Pip: There is a verse in the Psalms that has been generating theological controversy for roughly two thousand years, which feels like an appropriate run time for a Bible translation website.

Mara: That is Psalm 110:1, and Christian Publishing House takes a close look at it — the Hebrew text, the translational choices, the Messianic implications, and what the verse actually does and does not prove about the relationship between Jehovah and the Messiah.

Pip: Let’s start with the text itself and why the word “Lord” is doing more work than any four letters should have to.

Psalm 110:1 — Two Lords, One Verse, and the Stakes

Mara: The central question here is not whether the verse is textually obscure — it is not — but whether English translations have been hiding a distinction the Hebrew makes plainly. The post frames the whole discussion around that gap between what the text says and what readers actually see.

Pip: And the distinction matters because, as the post puts it directly, “The Hebrew text does not say, ‘The LORD said to my Lord,’ as though the two expressions were the same word with different typography.” One is the divine name. The other is a title. Rendering both as “Lord” — one in small caps, one not — buries that in formatting most readers never notice.

Mara: The upshot is that a reader hearing the verse aloud cannot perceive the difference at all. Printing “LORD” versus “Lord” is a convention for trained readers, not a solution for ordinary ones, which is the argument for rendering the verse as “Jehovah says to my Lord” — two visibly different expressions, matching the Hebrew.

Pip: So the translation question is not about repairing a damaged text. The text is stable. It is about whether the translation hands the reader what is actually there.

Mara: Right, and the theological stakes follow directly. The post identifies two errors to avoid. The first is flattening Psalm 110:1 into proof that Jesus is the same person as the Father — the verse will not support that, because Jehovah speaks and David’s Lord is addressed; the speaker and the one addressed are personally distinct. The second error is concluding that because David’s Lord is distinct from Jehovah, He must be merely an ordinary earthly ruler.

Pip: David calling someone “my Lord” is already a signal, given that David was Israel’s king. He did not go around addressing ordinary Israelites that way. Jesus presses exactly that point in Matthew 22, asking how David by the Spirit can call the Messiah Lord if the Messiah is only David’s later descendant.

Mara: The post traces that argument through the Synoptic Gospels, then through Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, where Peter says God raised Jesus, God exalted Jesus, and “God has made Him both Lord and Christ.” The structure is consistent: God acts upon Jesus; Jesus receives from the Father. That is precisely the pattern of Psalm 110:1.

Pip: Hebrews reinforces it from the other direction — no angel receives the enthronement invitation, which establishes the Son’s unique position, and Hebrews 10:12-13 places Christ at the right hand after offering one sacrifice, waiting for enemies to be made a footstool.

Mara: The post is also careful about Colossians 1:15-17, where Paul calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation.” The argument is that “firstborn” in biblical usage denotes rank and preeminence, not membership in the class of created things — Psalm 89:27 uses the same language for the Davidic king as a title of supremacy, not birth order.

Pip: And on Revelation 3:14, where Jesus is called “the beginning of the creation of God,” the post notes that the Greek term can mean source or ruler, not necessarily first creature — and that John 1:3 says all things came into being through the Word, which would be a strange thing to say about one of the things that came into being.

Mara: The post also addresses proskyneō — the Greek verb often translated “worship” when directed toward Jesus. The point is that the word covers a range of acts from bowing before a king to divine worship, and context must decide which is intended. Abraham bows before the people of the land; Jacob bows before Esau. Neither act is divine worship.

Pip: Jesus’ own teaching is the control here. In Matthew 4:10 He quotes Deuteronomy directly: “You shall worship Jehovah your God, and Him only shall you serve.” In John 4:23-24 He tells the Samaritan woman that true worshipers will worship the Father. He is not setting Himself up as a competing center of devotion.

Mara: And John 20:28, where Thomas says “My Lord and my God,” must be read alongside John 20:17, where the risen Jesus says “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.” The Gospel preserves the distinction even at its highest Christological moment.

Pip: So the verse does a lot — but the post is precise about what it does not do. It does not prove Jesus is the Father. It does not prove the Messiah is a mere man. It establishes distinction, exaltation, and granted authority, and then the rest of Scripture fills in from there.

Mara: The closing argument is that Psalm 110:1 is an interpretive test: will the reader preserve the distinction between Jehovah and the Messiah, honor the Messiah’s exalted status without collapsing Him into the Father, and follow Jesus’ own method of reading Scripture, where every word carries weight?

---

Pip: Two thousand years of debate, and it turns out the text was clear the whole time — the typography just got in the way.

Mara: That is the thread running through all of this: translational transparency as a condition for sound interpretation. When the words are visible, the theology follows.

You May Also Enjoy the Detailed Article

Psalm 110:1: Jehovah, the Lord, and the Messiah: A Textual and Theological Examination

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS