But to which of the angels said he (properly, hath he said) at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? A final and crowning quotation is thus adduced, in the form in which the first quotation referring to the SON (Hebrews 1:5) had been introduced, to complete the view of his superiority to the angels.
The quota-lion is from Psalms 110:1-7., the reference of which to the Messiah is settled beyond controversy to Christian believers, not only by its being quoted or alluded to more frequently than any other psalm with that reference in the New Testament (Acts 2:34; Acts 7:55, Acts 7:56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20-22; 1 Peter 3:22; Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 1:13, Hebrews 1:14; Hebrews 8:1; Hebrews 10:12, Hebrews 10:13), and by the introduction of its language into the Church's earliest Creeds, but also by the authority of our Lord himself, as recorded by all the three synoptical evangelists.
Hence readers of this Commentary will not require a confutation of the arguments of any modern rationalistic critics who have disputed the Messianic meaning of the psalm. Their arguments rest really on their a priori denial of a "spirit of prophecy" in the psalms generally; in their refusal to recognize, what the later prophets recognized, an unfulfilled ideal in what the psalmists wrote of theocratic kings.
Let us once recognize fills, and we shall perceive in this psalm peculiar marks of the spirit of prophecy, reaching beyond any contemporary fulfillment, not only in the assignment to the King of a scat at the right hand of the heavenly throne, but also in his remarkable designation as a "Priest after the order of Melchizedek," of which more will be said under Hebrews 5:1-14.
and 7. of this Epistle. It is to be observed also how prophets, long after the psalm was written, regarded its ideal as still awaiting fulfillment; e.g. Daniel (Daniel 7:13, etc), whose vision of the Son of man brought near before the Ancient of days, and having an everlasting dominion given him, is referred to by our Lord (Matthew 26:64) in connection with the psalm, as awaiting fulfillment in himself; and Zechariah (Zechariah 6:12, etc.
:, who takes up the idea of the psalm in speaking of the Branch, who was to unite in himself royalty and priesthood. The psalm is entitled, "A psalm of David." Though this title is prefixed to some psalms the contents of which suggest a later date, and is not, therefore, considered proof of authorship, it proves at least the tradition and belief of the Jews when the Hebrew Psalter was arranged in its existing form.
But we have in this case evidence in the three Gospels of its universal acceptance as a psalm of David by the Jews in the time of our Lord; and, what is of more weight, of his having himself referred to it as such.
The whole point of his argument with the Pharisees depends on the acknowledgment of David being the speaker, as well as of the Messiah being the Person spoken of. None of the Pharisees thought of disputing either of these premises; they were evidently received as indisputable; nor can it be conceived (as has been irreverently suggested) that our Lord did not thus give his own sanction to their truth.
Nor, further, is there in the psalm itself any internal evidence against its Davidic authorship, though, but for the above testimony to the contrary, it might have been the composition of a prophet of David's day, or written by David for use by his people—the term, "my lord," having thus a primary reference to him.
In either of these cases we might suppose the original conception of Zechariah 6:1 to have been that of David himself being enthroned on Zion at the side of the "King of glory" (Psalms 24:1-10) who had "come in;" while Zechariah 6:4 might possibly have been suggested by David's organization of the services of the tabernacle, and by the personal part he took in the ritual when the ark was removed to Zion.
Even so, the quotation would answer the purpose of the argument according to the view of the drift of Messianic psalms which has been explained above. But, even independently of the distinct import of our Lord's words, there are reasons (pointed out by Delitzsch) against the supposition of even a primary reference to David in the words, "my lord."