Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Scattered thoughts on Psa. 2--a Psalm of comfort in tumultuous times.

Psalm 2 conveys its message by means of *excerpts of speech* from different parties.

It neatly divides into four triplets.

Vs. 1-3: A statement of intent from the kings of the earth.

Vs. 4-6: Heaven’s response.

Vs. 7-9: YHWH’s promise to *his* chosen king.

Vs. 10-12: YHWH’s commands to earth’s inhabitants (kings inc.).

Vs. 1 describes the general tenor of the nations’ behaviour.

The root רגש conveys the idea of ‘commotion’, ‘throngs’, and ‘conspiracy’,

but all of it comes to nothing (ריק).

Lots of noise, but v. little power.

Vs. 2 reveals the *orientation* of vs. 1’s rulers.

The particle על is all-important: the earth’s rulers have set themselves *against* (על) YHWH + his Messiah.

The impropriety of their orientation is reflected in vs. 2’s metrical awkwardness. (The offending words stand out.)

Vs. 3 reveals the rulers’ intention--to obtain freedom from the One by whose permission they draw breath.

YHWH laughs at the absurdity of such a notion (vs. 4).

In vs. 5, it is YHWH’s turn to speak. (Vs. 6’s ואני has the sense ‘But for my part...’, akin to modern לדידי.)

Unlike those of the earth’s kings, YHWH’s words are not empty/ineffectual (ריק), but strike fear into the ungodly.

Contrary to expectations, YHWH’s response is not to blot out the nations from the face of the earth, but to install his own king in their place (vs. 6).

The king in question will not take his stand ‘against’ (על) YHWH, but ‘on’ (על) YHWH’s holy hill.

The term ‘holy hill’ (הר הקדשי) can be associated with either the Temple specifically (Isa. 56.7, 65.11, 66.20, etc.) or with Jerusalem more generally (Psa. 48.1, Dan. 9.16, etc.),

and, as such, with either coronation or sacrifice.

Suffice to say, both are appropriate given the nature of the Messiah who will visit Jerusalem in the years to come (Acts 4).

In vs. 7, a third person/party begins to speak, namely YHWH’s Son.

The Son declares what God has (earlier) declared to him (‘I will declare what YHWH said to me...’), which scans quite awkwardly.

Why bother? Why not simply carry over YHWH’s speech from vs. 6?

Because the Psalmist wants to portray the Son as:

a] one who *reveals* God’s will (cp. Matt. 11.27), and

b] one who ‘asks’ for his inheritance (from a position of subjection) rather than simply lays claim to it (as the kings of the earth seek to do).

The Son does not seek to cast off the Father’s bonds/cords (vs. 3),

but (like Isaac) is voluntarily bound by them.

Vs. 8 fills out the concept of sonship.

To be announced as YHWH’s Son is inherit the nations as one’s possession (אחזה).

The word אחזה is typically associated with permanence (and hence w. Jubilee regulations).

The Son will not lose what he has been given.

Vs. 9’s promise (תרעם בשבט ברזל) is noteworthy.

One possibility is תרעם = ‘You will smash them’ (from רעע), which fits 9b.

Another is תרעם = ‘You will shepherd them’ (from רעה),

which is the kind of thing someone might do with a שבט = ‘staff’ (cp. Psa. 23.4),

and is in line with Gr. trans. of vs. 9 (ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ), per Rev. 2.

Are these interpretations of vs. 9a so different?

I don’t think so.

The Biblical concept of a shepherd is not a romanticised rural one, but is closely associated with battle.

Israel’s leaders were to act as ‘shepherds’ insofar as they were to lead the troops in and out (2 Sam. 5.2).

Shepherds are raised up in Israel to defend her against Assyria (Mic. 5)

Cyrus (not known for his tender-heartedness) is even described as YHWH’s shepherd (Isa. 44.28).

The concept of a shepherd who risks his life for his sheep (like David) is not a normative concept,

but is meant to surprise us,

and is seen in its fulness in the life of ‘the good Shepherd’ (John 10).

In vs. 10-12, a sequence of imperatives are issued to the earth’s kings/judges, which embody a significant amount of wordplay.

The שפט = ‘judge’ is governed by YHWH’s שבט = ‘staff’.

He is to עבד = ‘serve’ or to אבד = ‘perish’,

and he is not to seek to ‘cast off’ (להשליך) YHWH’s authority, but ‘to wise up’ (להשכיל) to YHWH’s commands.

Meanwhile, the command הִוָּסְרוּ = ‘be warned’ resonates with vs. 3’s מוסרות = ‘bonds’, and hence plays on the similarity between יסר and אסר.

YHWH’s ‘bonds/restraints’ (מוסר) are not designed to oppress us, but to warn (מוסר) us of danger.

Vs. 12 closes with the phrase אשרי כל חוסי בו = ‘blessed are all who take refuge in (the Son)’,

which forms an inclusio with Psa. 1.1 (אשרי האיש אשר...).

The reason why the righteous will prosper (and the wicked perish) per Psa. 1 is because of the authority of heaven described in Psa. 2.

Other contact points between Psa. 2 and its environs can be noted (per Dr. Williams’ observations here:

https://twitter.com/DrPJWilliams/status/1082060098778869765

).

The ‘imagination/meditation’ (הגה) of the righteous in Psa. 1 resonates (and contrasts) with the (vain) ‘imagination/meditation’ (הגה) of Psa. 2’s kings.

The ‘way of the wicked perishes’ at the end of Psa. 1 (דֶרֶךְ רְשָׁעִים תֹּאבֵד), just as the kings (potentially) ‘perish in the way’ at the end of Psa. 2 (פֶּן־יֶאֱנַף וְתֹאבְדוּ דֶרֶךְ).

And the dismayed start of Psa. 2 (לָמָּה רָגְשׁוּ = ‘Why do they rage?’) rhymes with the start of Psa. 3 (מָֽה־רַבּוּ = ‘How many are they!’),

because men take their stand against David (קָמִים עליו), just as they take their stand against the Messiah in Psa. 2 (מתיצבים על משיח),

but deliverance ultimately comes from ‘YHWH’s holy hill’ (2.6, 3.4).

The end.

Oops; didn't need the article there (meant הר קדשי).