[110:1] The psalm begins with the prophetic
formula of revelation יהוה נאם,
which—in contrast to the most common use—is not given at the end of the message
or inserted into the message, but stands at the beginning (cf. also Num. 24:3,
4, 15, 16: always following each other, נאם בלעם and נאם שׁמע;
2 Sam. 23:1: נאם
דוד). Since the discovery of
the Mari texts, we have to deprive the word נאם
of the declared mysterious secondary meaning (“whispering”). נאם simply designates the oracle, the saying.
The oracle of Yahweh is addressed to “my Lord” (לאדני).
The עכד־אדון relation, in which the prophetic singer
stands (cf. 1 Sam. 22:12; 26:18; 1 Kings 1:13), is here presupposed. The
summons שׁב
לימיני must be considered a
decisive call to the enthronement. Yahweh summons the king to his right side.
What kind of conception is here to be presupposed? It is possible that the
divine order for enthronement, prophetically transmitted, goes back to pre-Israelite
Melchizedek traditions (cf. the commentary on v. 4). But the location of the
presence of Yahweh in Jerusalem according to OT tradition is the ark. It is the
unoccupied throne of God on which—revealed to the prophetic vision—“King
Yahweh” is enthroned (cf. 1 Sam. 4:4; Isaiah 6; Jer. 3:16f.; and M. Dibelius, Die Lade Jahves [1906]; W. Eichrodt, TheolOT
I, 107ff.). The place at the right hand of the king is a peculiar place of
honor (cf. Ps. 45:10). The Jerusalem king may take his place at the right hand
of the God-King. (On the conception of Yahweh as “King,” cf. Psalms 1–59, pp. 82–89). But how,
specifically, shall we conceive of the act of enthronement? Did the earthly
king on the day of the enthronement, after the ark had been brought into the
temple at the beginning of the fall festival, mount a royal chair that had been
placed next to the ark (in the holy of holies?)? The installation of the ruler
as priest-king (v. 4) would support the idea of entering the holy of holies.
Also, we could think of the peculiar formulation of Jer. 30:21. We should not
set these explanations aside as “speculations” or as “overwrought.” Finally,
Psalm 110 does not deal with the enthronement ceremonial in its entirety but
only with the installment of the king in one of countless honors. But it would
be in keeping with the dignity of the priest-king, and also of the Melchizedek
tradition, if for the priestly privileges there were also a corresponding
visible act. Jer. 30:21 indicates what is involved. There should be a fresh
investigation whether also Ps. 80:17 and Dan. 7:13 do not belong to this
tradition-complex. Viewed thus, an interpretation of ימין that considers only spatial relations would certainly be rather
simplistic. It is a known fact that “at the right hand,” south of the temple,
the palatial edifice of Solomon was situated. According to K. Homburg, ימין is supposed to refer to the palace. “Only
on the basis of these data does the enthronement oracle achieve a function that
is clearly definable” (K. Homburg, ZAW
84 [1972] 245). Really? Surely we would not dare to overlook the
presuppositions of the installment of a priest-king “after the order of
Melchizedek.” “Sitting at the right hand of God,” then—corresponding to the
text following—has a very definite meaning: the king is installed into an
associate rulership (cf. 1 Kings 2:19); in this position of honor in the power
structure of God he becomes a participant in Yahweh’s strength in battle and
victory. “On the day of wrath” (v. 5)—so עד
can probably be understood—he is to recognize and experience the fact that
Yahweh makes his enemies a stool for his feet (on the shape of throne and
footstool, cf. K. Galling, BRL,
520f.). It is common Near Eastern tradition that the defeat of his enemies and
victory is ascribed to the king at his enthronement. For the world of Israel it
is important that the ark in most ancient times was the palladium of holy war,
the symbol of God as the participant in the war and as the victor (cf. the
commentary on Ps. 24:7–10). In the period of the kings Yahweh’s wars are waged
by the kings; they act as “viceroys of Yahweh” and representatives of his royal
power, and God acts through them. Later in the OT the unique position of honor
of the enthroned king is expressed even in the statement that the chosen king
has been placed “on Yahweh’s throne of royal rule over Israel” (1 Chron. 28:5;
29:23; 2 Chron. 9:8).
In connection with the commentary on v. 1, we should refer to a number
of ancient Near Eastern parallels. In the Sumerian-Akkadian tradition, oracles
of enthronement were a regular ingredient of the ritual. Texts and
illustrations show that the ruler assumed his position at the right hand of God.
So we read about a goddess in a Sumerian song: “She is radiant on the throne,
the great high seat, like the day. The king, bright as the sun, takes his place
on the throne at her side” (A. Falkenstein and W. von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete, 98). On the illustrations, cf.
especially H. Gressmann, AOB2;
the king sits beside the enthroned God. As an example of auspicious oracles, we
may cite a statement addressed to Asarhaddon: “(The enemies) before his feet I
will cut to pieces. You, you, O King, are my king!” (H. Gressmann, AOT2 282). The conquered
enemy “becomes the stool of the feet” of the conqueror. He bows down into the
dust. The victorious king places his foot on his neck as Marduk did on the
conquered Tiamat (AOT2
119). In the Amarna letters the submissive city kings (as, e.g., Ammunira of
Berytus) explain: “A stool for your feet am I” (J. A. Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna-Tafeln No. 84, 4; 141, 40; and often). Cf. in
the OT: Josh. 10:24; Isa. 51:23; Ps. 89:10. In the Egyptian texts and
illustrations we can see a parallel state of affairs everywhere. L. Dürr was
the first to work this out in his commentary on Psalm 110. To what extent the
“king’s novel” plays a role (cf. S. Herrmann) also in Psalm 110 cannot be seen
yet. Also cf. the corresponding passages in the literature on the “kingship”:
K. H. Bernhardt, Das Problem der
altorientalischen Königsideologie im Alten Testament (1961); J. A. Soggin, Das Königtum in Israel (1967); W. H. Schmidt, “Kritik am
Königtum,” Probleme biblischer Theologie: Festschrift für G.
von Rad (1971) 440–461.
(Hans-Joachim Kraus, A
Continental Commentary: Psalms 60–150 [trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1993], 348-49)
