I believe that all of the destructive critics, without exception, deny to David the authorship of Psalm 110. In doing so they raise an issue with our Lord not less direct than that in regard to the authorship of the Pentateuch. His position on the subject was brought out in an argument with the Pharisees, which is thus reported by Matthew: "Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying,

      The quotation here made is from the Psalm in question. It is expressly ascribed to David; and David is said to have uttered it "in the Spirit," which means, by the inspiration of the Spirit. Not only so, but the [78] argument based on it depends for its validity on the fact that the words are David's: "If David calleth him Lord, how is he his son?" Unless David in person is meant, the argument is a sophism; for it is the assumed fatherhood of the speaker that made it a puzzle to the Jews how he could call his own son or descendant his Lord. If David, then, were not the author of the Psalm, it would appear that Jesus has not only asserted as a fact that which is not a fact, but that he has based an argument on this falsely assumed fact, to do which is to perpetrate a transparent fallacy. Now, let us turn to the critics and see on what ground they took a position which thus reflects upon the character of our Lord Jesus Christ.

      Driver, in his Introduction (p. 362, n. 1), presents the reasons more compactly than any other whom I have read, and I quote what he says, omitting only some references that are not necessary to the full presentation of his thoughts:

      This Psalm, though it may be ancient, can hardly have been composed by David. If read without praejudicium, it produces the irresistible impression of having been written, not by a king, with reference to an invisible, spiritual being, standing above him as his superior, but by a prophet, with reference to the theocratic king. (1) The title, "My lord" (verse 1), is the one habitually used in addressing the Israelitish king. (2) Messianic prophecies have regularly as their point of departure some institution of the Jewish theocracy--the king, the prophet, the people, the high priest, the temple: the supposition that David is here speaking and addressing a superior, who stands in no relation to existing institutions, is not, indeed, impossible (for we have not the right to limit absolutely the range of prophetic vision), but contrary to the analogy of prophecy. (3) The justice of this reasoning is strongly confirmed by verses 3, 5-7, where the subject of the Psalm is actually depicted, not as such a spiritual superior, but as a victorious Israelitish monarch, triumphing, through Jehovah's help, over earthly foes. The Psalm is Messianic in the same sense that Psalm 2 is; it depicts [79] the ideal glory of the theocratic king who receives from a prophet the twofold solemn promise (a) of victory over his foes; (b) of a perpetual priesthood. These are the reasons (and the only ones) by which the present writer is influenced in his judgment of the Psalm. In the question addressed by our Lord to the Jews, his object, it is evident, was not to instruct them on the authorship of the Psalm, but to argue from its contents; and though he assumes the Davidic authorship, generally accepted at the time, yet the cogency of his argument is unimpaired, so long as it is recognized that the Psalm is a Messianic one, and the august language used is not compatible with the position of one who was a mere human son of David.

      The vital part of this argument is the attempt to explain, in harmony with the position taken, the remarks of Jesus; and we shall consider this attempt first.

      The remark that the object of Jesus was not to instruct the Pharisees on the authorship of the Psalm, but to argue from its contents, is undoubtedly correct; but it is pointless, though the first part of it was evidently intended to make a point which is no point. Of course he was not aiming to teach them the authorship of the Psalm, any more than, when he asked them to show him the tribute money, he meant to teach them that this was the money with which they paid tribute. He merely mentions a fact in each instance, with which he and they alike were already familiar. This point-no-point has only the effect of throwing a little dust, and very little at that. The writer himself states the truth in his very next remark, where he says that Jesus "assumes the Davidic authorship, accepted generally at the time." But here he seems not to have been aware of what he was saying; for if Jesus "assumed the Davidic authorship" in his argument, when David was not the author, then he unquestionably made a false assumption on which to build his argument; and Driver here openly [80] accuses him of fallacious reasoning. Unconscious, however, of having done this, our author, in the very next clause, says: "Yet the cogency of his argument is unimpaired"! The cogency of the argument unimpaired by the proof that it is based on a false assumption!

      Driver fails entirely to see the real argument which our Saviour makes; for he says, continuing, that the argument is unimpaired "so long as it is recognized that the Psalm is a Messianic one, and that the august language used in it of the Messiah is not compatible with the position of one who was a mere human son of David." This can not be true, for the very good reason mentioned above, that the argument of Jesus turns upon the personal relation of David, the speaker, to his son, the Messiah. "If David calleth him Lord, how is he his son?" Any other prophet might call him Lord without the incongruity implied, but David could not; and the argument is pointless and fallacious, unless David, in person, is the author of the Psalm.

      Such, now, is the feebleness and inconsistency of the attempt made by a scholar of high rank and acknowledged learning, in his vain attempt to set aside the force of testimony which, if allowed to stand, overthrows a whole system of interpretation. We might properly rest the whole issue here: but, for the purpose, not so much of strengthening this refutation, as for exposing still further the fallacious reasoning of this critical school, let us look at the reasons given for denying the Davidic authorship of this Psalm. The first is, that the title "my lord," as it is expressed in Hebrew, is the one usually applied to the kings of Israel. So it is; but what of it? This is the very title which David could not apply to his son and successor on the throne; for though he would be the lord of his own subjects, he could not be the lord [81] of his own father and predecessor. It was this very consideration which puzzled the Pharisees, so long as they denied divinity to the coming Messiah. The second is that "Messianic prophecies have regularly, as their point of departure, some institution of the Jewish theocracy."

      Well, suppose they have, "regularly;" would this prevent some exceptions to the regular rule? How many rules are there which have no exceptions? But this instance is not an exception, for the kingship is the very institution of the Jewish theocracy which is made the point of departure, the king predicted being one whom David himself could speak of as his lord. The third reason is that in the latter part of this Psalm its subject is depicted, "not as such a spiritual superior, but as a victorious Israelitish monarch, triumphing through Jehovah's help over earthly foes." This is also true; but what of it? Dr. Driver knows that the moral and spiritual victories of our Lord are very commonly depicted under the symbols of earthly warfare. This is true not of the Old Testament prophets alone, but of writers and speakers in the New. See the song of Zacharias (Luke 1:68-75); see vision after vision in the Apocalypse; and see the oft-recurring use of this imagery in the epistles of Paul. And it is also true that in the most literal sense this Lord of David, since he ascended to his throne, has been fulfilling the latter part of this Psalm. Who but he has been judging among the nations, striking through kings in the day of his wrath, and filling the places with dead bodies (vs. 5, 6)?

      We have now before us, in the treatment of our Lord's remarks respecting this Psalm, another example of the pitiable makeshifts to which critics resort when they have to confront his divine assertion in opposition [82] to their theories. Such attempts would be regarded as contemptible if they came from the pens of common men; they are truly pitiable as the products of men in high repute for scholarship and logical discrimination. Scholarship can not be denied to them; but if they possess logical or exegetical powers above those of ordinary men, they have a poor way of showing it.

[SEBC 78-83]