IV. Well, what is the second of their great irresistible passages? "He must reign," till such and such a time ... and "be received by heaven until the time of restitution," and "have the seat at the Right Hand until the overthrow of His enemies." But after this? Must He cease to be King, or be removed from Heaven? Why, who shall make Him cease, or for what cause? What a bold and very anarchical interpreter you are; and yet you have heard that Of His Kingdom there shall be no end . Your mistake arises from not understanding that Until is not always exclusive of that which comes after, but asserts up to that time, without denying what comes after it. To take a single instance-how else would you understand, "Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world?" Does it mean that He will no longer be so afterwards? And for what reason? But this is not the only cause of your error; you also fail to distinguish between the things that are signified. He is said to reign in one sense as the Almighty King, both of the willing and the unwilling; but in another as producing in us submission, and placing us under His Kingship as willingly acknowledging His Sovereignty. Of His Kingdom, considered in the former sense, there shall be no end. But in the second sense, what end will there be? His taking us as His servants, on our entrance into a state of salvation. For what need is there to Work Submission in us when we have already submitted? After which He arises to judge the earth, and to separate the saved from the lost. After that He is to stand as God in the midst of gods, that is, of the saved, distinguishing and deciding of what honour and of what mansion each is worthy.

Psalm 110 (KJV) is of interest to missionaries mainly because of two verses:
1: The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
4: The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.

Critics claim this translation makes it seem as if the Lord is talking to my Lord—as if the same word, "Lord", is used twice. The argument asserts that the first LORD is the tetragrammaton (HaShem), while the second is adoni (master or lord with a small "l"), thereby supposedly removing any Christological reference.

However, this is exactly what we would expect under a functional subordination paradigm. Just as recognizing Christ's divinity does not negate His distinct role as the incarnate Son, saying "Jesus is Adoni" properly reflects the messianic function of Jesus, while His divine nature is established throughout the broader scriptural witness.

We also agree with the contention that this Psalm is referring to someone that is greater than David, which could refer to the Messiah. In Matthew 22:41-46, Jesus applies this Psalm to Himself.

The Christian understanding of verse 1, as per Acts 2:33-35, refers to Christ's ascension into heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. Notice that verse 1 says that the second lord will sit at God's right hand until He subdues his enemies. Thus, there is no problem with the Christian interpretation that verse 1 occurred with Christ's ascension and that the other verses will be fulfilled in the future (or are in the process of being fulfilled now).

Jehovah’s Witnesses and other Unitarian groups who deny the biblical doctrine of the Trinity often turn to Psalm 110:1 as an argument against the Trinity. Such an argument is based on several misconceptions about what Christians believe and what the doctrine of the Trinity is. The text reads:

“The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet,'” (Psalm 110:1).

This passage is frequently cited in the New Testament as describing the Father speaking to Jesus. In the New Testament Greek, the word “kurious” or “Lord” is used for both persons, however in the original Hebrew the first word “LORD” is “YHWH,” or the divine name, while the second “Lord” is a form of the word “Adon” or “master/lord.” This is why many modern translations render the first in all caps when translating the Psalm, so as to distinguish them. One might translate the passage:

“Yahweh said to my Master: ‘Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet,'”

Anti-Trinitarians attempt to make three basic objections from this verse, all of which are fallacious and demonstrate gross misunderstandings. Such objections are easily stated and just as easily answered:

1. Objection: This verse clearly shows that the Father and the Son are distinct persons.Answer: Of course it does. That’s what Trinitarians have always believed. We believe in one God in three distinct persons. The Father, Son, and Spirit are each different persons. So, what’s the problem?

This objection normally arises from a confusion of biblical Trinitarianism with the heresy of modalism. Modalism teaches that God is only one person who variously acts the roles of Father, Son, or Spirit. This is not what biblical Christians believe. We believe that God is a Trinity. He is one and only one God; one living Being. He exists, however, in three distinct, coequal, coeternal personals. The Father can send the Son. The Son can pray to the Father and can send the Spirit. The Spirit can intercede to the Father on our behalf. They are distinct persons, exist simultaneously, and can interact. That The Father speaks to the Son and the Son submits to the Father is perfectly consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, it is exactly what we claim to be the case.

1. Objection: Only the Father is called YHWH in this verse. The Son is simply called “Lord.” That means the Father is God and the Son is not. Answer: It doesn’t mean anything of the sort. Hebrews 1:10-12 identifies the Son as the LORD of Psalm 102 (i.e. YHWH) and then applies Psalm 110:1 to the Son in the very next verse without contradiction. Psalm 110 identifies the Messiah as greater than a mere Son of David yet one who is in submission to the Father, and the words carefully reflect that reality. By itself, Psalm 110 alone certainly doesn’t prove the Trinity, but it is perfectly consistent with it.

This objection again misunderstands what Trinitarians believe. It also fails to take into account the rest of Scripture. Jesus is identified as YHWH by multiple New Testament authors, and is also called God in several places. He identifies Himself as the I AM, and bears the same titles as God and displays uniquely divine attributes, claims, and actions. The fact that He is also distinct from the Father, and that there is clearly only one YHWH, is the primary basis for concluding that YHWH is a multi-personal being!

1. Objection: This verse doesn’t teach the Trinity!Answer: That is correct but irrelevant. While it in no way contradicts it, this verse doesn’t, by itself, directly teach the Trinity. In fact, the Trinity is not discerned from any one isolated verse, but rather from the whole Bible together, especially the New Testament.

This objection is really kind of silly, and usually only comes up after you have corrected the errors in one or both of the other two objections. This verse, indeed this whole Psalm, definitely contributes to our understanding of the relationship of the Messiah to the Father. In that sense, it is a small part of the whole picture from which we come to understand the Trinity, but it has never been one of the central passages that informed Trinitarians would turn to indirectly defending the doctrine of the Trinity. This passage does teach me that the Messiah is highly exalted above all earthly leaders and that He is much more than merely an earthly son of David, and that certainly points me in the right direction, but it takes much more revelation than that to clarify the wondrous truth of the Trinity. That truth is discerned by accepting the authority of all of Scripture and believing everything it says. You don’t arrive at the Trinity through proof-texting single verses.

No, Jesus’ position at the right hand of the Father does not make Jesus a lower sort of being than God the Father nor does it contradict Jesus’ deity. There are various forms of this argument, but none of them actually establish anything that proves Jesus not to be divine or that conflicts with a proper understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity.

The argument centers around the opening of Psalm 110, a chapter quite frequently cited in the New Testament in reference to Christ:

> “The LORD says to my Lord: ‘Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet,'” (Psalm 110:1).

Like most arguments against the Trinity, arguments based on this verse generally must do one of three things:

1. Misrepresent what Trinitarians actually believe
2. Falsely assume that a distinction in role or function must mean inferiority in nature
3. Ignore the significance of the incarnation

Misrepresenting the Trinity

The most simplistic form of this argument goes something like this:
- The Father speaks to Jesus, and Jesus sits at the Father’s right hand
- This means that Jesus is different than the Father
- Therefore, Jesus is not God

The problem here is that the doctrine of the Trinity specifically states that Jesus is not the Father. The whole point of this argument is to show that Jesus and the Father are distinct persons, but that is already exactly what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches! So facts such as that the Father sends the Son, the Son prays to the Father, and the Son sits at the right hand of the Father are all exactly what a Trinitarian would expect to see.

False assumptions about function versus nature

A second, slightly more thoughtful version of the argument doesn’t argue from the mere distinction between the persons but rather from their apparent disparity in position. “If Jesus is at the right hand of the Father,” they will point out, “Isn’t that an indication that Jesus is lower than the Father?” They claim that a position at the right hand of a king was a position lower than that of the king himself. Such a conclusion, however, is grossly in error.

First of all, if one is inherently superior to the person at their right hand, Psalm 110 also claims that the Son is superior to God! While verse one speaks of the Son sitting at the right hand of the LORD, the Psalm later says:

> “The LORD is at Your right hand; He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath” (Psalm 110:5).

So the LORD is also said to be at the Messiah’s right hand. We, therefore, cannot read inferiority into the “right-hand” imagery.

More importantly, however, we have to address the root assumption. Just because two persons serve different roles or functions does not mean that one is inferior to the other in essence or being. Difference in function does not indicate inferiority of nature. So, the place of the Son at the right hand of the Father does not make the Son a lesser being. It merely tells us something about the roles and relationship between the persons of the Trinity.

The significance of the incarnation

The final version of the argument points to the fact that the Father tells Jesus to “sit at my right hand.” This implies, they argue, that Jesus was not previously at the right hand of God but was only now being elevated to that position. They further point to Peter’s commentary on the passage in Acts 2:33-36: “Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God...”

Psalm 110 is a Messianic Psalm. It finds its ultimate fulfillment in the promised heir of David who will reign forever as king of Israel and Lord of the nations. This prophecy is not simply about the Son of God as an eternal person in the Triune Godhead, but quite specifically about the incarnate Son who took on flesh and became a man.

Jesus came down in the humble state of humanity. As He approached His death on the cross, He prayed:

> “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5).

So, the glorious place at the right hand of the Father where Jesus rose to sit was a return. He ascended back to the heavenly glory He had departed for our sakes. Jesus existed in the form of God but took on the form of man in humility. It was Jesus in the flesh who died for our sins and Jesus as a man born in the line of David according to the flesh who could be appointed Messiah, the promised king. To fulfill the sacred promise, God the Son became a man. He suffered human death, took back up His human life in resurrection, and ascended as both God and Man to the right hand of the Father.

A New Testament view of Psalm 110

Having answered the objection, it is worth also noting the positive case that Psalm 110 makes for Jesus’ deity in eyes of the New Testament writers. In three of the gospels, Jesus raises the Psalm to His critics:

> “He said to them, ‘Then how does David in the Spirit call Him “Lord,” saying, “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet'”? If David then calls Him “Lord,” how is He his son?'” (Matthew 22:43-45).

For the Messiah to be King David’s sovereign, he must be something greater than merely a royal heir to David’s throne. When we arrive at Jesus’ trial, we read:

> “And Jesus said, ‘I am, and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.’ Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, ‘What further need do we have of witnesses?'” (Mark 14:62-63).

Jesus combines Daniel 7’s prophecy of the Son of Man with Psalm 110’s Messiah who “sits at the right hand.” The authorities see this as blasphemy and call for Jesus’ execution! They understood that He was placing Himself equal with God, not inferior to God.

The right hand of the Father is a position of equality with the Father, not inferiority. Jesus is God, the eternal Word, the divine Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. He sits at the right hand of the Father in glory as the Lord of all.