm of Rehabilitation?” in The Structural Analysis of Biblical and Canaanite Poetry (eds. J. C. de Moor and W. Van der Meer; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 207-234 (225).

[7] “Psalm 110”, 230-232.

[8] Bathsheba’s language, ‘My lord’ is the same as Pss 110:1. The Psalm may be picking up on this exchange.

[9] M. M. B. Turner, Power from on High: the Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 200..

[10] Power, 275, 295.