Within the canonical context, there can be little doubt that the 110th Psalm is messianic and eschatological in nature. Not only does the New Testament cite this psalm more than any other in reference to Jesus Christ, but the actual placement of the psalm within the Psalter either “beside a pair of Davidic psalms, Ps. 108, 109, or subsequently attracting them to it as a cluster, already reflects a messianic understanding” at the time of the Psalter’s compilation.
That said, there remains substantial difficulty in discerning the dating of this psalm. The ascription places the dating at the time of David, possibly his enthronement or his successful sacking of Jerusalem. An assortment of scholars align the psalm with post-exilic priestly activity, arguing for a redaction from a prior document rooted in the Davidic dynasty. Still other speculations span from the eras of Abraham, Simon Maccabeus, King Josiah, and King Solomon. While recognizing the difficulty involved in dating, this series works from the assumption that the earliest materials present within this psalm originate in the Davidic dynasty. With the biblical evidence suggesting that the Davidic kings did in fact have mediatory, cultic functions (I Kings 8:22-26, Jer. 30:21), there seems to exists no incontrovertible evidence excusing the extraction of this text from a pre-exilic locale.
Composed of two prophetic pronouncements, the voice present in this psalm is probably that of a court prophet serving as a subject of a newly enthroned king (ynI©doal;() and probably performing a professional function during the enthronement procedures. The pronouncement of the prophet entails Yahweh’s endowment of the king with dominance over his adversaries and cultic, mediatory authority. Such a merging of military and cultic privilege is a well documented practice in Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) literature, though admittedly rather rare in the Old Testament.
With the ambiguity of the introductory material noted, the remainder of this series will be concerned with working from within the text itself, beginning with a brief sketch of the structure of the psalm and concluding with a lengthier set of comments on the more noteworthy features of the text.
 Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101-150. Vol. 21. The Word Biblical Commentary. (Waco: Word Books Publisher, 1983), 79.
 For broader reasons for the difficulty of dating this and the other Royal Psalms, see Gunkel, 118.
 Though the earliest writer materials indicated a time during the Davidic kingly era, some of the rituals and traditions behind this document likely go back to the Jebusite royal traditions, of which the Melchizedekian comes to the foreground for this psalm.
 The primary argument for a post-exilic dating asserts that vs. 4 indicates the period of the Maccabean priest-kings, most likely around 105 B.C.E. The problem, however, is that the text does not say that a priest will become king. Rather, a king is given the status of priesthood, and that status is not even Aaronic. Post-exilic Maccabean priestly rulers would have certainly found this and other psalms helpful, but the evidence that they authored these psalms is scant. A comparison with non-canonical, post-exilic poems demonstrates that the non-canonical psalms of this period are exceptionally weak, “reflecting corroded imitations of ancient patterns. They are removed from the outstanding flourish of the songs in Pss 2 and 110.” Gunkel, 119.
 Hans-Joachim Kraus, Theology of the Psalms. A Continental Commentary. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 111.
 Gunkel identifies the 110th Psalm as a Royal Psalm, and suggests it was sung on the “day of anointing of the young ruler” and assists us in gaining insight the “situation of the enthronement from the reports of the historical books.” Hermann Gunkel, An Introduction to the Psalms. (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), 67.
 James Luther Mays, Psalms. Interpretation. (Louisville: John Knox Press, 1994), 350.
 Whatever else may be said, this psalm is closely connected with Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7, both of which elevate the military conquests of Yahweh’s king by Yahweh’s hand.
 As already noted, vs. 4 indicates that military success does not exhaust the kings job description, he also retains cultic functions. This sacerdotal efficaciousness “will assure the success and well-being of the people (v. 3),” Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1997), 606.
 Allen, 84. The priest/king connections in this psalm do not really help at this point either. Verse 4 could indicate a post-exilic dating, but “if vs. 4 can be harmonized with the Davidic monarchy, the way is mainly open toward a pre-exilic setting.” The military references seem to indicate a pre-exilic setting, some have suggested Josiah. Whatever the case it seems the most likely suggestion is that the earliest form of this psalm is pre-exilic, though I am not convinced one could be too dogmatic in this assertion. .