ARGUMENT
This psalm is truly prophetic concerning Christ, not only according to the apostolic interpreters (Acts 4 and elsewhere), but also according to writers of great renown among the Hebrews. Nor do the more recent commentators Aben Ezra and Kimhi object to this psalm being understood of the Messiah, although they also explain it of David—which I do not judge entirely alien, provided David is considered as a type of Christ. For the kingdom of David was in every respect a type or figure of the kingdom of Christ. If this is so, as all admit, then certainly all that is explained concerning Christ should first be understood concerning David, if possible. Nor is there any inconvenience in this; indeed, it ought to be so, otherwise David would not have been a type and figure of the future Christ.
It certainly cannot be doubted that David is the author of this psalm, since the apostles themselves, in the cited chapter of Acts, testify that David, inspired by the Holy Spirit, spoke these words. But he speaks more in the person of Christ than in his own, for not all that is said here can easily apply to David. David, therefore, in the person of Christ, marvels at the rashness of kings and princes who conspire from all sides to hinder God’s eternal decree concerning Christ, affirming and prophesying that all their efforts will be vain and futile, and that Christ will reign far and wide whether they will it or not. Toward the end, he exhorts the same kings to serve and obey God with a humble and lowly spirit, and joyfully and readily to submit themselves to His Son, lest they bring God’s wrath upon their own heads. To what occasion this poem is referred by recent Hebrews will be noted shortly on verse 1.
Kimhi observes that some rabbis consider this psalm to be one with the preceding one, but he himself affirms it is the second, and so he found it in the more corrected manuscripts. But let no one doubt that this is the second psalm, since St. Paul, quoting a verse from it, names it the second in Acts 13, at least in the Greek, Latin, and Syriac codices, the better ones; in some, as St. Jerome testifies in his commentary on the first psalm, the first is cited as the first. Finally, the difference of subject matter argues for different psalms.
Ps 2:1
1. Why have the nations raged, or tumultuously assembled, or rushed together in crowds, etc. The rabbis are not to be heeded, who here, as in all passages concerning Christ, are miserably blind, groping at noon as a blind man is wont to grope in the dark, since the Lord has long since struck them with madness and blindness and stupor of heart. Rather, let us listen to the apostles, who in Acts 4, already cited, explain these two verses thus: “Lord, you are he who made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said: Why did the nations rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers gathered together against the Lord and against his Anointed. For truly in this city they gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your purpose had predestined to be done.” So far the cited passage.
The rabbis who interpret this psalm, as Rashi, Aben Ezra, Kimhi, and others, refer it to that time when the Philistines, as is recorded in 2 Samuel 5, because the Hebrews had made David king, gathered an army against him, and occupying a valley called Rephaim, situated far from Jerusalem, pitched camp there. But let them show, I pray, any place where it is recorded that several Philistine kings were present at once, and not rather סְרָנִים (seranim), that is, lords or satraps, in many places. Yet this psalm in verse 2 complains that it has to do with kings. Kimhi candidly admits that nowhere in Sacred Scripture are Philistine kings mentioned except here, where, he says, satraps are called kings because they seemed to themselves too proud to be called kings. A feeble reason. More plausible is what he says might also be possible: that kings of other nations joined themselves to the Philistines. For Josephus, a most trustworthy writer of Jewish Antiquities, in Antiquities Book 7, Chapter 4, testifies that the Palestinian army that then invaded the Hebrews was not small or weak, but that all Syria and Phoenicia, with united forces, came to their aid.
In the first two verses, the Hebrew has verbs partly in the past tense, partly in the future. When this occurs, the present (or middle) tense can conveniently be chosen, as in this place, without loss of meaning. The Latin translator, however, rendered it by the past tense, which, even if the psalm is taken prophetically and as spoken of the future, can fit here very well, since it was the custom of the prophets to declare future things by the past tense, as if future things were already past, as the rabbis everywhere observe. I too have translated by the past tense, both because the Latin interpreter had already done so, and because the past tense fits the argument just as well as the present or future; indeed, the future cannot fit the argument of the Hebrews, from which we do not entirely dissent. Moreover, the first verb, which draws the others after it, is in the past tense. Why have they raged, etc., that is, the nations were moved or stirred up with great noise and tumult, or rushed together in troops. For the verb רָגַשׁ (ragash) properly signifies to rush together with great tumult and noise, and hence to be turbulent and clamorous; by metalepsis, hence others here render they have raged, others they have clamored, others they have rushed in troops, which all come to the same thing.
Ps 2:2
They have meditated in heart, according to Rashi; in mouth and speech, according to Aben Ezra and Kimhi. For the verb הָגָה (hagah), which the Latin usually renders to meditate, is applied to both heart and mouth, as in Job 27:4: Nor will my tongue meditate deceit, that is, speak. In vain: Hebrew inane, that is, empty thoughts or speeches, full of pride. The Philistines, elated by prosperous successes (for not many years before they had defeated the Hebrews in a great battle, in which Saul fell together with his sons), they, I say, fiercely threatened the Israelites who had surrendered themselves and all they had to David, and hoped easily to shake off the yoke which they feared from David and the Israelites. To this verse 3 pertains. But it turned out far otherwise; for when battle was joined, they were partly slain, partly put to flight.
Ps 2:3
3. Let us break their bonds, etc. These are the words or counsels of the Philistines themselves, or of the enemies of Christ, put by mimesis, namely what they were meditating: Their bonds, namely of the Lord, that is, of Christ, or of Christ and those who follow Christ. If one wishes to take the psalm concerning David, their bonds means those of David and the Israelites, who had then by public consent conferred upon him the kingdom of the whole nation. Fetters: properly twisted cords, and hence dense; Greek and Latin: their yoke, in the same sense. The sense of this verse is: Let us vigorously cast off from our necks the yoke which they wish to impose upon us.
Ps 2:4
4. He who dwells, etc. Confident of divine help, David thus speaks after he had consulted the Lord and learned that all would go well for him, and that he would be victorious over the Philistines, as it is in 2 Samuel 5:19: And the Lord said to David, Go up, for I will surely deliver the Philistines into your hand.
Ps 2:5
5. Then, when he hears their speeches or understands their counsels, he will speak to them. According to the opinion of some Hebrews, it should be translated he will destroy their mighty ones, from אֵל (el), which means mighty one. But the former translation is more pleasing.
Ps 2:6
6. And I have anointed, etc. These are the words that God will speak. How, then, he says, do you plot to overthrow the kingdom of Christ or of David, whom I myself have constituted and anointed as king? And why do you rage and make tumult? My king, that is, whom I have anointed and who reigns by my command. My is passive: thus 1 Samuel 16:1 says, for I have provided for myself a king among his sons; for myself means who will carry out my commands. In the contrary sense, Psalm 74:12: But God is my king from of old; my king means who is in my power, actively. Such is the use of pronouns, that they signify either actively or passively. Thus Isaiah 56:7: I will make them joyful in my house of prayer, that is, where prayer is made to me, passively. Isaiah 38:5: I have heard your prayer, which you indeed pour out, actively. Upon Zion, etc. For from Zion, through Christ, the Law and the word of the Lord went forth, according to the prophecy of Isaiah 2:3. Hence Christ commanded the apostles to begin preaching in Jerusalem. And Isaiah foresaw this when he said, chapter 40:9: Get you up to a high mountain, O Zion, you who bring good tidings; lift up your voice with strength, O Jerusalem, you who bring good tidings; lift it up, do not fear; say to the cities of Judah, Behold your God, etc. To this also belongs Psalm 110:2: The Lord will send the rod of your strength out of Zion. Moreover, it will also be easy to refer that upon Zion to David, who had already then placed his royal seat in Zion, as in a city which he himself had first subdued.
There are some among our own, including Genebrard, who contend that this verse, as it stands in the Greek and Latin (as far as those words But I have been established king by him are concerned), is not badly translated even from the Hebrew as it stands today. Their opinion, however, to us who profess uncorrupted faith and are ignorant of dissimulation, can by no means be approved. For although other things they are wont to say might perhaps be true, that which they say—that the yod in מַלְכִּי (malki) is paragogic (as they call it), and not a pronominal suffix to me—seems entirely harsh and forced, especially since there is no need to depart from common usage and acceptance, from which the meaning we have given flows conveniently and easily. Cardinal Bellarmine thinks it very probable that the Seventy Interpreters read slightly differently than we now read. Certainly it matters nothing to the sense whether you read with the Greek and Latin or with the Hebrews. If, however, with the Hebrews, the context will be easier and more elegant in this way: Then God will address the enemies with words: “And I have anointed”, etc. “To me he said: You are my Son”, etc., as in the following verse. Add that St. Jerome translated from the Hebrew: But I have appointed my king. Moreover, those words preaching his decree, which in the Greek and Latin close this sixth verse, in the Hebrew begin the following. Nor does Eugubinus hesitate to affirm that those words ought to be cut from here and appended to the following verse.
Ps 2:7
7. I will declare the decree. Literally: concerning the decree. אֶל (el) for עַל (al), etc. These are again the words of David in the person of Christ, who sets before the enemies the firm and inviolable decree of God the Father concerning Christ, and to give the speech more weight, introduces God himself speaking: The Lord has said to me: You are my Son, etc. Which was fulfilled especially when Christ received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice having come to him from the magnificent glory: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, etc. (2 Peter 1).
The Hebrews contend that this rightly applies to David, of whom God is said to have taken as a son, and therefore as it were begotten, on the day he was anointed king, since from that time especially God always cherished him as a son, cared for him, and he carried out God’s commands as a son. To this belongs Psalm 89:27: He will cry to me, “You are my Father.” And in the following verse: And I will make him my firstborn. And in this sense 2 Samuel 7:14: God said of Solomon, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. The like is read in 1 Chronicles 28:6. Certainly, whoever loves God and is in turn loved by God can be called a son of God. Thus God, Exodus 4:22, calls Israel my son, my firstborn. This name ought especially to be attributed to pious kings, who themselves obey God as is right, and by their example urge and compel others to obey, which is their office. Judges are sometimes in the Psalms called gods and sons of the Most High. Why not also kings?
It might perhaps seem harsher that God is said to have begotten David. For the Hebrews cannot adduce any place in the Old Testament where any man is said to be begotten by God. For what is read in Deuteronomy 32:18, Of the Rock that begot you, you are unmindful, you have forgotten, I say, God your creator or begetter, is not similar to this. There, although Kimhi tries to twist the sense elsewhere, begot means the same as created, and so the Chaldee and others interpreted it, a meaning which cannot have place here, since long before David was anointed king he had been created by God, and therefore cannot be said to be first begotten or created, nor can This day I have begotten you be taken of him in this sense. Kimhi, who in that Deuteronomy passage explains begot as nurtured, instructed, proves it by this futile and frivolous reason: if, he says, begot there means created, there was no reason to reproach the Israelites rather than other Gentiles. He, I say, explains This day I have begotten you of David, who on the day he was anointed king is said by God to have been begotten, because in him the Spirit of God was then begotten, according to 1 Samuel 16:13: Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers, and the Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David from that day forward. No one surely is ignorant that James 1 calls the Father of lights to have begotten us by the word of truth, and St. John 3:9 writes that everyone who does righteousness is born of God. If so, why could David not be said to be begotten by God when he was chosen king of the Israelites, in that mode, namely, of generation which is of a son, namely, by adoption? But in the Old Testament and Hebrew writings, no one is read or said to be begotten by God.
Therefore, we who have the mind of Christ better explain This day I have begotten you of the eternal generation of the eternal Son from the eternal Father. Nothing hinders the word today, for in eternity nothing is past, nothing future, but all is present, in which sense St. Paul, in the last chapter of Hebrews, says: Jesus Christ yesterday and today, the same and forever. Some refer this verse to the generation by which Christ was born of the Virgin, and therefore affirm that today is said. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Antiochenus, and Hilary of Poitiers affirm that by this verse David prophesied Christ’s resurrection, by which Christ was in a manner begotten, and according to which he is called the firstborn from the dead. Nor is it doubtful that the Apostle Paul was of the same opinion, who in Acts 13 thus speaks: And we declare to you glad tidings that promise which was made to the fathers, that God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm: “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” See more of these things in St. Hilary, who subtly and copiously pursues this whole verse in his commentaries. One passage admits several senses. Truly the natural man does not perceive them.
Ps 2:8
8. Ask of me, etc. This is said by God the Father to the eternal Son as man, and is promised to him an empire circumscribed by no boundaries, not earthly indeed, but spiritual, namely the Church, which God has confined to no region, nor bound to the men of one nation, as formerly the Mosaic Church, but has willed to pertain to all nations whatsoever, and indeed at some time, namely at the end of the world, will propagate it far and wide through every place of the earth, according to Jeremiah 31:34: And no more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” for they all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. Isaiah 54:13: And all your children shall be taught by the Lord, or All your children shall be disciples of the Lord.
The Jews strive with all their might to show that what is said in this and the following verse cannot apply to our Christ, which are the things of the Spirit of God. For it is folly to them, and they cannot understand it, because it is spiritually discerned, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2. Let them therefore teach from history how these things could apply to David, and where it is recorded that David reigned to the ends of the earth. For what Kimhi adduces from 1 Chronicles 14:17, And the fame of David went out into all lands, and the Lord brought the fear of him upon all nations, is not to the point. For it is quite one thing for the fame of someone to be spread abroad and his terror to pervade widely, and another for him to reign widely.
Aben Ezra better defines the ends or borders of the earth as places near to habitation, that is, as I interpret, to the sea or rivers or even deserts, which as it were cut off and separate habitation, and thus constitute, as it were, the borders of the earth. If one takes the ends of the earth in this way, there is no doubt that David reigned even to the ends and borders of the earth, namely from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the desert to the river Euphrates, namely which are the limits of the promised land, as may be read in Exodus 23:31, which limits the Hebrews had not yet fully obtained before David. For David, as may be seen from the book of 2 Samuel, subdued and brought under many neighboring nations by war, such as the Philistines or Allophyli, Moabites, Syrians, and others. Therefore, if you wish to take this concerning David, do not explain the ends of the earth for the ends or limit of the earth absolutely and simply, but for the end or border of the earth as has been said, or certainly for the end of this land. In the latter way, in the cited Exodus passage, I will give into your hand the inhabitants of the land, not indeed of all the earth, but of the land of which mention is made there, namely the promised. In the former way, Virgil in the 2nd Georgic calls India nearest the Ocean, the inmost bay of the world, and the Morini, neighbors to the Ocean, the last of men. And thus David calls the desert the ends of the earth in Psalm 72:8, where he says He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth, that is undoubtedly to the desert, and this is clearer than to need declaration. What good is a lamp at noon? The like is Zechariah 9:10. To this may be referred also Psalm 135:7: Who brings up clouds from the ends of the earth, which Kimhi explains as from the sea.
Yet it is more at hand to take the ends of the earth as it sounds, for as far as the globe of lands extends, in which sense Psalm 19:4: And to the ends of the world their words. Isaiah 40:28: The Lord, the creator of the ends of the earth. And taking it thus here, this verse can only apply to Christ, as we have said, since he alone and by a peculiar title has been constituted by God the Father heir of all things, as the Apostle testifies in Hebrews 1. Nevertheless, nothing prevents this verse from being explained of David at least typically, as if to him, consulting God whether he should lead an army against the Philistines, God had answered: Know, O David, that you will not only now be victorious over the Philistines, but if you ask, you will be lord and possessor of all nations to the ends of the promised land, or to the ends of the earth as has been explained. Your inheritance, etc. As a father speaks, for it is a father’s part to hand over inheritances to children.
Ps 2:9
9. You shall break them (sup. the nations) which wish to rebel against you. With a rod of iron, that is, with the sword, as Rashi and Aben Ezra interpret. For you shall break them, the Greek and Latin read you shall rule them, because they read תִּרְעֵם (tīrʿēm, you will rule/shepherd them) instead of תְּרוֹעֵם (tērōʿēm, you will break them), where the Hebrews have עִם (im, with them) or rather תְּרוֹעֵם (you will break them), which in Latin should indeed refer to the nations. The verb to break with a rod of iron fits better than to shepherd. You shall break with a rod of iron is nothing else than you will slaughter with the sword. Like a potter’s vessel, etc. A proverbial form of speech, signifying that rebellious nations are to be destroyed utterly. Jeremiah also used it, announcing the final destruction of the people and city of Jerusalem with the words of God, namely chapter 19 of his prophecy, verse 11: Thus says the Lord of hosts: So will I break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel, that cannot be made whole again. The same phrase occurs in Isaiah 30:14: And he shall break it as the breaking of the potters’ vessel, in the Vulgate: And it shall be broken as the breaking of the potter’s vessel. Moreover, that what is said in this verse applies to Christ and those who follow Christ, Christ himself is witness in Revelation 2: He who conquers and keeps my works to the end, I will give him authority over the nations, and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received from my Father. See also Revelation 19.
Ps 2:10
10. And now, O kings, etc. David exhorts, or Christ himself, or rather David in the person of Christ, all kings and princes by whom he was attacked, to submit themselves to his empire, whom God has constituted king, as if he were to say: Since it is as I have said, now therefore, O kings, understand, etc. Moreover, this and what follows pertain to the calling of the Gentiles.
Ps 2:11
11. Serve, etc. Follow the will of God, fearing him and acknowledging his supreme power. And rejoice, etc., nor bear my kingdom with reluctance, but rather rejoice, fearing God, by whose will it has fallen to my lot.
Ps 2:12
12. Kiss the Son, etc. The Greek translates Δράξαθε παιδείας, the Latin Apprehendite disciplinam (Take hold of discipline), in which way also the Chaldee בִּלּוּ אוּלְפָנָא (kabbilu ulpana), that is, Receive doctrine or instruction. But that Kiss the Son (בַּר bar) makes no small case for Christians against the Jews. Aben Ezra and Kimhi interpret him, namely the Son of God, to whom the eternal Father said: You are my Son, etc. Let the Jews show in Sacred Scriptures another who is absolutely and κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν called Son. Kiss, he says, that is, adore, for it was the custom in Palestine to acknowledge by a kiss that they held the kingdom by God’s will, and to adore the princes of the hand and testify their observance toward them. And this custom, says Aben Ezra, endures even today among the Indians.
The Chaldee, Greek, and Latin, moreover, seem to have read for נַשְּׁקוּ (nashshequ, kiss) נַשְּׁזוּ (nasshezhu, lay hold of or attain), although this verb is not found in Piel but in Hiphil. On account of the similar sound of the letters שׁ and ז, and they took בַּר (bar) in the sense of purity, and thus interpreted it as pure doctrine or discipline. According to other Hebrews, as Kimhi reports, it should be translated Kiss the pure, in this sense: What have I to do with you? For I am pure in heart, nor have I deserved that you should attack me, but it is yours to kiss me and revere me. Kimhi notes it can be translated Kiss the chosen one, from the verb בָּרַח (barach), which means to choose, 1 Samuel 17:8. Chosen one, that is, king, in which way Saul is called the chosen of the Lord in 2 Samuel 21:6. According to the mind of Rashi, it should be translated Arm yourselves with purity, that is, Gird yourselves with purity of heart. Menahem explains: Seek or desire the pure, namely. Aben Ezra has this on this verse: That Serve the Lord of the preceding verse is against that against the Lord of verse 2, and this Kiss the Son against that against his Anointed. Son, that is, that Son of mine, to whom the Lord said: You are my Son, etc. Which concerns David, Lest he be angry, etc. Blessed are all, etc. Can be easily and readily explained, provided it is always kept in mind that he is a figure of Christ.
Lest the Lord be angry, unless you quickly repent and follow the will of God, who willed me to be king. You perish from the way, or you perish by the way, that is, on account of the way, that is, manner of life, as was observed in the preceding psalm, so that to perish from the way and the way of someone to perish, which occurs in the last verse of the preceding psalm, are the same thing. And in this way Kimhi and others take it. I, however, would take to perish by the way for to be taken away in the middle or snatched away in mid-course, and thus the particle in or from must be supplied, as has been done by the Greek and Latin. When his wrath is kindled, etc., or Because it is an exclamation by which he pronounces them blessed who place all their hope in God and do not oppose him in anything, as if he were to say: O you unhappy ones, unless you serve God and yield yourselves obedient to him, and follow his Son with reverence, but happy, on the contrary, are all who trust in God. It is possible that in him refers to Christ, whom he has just called Son, as if he were to say: in that Son. David felt that no one would be disappointed who placed hope in Christ, and therefore speaking of Christ in the person of Christ himself, he perhaps added this concerning himself: Blessed are all who trust in him, namely Christ.
CONTINUE
Comments
Post a Comment