the interpunction required by the sense. And Psa 110:1 and Psa 110:2 show decisively that it is to be thus divided into 4 + 3 lines; for Psa 110:1 with its rhyming inflexions makes itself known as a tetrastich, and to take it together with Psa 110:2 as a heptastich is opposed by the new turn which the Psalm takes in Psa 110:2. It is also just the same with Psa 110:4 in relation to Psa 110:3 : these seven stichs stand in just the same organic relation to the second divine utterance as the preceding seven to the first utterance. And since Psa 110:1-4 give twice 4 + 3 lines, Psa 110:5-7 also will be organized accordingly. There are really seven lines, of which the fifth, contrary to the Masoretic division of the verse, forms with Psa 110:7 the final tristich.
The Psalm therefore bears the threefold impress of the number seven, which is the number of an oath and of a covenant. Its impress, then, is thoroughly prophetic. Two divine utterances are introduced, and that not such as are familiar to us from the history of David and only reproduced here in a poetic form, as with Ps 89 and 132, but utterances of which nothing is known from the history of David, and such as we hear for the first time here. The divine name Jahve occurs three times. God is designedly called Adonaj the fourth time. The Psalm is consequently prophetic; and in order to bring the inviolable and mysterious nature even of its contents into comparison with the contemplation of its outward character, it has been organized as a threefold septiad, which is sealed with the thrice recurring tetragamma.
Verses 1-2
In Psa 20:1-9 and Psa 21:1-13 we see at once in the openings that what we have before us is the language of the people concerning their king. Here לאדני in Psa 110:1 does not favour this, and נאם is decidedly against it. The former does not favour it, for it is indeed correct that the subject calls his king “my lord,” e.g., 1Sa 22:12, although the more exact form of address is “my lord the king,” e.g., 1Sa 24:9; but if the people are speaking here, what is the object of the title of honour being expressed as if coming from the mouth of an individual, and why not rather, as in Ps 20-21, <, למלך or למשׁיחו? נאם is, however, decisive against the supposition that it is an Israelite who here expresses himself concerning the relation of his king to Jahve. For it is absurd to suppose
