# Psalm 2:12, Kiss the Son?



## lumenite (Feb 21, 2019)

Have you ever watched the following video?




Rabbi Tovia Singer argues that the meaning of the first part of Psalm 2:12 is "Arm yourself with purity" rather than "Kiss the Son." A Jewish Bible reads it as "Do homage in purity." NET Bible reads "Give sincere homage!"

In short,
1. The word BaR means not "son," but "pure" (eg. Ps 24:4).
2. BaR may mean son in Aramaic, but Ps 2:7 already used BeN, not BaR.
3. In Prov 31:2, BaR is used to mean son in Aramaic. However, it is a quotation of the mother who spoke Aramaic.
4. Even if BaR in Ps 2:12 means son, there is no article to it. It can't be "the Son."
5. The verb NaShaQ has two meanings: kiss and arm.

I have been using this verse and phase for our King, Jesus Christ. Have I been wrong with it?
What do you think of this translation? Do you have any good argument against this thought?


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 21, 2019)

Interesting question. What does the Septuagint have?
_
δράξασθε παιδείας μήποτε ὀργισθῇ κύριος καὶ ἀπολεῗσθε ἐξ ὁδοῦ δικαίας ὅταν ἐκκαυθῇ ἐν τάχει ὁ θυμὸς αὐτοῦ μακάριοι πάντες οἱ πεποιθότες ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ_


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 21, 2019)

And here is the same verse in the Vulgate:

_adprehendite disciplinam nequando irascatur Dominus et pereatis de via iusta_


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 21, 2019)

Wycliffe mentions "Kiss the Son" as a possible translation:
https://biblehub.com/wycliffe/psalms/2.htm

Luther has "Kiss the Son":
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+2&version=LUTH1545


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 21, 2019)

Calvin has this to say:

_"The Hebrew word בר Bar, signifies both a son and an elect person; but in whatever way you take it, the meaning will remain the same. Christ was truly chosen of the Father, who has given him all power, that he alone should stand pre-eminent above both men and angels. On which account also he is said to be 'sealed' by God, (Joh 6:27) because a peculiar dignity was, conferred upon him, which removes him to a distance from all creatures. Some interpreters expound it, kiss or embrace what is pure, 30 which is a strange and rather forced interpretation. For my part, I willingly retain the name of son, which answers well to a former sentence, where it was said, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.'"_​
https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc08/cc08007.htm


----------



## lumenite (Feb 21, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Calvin has this to say:
> 
> _"The Hebrew word בר Bar, signifies both a son and an elect person; but in whatever way you take it, the meaning will remain the same. Christ was truly chosen of the Father, who has given him all power, that he alone should stand pre-eminent above both men and angels. On which account also he is said to be 'sealed' by God, (Joh 6:27) because a peculiar dignity was, conferred upon him, which removes him to a distance from all creatures. Some interpreters expound it, kiss or embrace what is pure, 30 which is a strange and rather forced interpretation. For my part, I willingly retain the name of son, which answers well to a former sentence, where it was said, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.'"_​
> https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc08/cc08007.htm



Both LXX and Vulgate do not read it as "Kiss the Son." Even Wycliff's Bible (1380s) does not take it as the basic translation. But Geneva Bible (1599) reads it so, perhaps because of Calvin and Luther's interpretation. Which Bible took the initiative of that translation? Although Calvin says that "kiss or embrace what is pure" looks forced, "kiss the Son" looks more forced according to the Rabbi's explanation.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 21, 2019)

Here is how two Jewish translations render it:
*
"pay homage in good faith, 
lest He be angered, and your way be doomed"*

Jewish Publication Society. (1985). Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures (Ps 2:12). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society."

*"Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled"*

Jewish Publication Society of America. (1917). Torah Nevi’im u-Khetuvim. The Holy Scriptures according to the Masoretic text. (Ps 2:12). Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society of America.
*

"Take hold of instruction, 
⌊lest⌋ the Lord become angry,"*


Brannan, R., Penner, K. M., Loken, I., Aubrey, M., & Hoogendyk, I. (Eds.). (2012). The Lexham English Septuagint (Ps 2:12). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

To no surprise they remove the Messianic reference from it.

Here is Keil & Delitzch's exposition of it:

"The second exhortation, which now follows, having reference to their relationship to the Anointed One, has been missed by all the ancient versions except the Syriac, as though its clearness had blinded the translators, since they render בר, either בֹּר purity, chastity, discipline (LXX, Targ., Ital., Vulg.), or בַּר pure, unmixed (Aq., Symm., Jer.: adorate pure). Thus also Hupfeld renders it “yield sincerely,” whereas it is rendered by Ewald “receive wholesome warning,” and by Hitzig “submit to duty” (בַּר like the Arabic birr = בִּר); Olshausen even thinks, there may be some mistake in בר, and Diestel decides for בו instead of בר. But the context and the usage of the language require osculamini filium. The Piel נִשֵּׁק means to kiss, and never anything else; and while בֹּר in Hebrew means purity and nothing more, and בַּר as an adverb, pure, cannot be supported, nothing is more natural here, after Jahve has acknowledged His Anointed One as His Son, than that בַּר (Prov. 31:2, even בְּרִי = בְּנִי)—which has nothing strange about it when found in solemn discourse, and here helps one over the dissonance of בֵּן פֶּן—should, in a like absolute manner to חֹק, denote the unique son, and in fact the Son of God. The exhortation to submit to Jahve is followed, as Aben-Ezra has observed, by the exhortation to do homage to Jahve’s Son. To kiss is equivalent to to do homage. Samuel kisses Saul (1 Sam. 10:1), saying that thereby he does homage to him."

Keil, C. F., & Delitzsch, F. (1996). Commentary on the Old Testament (Vol. 5, pp. 57–58). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 22, 2019)

I'm clueless when it comes to Hebrew, so I don't know. Here is a series of commentators on the question, some in favor of 'kiss the son', some opposed. Keil & Delitzsch are singled out by Ellicott's Commentary For English Readers ;


> As to the translation of the verb, the remark of Delitzsch, that it means “to kiss, and nothing else,” is wide of the mark, since it must in any case be taken figuratively, with sense of doing homage, as in Genesis 41:40 (margin), or worshipping (1Kings 19:18; Hosea 13:2). The most consistent rendering is, therefore, proffer pure homage (to Jehovah), lest he be angry.



If the Hebrew word translated 'son' by the KJV translators could be correctly interpreted as 'pure', the word for 'kiss' as 'do homage', I could see where the phrase translated by the KIV translators is proper, even if it would appear to be dynamic equivalence. I'm thinking that 'pure' could be applied as 'son', since He is/was the only Son of Man that could be defined as pure.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 22, 2019)

The Psalm is a coronation anthem. It is a celebration of the union of the Throne above with the throne below. Upon the heavenly throne is Jehovah, the LORD; and on the earthly throne is "his anointed" (v2).

God is not bothered by impotent rebels, but mocks them; and bears witness that he has set his own king-regent on Zion, v6.

In v7, the LORD "adopts" his messiah-king. "You are my son, today I have begotten you." He gives him the inheritance of the whole world.

v10ff then advises the world and its rulers to make up to the God-ordained authority. To "serve the LORD" cannot be less than fealty to his son and designated representative, and presumptive heir. Of course, one must reverence God above all, and show him reverence directly. But the logic of the Psalm points to duty that is owed to God _through his mediatorial representative._ There's no grace outside of the son and king. You cannot say you serve the LORD, while you despise his anointed.

The point of the Psalm, and of extending the principle of the son upon the throne to the ideal Son of David, is that eventually one must either set a stopping point for fusing and combining the reverence for God and his Representative; or else one must end up with a perfect combination, a Son who is also divine. Clearly, there are some who recognize a threat from the final stanza for establishing the latter as the true end of Israel's throne. Therefore, it is in their interest to short-circuit that by limiting the fealty and the honor due to every newly crowned king.

This defies the purpose and the logic of the Psalm, in my opinion. And in the NT revelation of the fulfillment of Messianic hope, the logic is pressed to its ultimate conclusion, see Act.4:25-30.

So, yes, it makes theological sense that one who denies that Jesus is the Christ, or that he is the divine Son and worthy of utmost devotion equal to that due the Father, that he is Emmanuel God with us--it makes sense that such a person would prefer an interpretation of Ps.2:12 that does not end the coronation anthem with a blessing for those who fear the wrath of the son-and-king (who could consume his foes with as little effort as God himself) and who trust in him as much as in his heavenly Father.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 22, 2019)

Here are some quotes from various sources in favor of "Son" as the proper translation:

https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/in-psalm-2-12-is-kiss-the-son-a-mistranslation-by-the-christians-2/


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 22, 2019)

Here is John Gill's exposition:

"The Son of God, spoken of in ( Psalms 2:7 ) ; the word used is so rendered in ( Proverbs 31:2 ) ; and comes from another which signifies to "choose", and to "purify", or "to be pure"; hence some render it "the elect" or "chosen One", or "the pure One" F11; and both agree with Christ, who is God's elect, chosen to be the Redeemer and Saviour of his people, and who is pure free from sin, original and actual. And whereas a kiss is a token of love among friends and relations, at meeting and parting, ( Genesis 33:11 ) ( Ruth 1:14 ) ; it may here design the love and affection that is to be expressed to Christ, who is a most lovely object, and to be loved above all creatures and things; or, as it sometimes signifies, homage and subjection, ( 1 Samuel 10:1 ) : and it is the custom of the Indians to this day for subjects to kiss their kings: it may here also denote the subjection of the kings and judges and others to Christ, who is Lord of all; or else, as it has been used in token of adoration and worship, ( Job 31:26 Job 31:27 ) ( Hosea 13:2 ) ; it may design the worship which is due to him from all ranks of creatures, angels and men, ( Hebrews 1:6 ) ; and the honour which is to be given to him, as to the Father, ( John 5:22 ) ; which shows the greatness and dignity of his person, and that he is the true God and eternal life: in the Talmud."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Feb 22, 2019)

"The rulers have to *Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him *(v. 12). The word used here in the Hebrew text for son is not the usual word (ben), but an Aramaic form (bar). Clearly the early versions had difficulty with this verse, and rendered bar with words suggesting they understood it to be bor (‘pure’) or bad (‘clean’). However, bar as ‘son’ is attested in the Old Testament. Numerous suggestions have been made for emending the text, but the traditional MT text is strongly attested and should be maintained. Three explanatory comments should be made. First, Aramaic was the common language for much of the ancient Near East over many centuries, and it was spoken from about the ninth century BC. Hence, the Davidic/Solomonic empire would have had Aramaic speakers within it. Secondly, the use of the usual Hebrew word would have resulted in an awkward conjunction of ben pen, and so to avoid the dissonance bar pen may have been used instead. Thirdly, the choice of the Aramaic word may have been done deliberately to bring greater force to the message to Gentile kings, who presumably would have been Aramaic speakers.12 To ‘kiss’ was a sign of homage and submission (cf. 1 Sam. 10:1; 1 Kings 19:18; Hosea 13:2) and it is appropriate that such a word is used to call for an act of homage before the LORD’S anointed king. The ‘son’ seems to be the subject of the next verb. If rulers do not submit to his claims, then his anger will burn against them and they will be destroyed. Just as the first Psalm commenced with the concept of blessing, so this second Psalm finishes on the same reassuring note. All who take refuge in the LORD will find true blessing and satisfaction in him. The expression used here, ‘all who take refuge in him’ (kol-chôsê vô), points on the one hand to the insecurity of those who are depending on their own power, but on the other hand to the security of those whose trust is in the LORD. He is the only refuge from the storm of God’s anger.
In addition to the quotations of this psalm in the New Testament already noted above, it is important to realise how often it is alluded to in the Book of Revelation (see e.g., 2:27; 12:5; 19:15). Christians see in Psalm 2 the picture of the messianic king who is ruling now in the world, and who is going to rule until he subdues all other rulers, and delivers the kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). The Book of Revelation shows us the ultimate picture of Christ ruling with an iron sceptre, and bearing the name ‘King of Kings, and Lord of Lords’ (Rev. 19:15–16)."


Harman, A. (2011). Psalms: A Mentor Commentary (Vol. 1–2, pp. 105–107). Ross-shire, Great Britain: Mentor.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 23, 2019)

Various renderings:
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Psalm 2:12

*HCSB*:
2:12 The word Son here is a different word than the one used in verse 7. It is an Aramaic word, causing some scholars to question its authenticity because (1) it seems out of place, and (2) Aramaic did not become the main language of the region until the Neo-Babylonian Empire under Nebuchadnezzar. Therefore, some have proposed that it should be changed to "His feet," adding a few Hebrew letters to the existing form. However, there is no good reason to reject this form as original since Aramaic, while not the main language of the region until later, had been in existence since Abraham's time and was a more commonly used Semitic language than Hebrew among other nations. To pay homage (see note at Hos 13:2) is to express obedience (Gen 27:26). The alternative is to perish as a result of God's anger that could ignite at any moment. This psalm ends where Psalm 1 began—with the word happy. The contrast is that those who follow Yahweh see His dominion as a place of refuge rather than slavery (v. 3).

*ESVSB*:
2:12 Kiss the Son. “Son” (bar) is Aramaic in form, leading some to offer other translations (such as “purely”), or even to suggest large-scale repairs to the Hebrew text (e.g., to make it say “his feet”). But the Aramaic-sounding term is well-suited to a Gentile audience (the kings in revolt). The Son is the heir of David (v. 7). The kiss denotes religious homage, and the Davidic king deserves it (v. 2). It is possible that the *he *and *him *of this verse refer to the Lord (from v. 11), though it is more natural to find a reference to the Son, who acts in God’s name. He is therefore the one in whom the faithful take refuge.

*Apologetics Study Bible*:
2:12 To "pay homage to the Son" can also be translated "kiss the son" (1 Kg 19:18; Hs 13:2). The translation takes the word bar as the Aramaic word for "son"; this is appropriate because David is addressing nations that speak that language. To "kiss" was more than to kiss the face; the word refers to bowing in submissive prostration before a conqueror (cp. RSV "kiss his feet"). Other versions assumed bar was a Hebrew word for "purity" and offered translations along the line of "worship in purity."

*Boice Commentary*:


Spoiler



*Psalm 2.
The Wrong Path and Its Consequences*

There is a debate among Old Testament scholars as to whether Psalm 2 can be considered messianic. That is, does it speak specifically of Jesus Christ? This is a complicated question with which we will deal again in the expositions of other psalms. But I say at the outset that if any psalm can rightly be regarded as messianic, it is this one. Psalm 2 speaks of the rebellion of the world's rulers against God's Anointed—the actual word is Messiah —and of the Father's decree to give him dominion over them. This determination, plus the psalm's ready and obvious application to the hostile circumstances of their day, made Psalm 2 one of the psalms most quoted by the writers of the New Testament.

In the most extensive New Testament reference, the first two verses were cited by the earliest Christians in a thanksgiving prayer following the release of Peter and John by the Sanhedrin: "Sovereign Lord,... You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:

'Why do the nations rage
and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the Lord
and against his Anointed One.'"

In the next verse they identified this rebellion with the conspiracy of "Herod and Pontius Pilate... with the Gentiles and the people of Israel... against... Jesus" (Acts 4:24-27).

The author of Hebrews applied verse 7 to Jesus twice, saying, "For to which of the angels did God ever say,

'You are my Son;
today I have become your Father'?"
(Heb. 1:5).

And again, "So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him,

'You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.'"
(Heb. 5:5).

Psalm 2 is referred to frequently in Revelation. Examples: "Jesus Christ... the ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rev. 1:5); "He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery" (Rev. 2:27); "She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter" (Rev. 12:5); and other less specific references.

Augustine called Jesus _iste cantator psalmorum_ (himself, the singer of the psalms). That is explicitly true of Psalm 2, since this psalm is not only about Jesus, but he himself speaks in it.

_A Second Introductory Psalm_

The specifically messianic psalms are not numerous. They include Psalms 22, 45, 72, 110, and some others. But among even this relatively small number Psalm 2 stands out dramatically. That is probably why it has been placed where it is, as the second introductory psalm to the Psalter.

There is some evidence in both Jewish and Christian traditions that Psalm 2 was at one time joined to Psalm 1, both psalms together being considered the first psalm. In the Jewish tradition Rabbi Johanan is quoted in the Talmud as having said: "Every chapter that was particularly dear to David he commenced with 'Happy' and terminated with 'Happy.' He began with 'Happy,' as it is written, 'Happy is the man,' and he terminated with 'Happy,' as it is written, 'Happy are all they that take refuge in him'" (Ber. 9b). These references are to Psalm 1:1 and Psalm 2:12, which indicates that the two psalms were at that time considered a single literary unit.

Similarly, in the oldest Greek texts of Acts 13:33, Psalm 2:7 is referred to as being from Psalm 1. Modern versions change the reference to Psalm 2, which is appropriate in view of the psalms' present numbering. But the fact that the oldest texts called Psalm 2, Psalm 1 indicates that at one time the two were together.

This throws light on how Psalm 2 should be taken. For if the psalm is messianic, and if it was originally linked with Psalm 1, then the doctrine of the two ways introduced in Psalm 1 is here carried forward but at a higher pitch. On the one hand, the way of sinners in Psalm 1 now becomes a cosmic revolt of the nations against God and his Anointed. It becomes an unfolding of the wrong path and its consequences. On the other hand, the righteous man of the opening psalm is now explicitly seen to be God's Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, which I suggested at the close of the previous chapter. It is by taking refuge in Jesus that the judgment awaiting the wicked can be avoided by them.

_Part One: The Narrator Speaks_

The outline of Psalm 2 is straightforward. It divides into four nearly equal parts, each uttered by a different speaker or speakers. In the first section, verses 1-3, the speakers are the rebellious rulers of this earth, introduced by the narrator. He asks why they engage in anything as useless as trying to throw off the rule of God's Anointed.

Since the earlier years of this century, when European scholars such as Hermann Gunkel, Sigmund Mowinckel, and Artur Weiser published their influential studies on the psalms, it has been customary to look at Psalm 2 as a "royal" or a "coronation psalm" of Israel. This means that scholars consider the psalm to have been written on the occasion of the ascension of a Jewish king, either David or one of his successors, to the throne. Accordingly, it is only in a remote or a secondary sense that the psalm can be thought of as messianic.

But is this so? Is the one against whom the nations, people, and kings of the earth rage so furiously really David?

The chief arguments for this scholarly view are of two kinds. First, there have been studies of the coronation literature of other ancient peoples, and it has been argued that Psalm 2 matches this other material and must therefore be written of an earthly king, as the other poems have been. But that does not follow. The form of a psalm does not predetermine its meaning. In fact, nothing would be more natural than that the form of a hymn written to praise an earthly monarch should be taken over to praise one who is the King of Kings. What verse form could be more appropriate?

The second type of argument is based on the supposed similarity between Psalm 2 and the promises given to David through Nathan's oracle recorded in 2 Samuel 7:5-16. But the parallels are not great. And what is of maximum significance is that the oracle itself makes a distinction between the promises made to David, which are what might be expected of a merely human monarch (vv. 5-11a), and the promises that concern David's great future descendant whose kingdom will be established forever (vv. 11b-16). Indeed, all the real parallels to Psalm 2 occur in this second section, which itself proves that the psalm is not written of David or his merely human descendants but of the future divine Messiah. Promises of an eternal reign are false if they concern human beings only, as David himself recognized (cf. v. 19).

This means that we cannot understand this psalm until we realize that it is an expression of the rebellion of the human heart against God and not a limited revolt of some merely human Near Eastern king or kings against David or his successors. There is danger in reading too many Christian allusions into strictly Jewish psalms. They are not all about Jesus. Nevertheless, in this case, we are right in saying that the righteous one of Psalm 1, who is the Lord Jesus Christ, is not wanted by these rulers. And since Jesus is God's Son, their rebellion against him is actually a rebellion against God the Father.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon was right when he said, "We have, in these first three verses, a description of the hatred of human nature against the Christ of God."

_Part Two: God the Father Speaks
_
In the second section of the psalm, verses 4-6, the speaker is God the Father, though the narrator sets up his words, just as in the opening section he set up the arrogant words of the rebelling monarchs.

What is God's reaction to the haughty words of these pygmy human rulers? God does not tremble. He does not hide behind a vast celestial rampart, counting the enemy and calculating whether or not he has sufficient force to counter this new challenge to his kingdom. He does not even rise from where he is sitting. He simply "laughs" at these great imbeciles.

This is the only place in the Bible where God is said to laugh, and it is not a pleasant laugh. It is a laugh of derision, as the next verb shows: "the Lord scoffs at them" (v. 4). This is what human attempts to throw off the rule of the sovereign God deserve. It is understandable that sinners should want to reject God's rule. That is what sin is: a repudiation of God's rule in favor of one's own will. But although it is understandable, the folly of this attempt surpasses belief. How can mere human beings expect to get rid of God?

After laughing at such foolishness, God speaks to rebuke and to terrify these rulers. He tells of the appointment of his Son to be King in Zion and foretells his triumph.

Spurgeon pointed out that in the late third and early first centuries the emperor Diocletian (a.d. 245-313), a great foe of Christianity, struck a medal which bore the inscription: "The name of Christianity being extinguished." Diocletian extended the frontier of the empire westward into Spain, where he erected two monuments proclaiming:

Diocletian Jovian Maximian Herculeus Caesares Augusti
for having extended the Roman Empire in the east and the west
and for having extinguished the name of Christians
who brought the Republic to ruin

and

Diocletian Jovian Maximian Herculeus Caesares Augusti
for having everywhere abolished the superstition of Christ
for having extended the worship of the gods.

But Diocletian had not abolished Christianity. On the contrary, at the time Christianity was growing stronger than ever, and eventually it triumphed over Caesar's throne.

Spurgeon quotes an earlier preacher, William S. Plumer:

Of thirty Roman emperors, governors of provinces and others in high office, who distinguished themselves by their zeal and bitterness in persecuting the early Christians, one became speedily deranged after some atrocious cruelty, one was slain by his own son, one became blind, the eyes of one started out of his head, one was drowned, one was strangled, one died in a miserable captivity, one fell dead in a manner that will not bear recital, one died of so loathsome a disease that several of his physicians were put to death because they could not abide the stench that filled his room, two committed suicide, a third attempted it but had to call for help to finish the work, five were assassinated by their own people or servants, five others died the most miserable and excruciating deaths, several of them having an untold complication of diseases, and eight were killed in battle, or after being taken prisoners.

Among these was Julian the Apostate. In the days of his prosperity he is said to have pointed his dagger to heaven, defying the Son of God whom he commonly called the Galilean. But when he was wounded in battle, he saw that all was over with him, and he gathered up his clotted blood and threw it into the air, exclaiming, 'Thou has conquered, O thou Galilean."​
So has it been throughout history. So will it be to the end.

_Part Three: The Son Speaks_

The third section of the psalm, verses 7-9, contains the words of God's Anointed, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Scholars who see Psalm 2 chiefly as a psalm of coronation for a Davidic king take the words 'You are my Son; today I have become your Father" (v. 7) as a formula for the symbolic adoption of the Jewish king by God at the time of his inauguration. But aside from the fact that nothing like this is ever said or suggested in the Old Testament, the Bible's own handling of the words is always in regard to Jesus. The words "You are my Son" or 'This is my beloved Son" were spoken of Jesus by the Father twice during his earthly ministry: once at his baptism and once at the transfiguration. At the baptism a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17; cf. Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22). At the transfiguration God said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!" (Matt. 17:5; cf. Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35).

The other part of the verse in Psalm 2—"today I have become your Father"—is used by Paul in a way consistent with the Gospels' use of the first part. In the first of his sermons recorded in Acts, he refers it to Jesus' resurrection (Acts 13:33). That is, he refers "today" not to Jesus' eternal begetting by the Father, which is wrapped up with the doctrine of the Trinity, but with God's raising him from the dead by which he became what is elsewhere called "the firstborn from among the dead" (Col. 1:18).

Verses 8 and 9 have special bearing upon our obligation to tell others about Jesus Christ today. This is because, although verse 6 speaks of God having established his King on Zion (past tense), verses 8 and 9 speak in a future sense, saying,

Ask of me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.
You will rule them with an iron scepter;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery (italics added).

This is an acknowledgment of what the author of Hebrews says in applying another psalm to Jesus. In chapter 2, he quotes Psalm 8:4-6, noting that the Father has placed everything under Jesus' feet. But he says, "At present we do not see everything subject to him" (Heb. 2:8). Jesus is Lord. But there are still many, like the rulers of the psalm's opening lines, who resist him.

Here is the great missionary challenge of the church. It is for us, the grateful subjects of Jesus' divine kingdom, to make his name known among the nations, until every ear shall hear and every knee shall bow. Harry Ironside wrote, "I never come to a missionary meeting but I feel as though there ought to be written right across the entire platform, 'Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.'" He continued, "It is the will of God that his Son should have a great heritage out of the heathen world, the godless Gentiles." Our assignment is to carry the message of God's decree and Christ's rule to them. It is to proclaim the rule of King Jesus.

_Part Four: The Narrator Speaks Again
_
In the final section of this psalm, verses 10-12, the narrator speaks again, uttering words of warning and entreaty to those who have not yet bowed before God's Son. Since the author of the psalm is not specifically identified, it is perhaps not overly whimsical to follow Ironside at this point too, since he speaks of "four voices" in the psalm: those of the world, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. It is the role of the Holy Spirit to draw us to Jesus, which is what the individual I have called the narrator is doing here. Ironside calls his "a very gentle, a very loving, a very tender voice."

What does this gentle, loving, and tender voice call on these rebellious human beings to do? A number of things: to "be wise," to "be warned," to "serve the Lord with fear," to "rejoice with trembling" (vv. 10-11). But chiefly they are to "kiss the Son" in grateful, loving submission.

That is what these rulers will not do, of course. It is why they are in danger of a final, fierce destruction. Make sure you are not among them. The rulers of the world rage against Christ. But why should you? The hands he holds forth for you to kiss are hands that were pierced by nails when he was crucified in your place. One day he is coming as the great judge of all. On that day the wicked will be punished, but today is the day of his grace. He invites you to come to him. The final verse says, "Blessed are all who take refuge in him." It is a reminder that the only refuge from the wrath of God is God's mercy unfolded at the cross of Jesus Christ.

Boice Expositional Commentary - An Expositional Commentary – Psalms, Volume 1: Psalms 1-41.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Tom Hart (Feb 23, 2019)

While I think that "kiss the Son" is in the context of Psalm 2 a more agreeable translation, yet both the Septuagint and the Vulgate say something to the effect of "exercise discipline". Does this not suggest that "kiss the Son" is a relatively recent translation? Or do we simply say that Jerome imitated the error of the LXX?


----------



## bookslover (Feb 23, 2019)

Could it be a case of Jewish scholars trying to avoid any trinitarian implications in Psalm 2?


----------



## lumenite (Feb 26, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Here are some quotes from various sources in favor of "Son" as the proper translation:
> 
> https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/in-psalm-2-12-is-kiss-the-son-a-mistranslation-by-the-christians-2/



Thank you for this reference. Jews who do not receive Jesus Christ as their Lord and King might have no problem with "Kiss the Son." Regarding of "the Son of God," they do not connect the term to deity. Psalm 2 is a messianic song. Jews are still waiting for another Christ, but maybe without divinity.

Thank all of you for your great insights and findings!


----------



## JTB.SDG (Feb 28, 2019)

He who sits in the heavens laughs...

Imagine the tragic irony of all this on the Last Day.


----------

