NLTSB and ESVSB on Psalm 2 (Part 2)
As noted in a previous post, exegetes
basically fall into two categories: (1) those who seek to elucidate the
historical sense of a text based on the text itself and what is known about the
putative life and times in which the text was written; (2) those who seek to
elucidate the sense a text has in light of an overarching Jewish or Christian narrative
formulated long a which the text itself does not presuppose.
On the part of a single scholar, an
unwavering commitment to both kinds of textual elucidation is rare. In the case
of Psalm 2, C. John Collins (for ESVSB) and Willem VanGemeren (for NLTSB)
privilege in their notes a christological reading. Indeed, their notes seem to
imply that the text makes no sense except on that reading.
On Psalm 2, Collins in the ESVSB comments as follows:
At a time when the Gentile kingdoms that are part of the Davidic empire
seek to throw off Israelite rule, the psalm recalls the promises made to the
Davidic king at his coronation and notes that the Gentiles will find lasting
joy only as subjects of this king. With its prospect of a worldwide rule for
the house of David, the psalm also looks to the future, when the Davidic
Messiah will indeed accomplish this; in fact, the scope of such an
accomplishment calls for a ruler who is more than a mere man.
Comment by VanGemeren in the NLTSB moves
along similar lines:
This royal psalm pertains to the Lord’s appointment of a king descended
from David. It celebrates the mission of all the kings in David’s line, and
introduces the hope of an idea ruler who will accomplish the Lord’s goal of
bringing all nations into submission (2:11) or destruction (2:9). . . . . [in
note of 2:2] the Lord chose the kings of David’s dynasty to establish his
kingdom throughout the earth. The NT confirms that Jesus, the appointed and
anointed Son of God (Acts 4:26; 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5), fulfills the role in
which these earlier kings failed.
In the “Royal Psalms” excursus, VanGemeren
also says:
Psalm 2 is associated with Israel’s king, the descendant of David.
Nevertheless, it speaks of a universal vindication and rule that far transcends
even David’s or Solomon’s reigns.
These statements by Collins and VanGemeren seem
designed to suggest that Psalm 2 makes sense through the prism of the NT alone.
According to their comment, the psalm refers to a future worldwide dominion but
in fact the psalm refers to a then current, generalized dominion and the threat
a revolt posed to that dominion.
Psalm 2 does not express hope in a future
Anointed who will rule the world entire, though it certainly engenders
hope of precisely this kind in those who sing it and have sung it, Jews and
Christians alike, for millennia.
In short, two senses of the text are
conflated in which a retrospective reading drowns out the historical reading.
As VanGemeren puts it in his note to 2:4-6, “[The Lord] will end their
agitation through the appointment of a human agent, a descendant of David’s
line who will rule the nations.”
But that is not what the 2:6 says. In 2:6,
the appointment lies in the past: “For the Lord declares, ‘I have placed my
chosen king on the throne in Jerusalem, on my holy mountain’” (NLT).
Does Psalm 2 only make sense in light of its
fulfillment in the Christ announced in the New Testament? Collins and
VanGemeren seem to claim as much.
On the contrary, the psalm make excellent sense
against its original historical background. Because of translation choices,
this is not obvious in ESV or NLT. ESV capitalizes “Son” in 2:7 and 2:7,
effectively excluding a reading of the psalm on its own terms as understood by,
for example, Collins and vanGemeren, though they do not consistently read the
Psalm in terms of the Davidic king and his status as an adopted son (not “Son”)
of God. NLT on its part translates with lower case, including “anointed one,” a
large point in its favor.
A key problem relates to the correct
interpretation of מלכי ארץ, אפסי ארץ, andשפטי ארץ , usually translated ‘the kings of the earth,’ ‘the ends of
earth,’ and ‘rulers of the earth,’ respectively. The expressions מלכי ארץ and שפטי ארץ are
best interpreted, in light of the phrase מלכי הארץ with the article, as is to be expected in prose, in
Joshua 12:1, 7, with the clear meaning of ‘kings of the land.’ The expression אפסי ארץ is best
interpreted in the same way, in light of the identical phrase in Deut 33:17
where it means ‘the ends of the land.’ In short, the meaning of the expression
is indefinite in principle but relatively circumscribed in scope in terms of
original setting.
Here is a translation of Psalm 2 in which its
historical sense is more palpable. See commentary following for elucidation.
Psalm 2
1 To what end are nations gathered,
peoples who utter inanity?
2 The kings of the land stand in array,
regents who conspired as one
against יהוה and his anointed:
3 “Let us break apart their fetters,
throw off their ropes
from us!”
4 The judge in heaven laughs,
my Lord derides them;
5 he speaks to them in anger,
terrifies them in wrath:
6 “I vested my king
on Zion my holy mount!”
7 I will recount יהוה’s decree,
he said to me:
“You are my son
I fathered you today.
8 Ask me,
and I’ll give you nations as your domain,
the limits of the land as your holding.
9 You will smash them with an iron mace
shatter
them like a potter’s vessel!”
10 Now, o kings, be wise,
be warned, o rulers of the land!
11 “Serve יהוה with awe,
tremble with trepidation!
12 Kiss sincerely or he’ll anger,
and you’ll lose your way;
for his anger
flares up quickly;
happy
are all who take refuge
in him!
Commentary
Tyler Williams has an excellent post on an admittedly difficult text: Psalm 2:11-12. I concur
that “translations that capitalize ‘Son’ (NIV, NASB, ESV, etc.) are clearly
expressing a theological agenda, which arguably has no place in a translation.”
It is unlikely that בר means ‘son’ in נשקו בר the first place. More plausibly, the meaning is ‘kiss
purely.’ In this context, a kiss would be a gesture of homage, and might be
insincere. Cf. Prov 27:6. On this understanding of the text, בר is an
adjective meaning ‘pure.’ Like מר ‘bitter’ in Isa 33:7, it is used adverbially. As Tyler notes, NJPSV
‘pay homage in good faith’ and NET ‘Give sincere homage’ so construe the text’s
meaning.
Thanks for this, John. I agree with your overall point that this psalm should be understood primarily in its original setting, and only secondarily interpreted christologically. But, even within that original setting, I disagree with your argument for reading "the land" rather than "the earth". In verse 1 and again in verse 8 the psalm talks about "nations", and so surely the kings referred to are these kings of the nations. Are you claiming that there were many nations inhabiting this one land? If so "nation" is a strange rendering. Or is your meaning more that these "nations" were small tribes under petty rulers? I guess we can't rule out that exegesis, but in that case we need a different word from "nation".
Posted by: Peter Kirk | October 30, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Hi Peter,
Go take a look at some of the passages I listed in Part 1, in particular:
Isa 11:10, 13-14; 14:28-32; 16:1-5; Amos 9:11-12; and Pss 60 and 87.
Also, take a look at Joshua 12:1, 7 in context, and Deut 33:17.
I think it then becomes clear that the nations and kings of which Psalm 2 most probably speaks are those which were in various moments under the dominion of the Davidic king in some sense: Edom, Moab, Philistia, and the Ammonites in particular.
"The land" occupied by these nations and referred to in Psalm 2 is "the land round about," not the "whole earth." On some definitions, it might be equivalent to the Promised Land (several definitions are found in the Hebrew Bible), but I don't that that is at issue in Psalm 2.
Posted by: JohnFH | October 30, 2008 at 12:00 PM
OK, I understand better now, that the meaning you have in mind is broader than in Joshua 12 and not restricted to the land of Israel. But that is not what I understood your translation to refer to - in the Hebrew Bible context I understand "land" as "the land of Israel". And I am puzzled now by what you mean by "the limits of the land" in verse 8.
Posted by: Peter Kirk | October 30, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Peter,
I think you're right that it must be explained in a note that "limits of the land" means the "limits of the land" possessed by the "kings" and "rulers of the land" - "land" as in "land round about."
One possibility comes to mind now, thanks to your prodding: to translate "limits of their land." I will give that further thought.
Posted by: JohnFH | October 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM