by Angus Harley

We all know that from a NT perspective, Psalm 2 is about Jesus. It’s called a ‘Messianic psalm’. Sooner or later, the NCTer will come across someone who levels the criticism that NCT doesn’t allow the OT to speak on its own terms. So as to show that NCTers are capable of looking at the OT without the NT, I’m going to examine Psalm 2. The OT text will speak for itself, and only afterward will I make comments on a NT interpretation of Psalm 2. In doing this, we will see that what the OT presents about Psalm 2 and the Davidic king provides the ‘raw material’, so to speak, for the NCT hermeneutic itself, for the contrast between the Testaments that NCT advocates, and the need for the interpretive primacy of the NT, will be clearly demonstrated by this exercise. 

PSALM 2

1 Why do the nations rebel?
Why are the countries devising plots that will fail?
2 The kings of the earth form a united front;
the rulers collaborate against the Lord and his anointed king.
3 They say, “Let’s tear off the shackles they’ve put on us.
Let’s free ourselves from their ropes.”
4 The one enthroned in heaven laughs in disgust;
the Lord taunts them.
5 Then he angrily speaks to them
and terrifies them in his rage, saying,
6 “I myself have installed my king on Zion, my holy hill.”
7 The king says, “I will announce the Lord’s decree. He said to me:
‘You are my son. This very day I have become your father.

8 Ask me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance,
the ends of the earth as your personal property.
9 You will break them with an iron scepter;
you will smash them like a potter’s jar.’”
10 So now, you kings, do what is wise;
you rulers of the earth, submit to correction.
11 Serve the Lord in fear.
Repent in terror.
12 Give sincere homage.
Otherwise he will be angry,
and you will die because of your behavior,
when his anger quickly ignites.
How blessed are all who take shelter in him! [NET]

King vs ideals

In reading accounts of the Davidic line by some OT scholars, they come at the text as saying that Psalm 2 is an example of an enthronement psalm. Those psalms describe the enthronement of the Davidic king, his installation. At the enthronement of any given king of Israel, this Psalm’s content was included in the ceremony. As such, the psalm is not about any one king and a literal fulfillment. It presents, rather, regal idealism, the ideal Davidic king. In a very general sense, then, the Psalm is ‘prophetic’, for the content of Psalm 2 applies to a whole line, into the future, of ideal Davidic kings. In support of this argument, even though David is said by the NT to be the author of the psalm, the OT doesn’t tell us, and there is not the typical “A psalm of David”; indeed, no king’s name is mentioned. It is, therefore, a psalm generically applicable to all Davidic kings, we are told.

Even if this psalm was to be read, to some degree at least, as generic, and was used at an enthronement ceremony, we must take seriously how the psalm itself comes across. It ‘wants’ to be read as being about a real king, not an ideal king or set of ideals. Why would the psalmist write a psalm that was merely about regal ideals? Why would he be concerned with an ‘ideal’ king? The very content, the dialogue, is between two individuals: Yahweh and his king. It’s all so very real-sounding. 

The generic/ideal rendition reminds me of OT scholarship’s reading of Genesis 1 and its content. It is said of that passage that because of it’s highly poetic and structured  nature, the text indicates non-literalism, so that the ‘days’ of Genesis 1 are non-twenty-four-hour days. Even if there is an element of non-literalism to Genesis 1, it is evident from the internal content of Genesis 1 that the text itself is presented as teaching Yahweh’s personal act of creating all things in six twenty-four-hour days. One cannot just brush aside the overwhelming impression that the text gives. One must account for it. The same is true with Psalm 2’s content: one cannot just brush aside its blatant attempt to represent a conversation that is ‘real’ and its emphasis concerning a king who truly is powerful and victorious over real enemies.

Likewise, the ‘prophetic’ aspect of the psalm does not need to be generalized, but can apply to a king to come. A similar approach is seen in Genesis 3:15 where the “seed” is given no proper name, and “he” will bruise the head of the serpent. There is reason to believe that Eve understood this to apply to her firstborn son, a “man” that she conceived. Of course, this was a royal case of mistaken identity (4:1-26).

When all is said and done, the Davidic reign means nothing without real kings coming to the fore as the Davidic king. The Davidic ‘son’ is not the sum total of all the kings put together, therefore, nor his reign merely an ideal that characterizes the Davidic line.  How do we know this? Because the OT itself focuses on individual kings who reign: the history of the OT itself says so; and, David, Solomon, even Saul himself, exemplify it. Even if there is some abstract idealism to this Davidic figure, the Jews simply did not think primarily in terms of the abstract or ideal, as if to promote the generic concepts of kingship, reign, kingdom, enmity, or line. This type of idealism is more Platonic than it is Hebrew! The OT presents to us actual kings, not ‘floating in the air’, abstract, ideas of a king or kingship. 

The one king vs a line of real kings

Another approach of some in OT scholarship is to place the emphasis upon the Davidic line of real kings. This view stresses one real king after another in a line. It is said that 2 Samuel 7 implies this model. First, there is David the king, and then after him there is his son. Indeed, 2 Samuel 7:14 is specifically fulfilled, it is said, by 1 Chronicles 28:6-7:

“6 He said to me, ‘Solomon your son is the one who will build my temple and my courts, for I have chosen him to become my son and I will become his father. 7 I will establish his kingdom permanently, if he remains committed to obeying my commands and regulations, as you are doing this day.’ 

As there were kings after both David and Solomon, we should interpret both 2 Samuel 7 and Psalm 2 as applicable, in time, to a line of individual kings, so the argument goes.

The above line-reading does have as a strength that it is applied to real kings in Israel’s history, and not merely to an ‘ideal’ king. And we must remember that, as noted before, from the OT perspective alone, the psalm is not directly tied to any historical king of Israel. Also, as stated before, the Davidic promise was not fulfilled entirely in Solomon. A line is therefore implied in 2 Samuel 7. Added to this, David’s son’s reign was to be everlasting, according to 2 Samuel 7.

However, a major weakness of this line-reading is that the text of Psalm 2 is about Yahweh and one king, not a line of real kings. Also, we must be careful not to simply impose 2 Samuel 7 or 1 Chronicles 28 upon Psalm 2. Psalm 2 must be given its own voice. As such, the details of the Davidic king provided in the psalm are so specific that they do not draw our attention to an endless line of real kings, but to an individual figure who brings peace and a victorious reign. It is not mere individualism within a wider line that is conveyed, but sheer individualism, for the psalm is about a specific Davidic king. 

Therefore, even if Psalm 2 has lying behind it, but not within it, a theology of the Davidic line, the text itself must be taken in its own terms as being about a particular king of Yahweh, a particular son.

Fitting the bill 

Which king does Psalm 2 have in mind? Perhaps David himself fits the bill. 1 Chronicles 14:17 states, “Then the fame of David went out into all the lands; and the Lord brought the fear of him on all the nations.” Plainly, Yahweh did not bring the fear of David on every single nation in the world. Perhaps the psalm has in mind a multitude of nations, and not every single nation in the world.  Philistia, Moab, Edom, and other nations, did become vassal states under Israel and David (2 Sam.8:1-14). This info comes after 2 Samuel 7. 

However, David was never anointed in Jerusalem. Nor was he formally “installed” there as king (1 Sam.16:1-13; 2 Sam.2:4; 5:3). He did move his throne and royal city from Hebron to Jerusalem, but we are not told that he was formally inducted, once again, into a reign from Jerusalem. Another factor to tote in is that the nations were already subdued and controlled, according to Psalm 2, but wanted to bust away from Yahweh and his son’s control:

3 “Let us tear their fetters apart

And cast away their cords from us!”

It is not merely Yahweh’s fetters and cords they seek to cast off, but those of Yahweh and his son, “their fetters…their cords”.  David did conquer his enemies, but we have no record that they broke away from him, or rebelled in his lifetime.

Maybe, then, Solomon hits the  high mark. He was anointed in Jerusalem and installed there. He had enemies, even foreign ones (1 Kg.11). But did he subdue them, subject them? There’s no indication that he did. Devastatingly, Solomon’s kingdom itself was split in two by the time he died; whereas, the Davidic king of Psalm 2 had problems with the “nations”, but there is an absence of any internal strife in his kingdom.

Does King Asa, or King Uzziah, or some magnificent and powerful king of Israel, meet the standard? They all had enemies; they all defeated their enemies. But the triumphalism of the Psalm and its positive note of the utter success of the Davidic king and his own reign in Jerusalem does not fit the model of kings who started of well but ended badly, and who even incurred problems within their own kingdoms.

By the end of the OT itself, we are no closer to identifying by name and reign the actual Davidic son of Psalm 2 (see ahead).

Localization vs earthly

The language of the psalm does not suggest a local, or limited, reign. The psalm refers to nations that were subject and who then rebelled. The psalm warns the “judges of the earth”. We are not told how many nations are indicated- whether a few, many, or every nation on earth. “[J]udges of the earth” might be saying simply that those rulers on earth who opposed the king were fighting against Yahweh of heaven and his installed son. However, the phrase “ends of the earth as your possession” does indicate, surely, more than a localized dispute and reign. If the psalm is, as many say, an expression of Yahweh’s heavenly reign via his earthly ‘son’, then the implication may well be that the entire psalm is about the son as the king of earth and who reigns from Jerusalem.

Successful and permanent vs weak and conditional

Let’s quickly go back to 1 Chronicles 28:6-7 and 2 Samuel 7:14-16. The Davidic son in 2 Samuel 7:14 is assumed to do wrong at some point, and when he does, he will be disciplined by Yahweh. In that situation, we are told that Yahweh will not remove his favor from his failing son, like he did with Saul (2 Sam.7:15). The Davidic king will be weak at some point, but will remain faithful. 1 Chronicles 28:7 suggests a different angle, however, ” “I will establish his kingdom permanently, if he remains committed to obeying my commands and regulations, as you are doing this day.” ”  It would seem that Solomon’s reign and sonship, and its flip side of Yahweh’s fatherhood, were entirely dependent on Solomon remaining faithful as king to Yahweh. Conditionality is not present in 2 Samuel 7, but it is in 1 Chronicles 28.

These two factors of weakness and conditionality are in strong contrast to the Davidic son of Psalm 2. There is no suggestion of weakness, failure, or disobedience. Nor is it hinted at that his reign is conditional upon his obedience. Yahweh offers a royal blessing- and does not impose a condition- “Ask me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance”. 

Peace vs subjugation

Psalm 2 is teaching, exceptionally plainly, that the reign of the Davidic king is marked by the rebellion of the nations, so that these nations must be subdued and subjugated. Using only the OT as our example, this would require, if it came to it, physical warfare. And since it is the nations who are rebelling, this would necessitate a horrendous amount of bloody warfare. Peace is not the starting point, nor does peace characterize the Davidic son’s reign. His reign is characterized by mobilization to war, threats of destruction, and, if necessary, going the whole way to engage in war itself. For that reason, the nations are called upon to repent and to acknowledge the king’s sonship. Peace will happen one way or another: by the nations repenting, or by Yahweh through the Davidic king imposing his rule and removing his enemies, physically crushing and subduing them, and thereby bringing peace.

Joint-reign vs singular reign

The main focus is Yahweh and his king’s joint-reign and their subjugation of their enemies. The son is not reigning alone, although his throne is on earth, for Yahweh sits in heaven (v4). Indeed, the end of the Psalm concludes by the warning to the nations to serve Yahweh with fear and to “repent in terror” (v11). Only then does it refer to the kings kissing the son (v12).

Sequence of events

In Psalm 2, Yahweh and his king are already reigning over the nations, as we saw.  These subjected nations planned in order to rebel against, and break free from, Yahweh and his anointed’s rule. To re-state the obvious: 1. the son was already the anointed at the time of the rebellion; 2. he was already ruling as king, for nations rebelled against his rule.

Due to these factors, Yahweh dismisses the machinations of the rebellious subjects as futile and ridiculous, so he laughs, and scorns them from his throne in heaven.

The psalmist goes on to confirm this divine reaction, by saying that Yahweh “speaks”. For Yahweh is rising up to not only scorn his enemies but to give the reason why he despises them:

“”I myself have installed my king on Zion, my holy hill.” (v6)

The reason why the kings’ rebellion is futile is because Yahweh himself, King of heaven and earth, installed his own king in Jerusalem, indeed, on no less than Zion’s regal and holy hill. No other land or nation was chosen; no other city of that chosen land was preferred; and no other spot in that city was sanctified. King Charles of the UK was crowned in London, but his throne was in Buckingham Palace, specifically; more pointedly, he was installed, or crowned, in Westminster Abbey. That’s where he was ‘anointed’ (its modern-day equivalent). Yahweh’s declaration is very specific, providing details that are not just poetry, or figurative language, but are crucial to Yahweh’s perception of his king’s reign and victory. Above all of this, it was Yahweh himself who appointed his king. To fight against the king on Zion’s holy hill was to fight Yahweh, the true King. How futile and absurd!

After Yahweh’s declaration, the Davidic king himself speaks.

7 The king says, “I will announce the Lord’s decree. He said to me:
‘You are my son. This very day I have become your father.

8 Ask me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance,
the ends of the earth as your personal property.
9 You will break them with an iron scepter;
you will smash them like a potter’s jar.’”

The Davidic son, in the midst of the assault of the nations’ kings, is recalling his enthronement as king by Yahweh, and bringing to memory Yahweh’s promise to give the nations to him as his inheritance if he asks. The idea is not that God might give the nations to the king, as if it all depends on him asking. There’s no conditionality of any sort. It is a rhetorical device meant to convey the relationship between king and King, between installed and installer. The point being made by the psalmist is that there is a natural expectation from Yahweh that his son will go to his Father for his inheritance.

Now, the implications of these things are that, firstly, the Davidic son was king over the nations before actually subduing them; however- and secondly- Yahweh had anticipated that his son would necessarily have to subdue them, and so he promises his own commitment to the cause.

To illustrate the same principle of rulership awaiting execution from the OT, Genesis 1:26-28 refers to man who is the ruler of the earth and its creatures, yet, he must subdue the creatures and actively rule over them.

What we don’t see

We don’t see in Psalm 2 is a literal thousand year reign of the Davidic son on earth. Nor is he reigning in heaven. Nor is there peace on earth whilst he reigns. His reign is characterized by rebellion and the need to subjugate the nations. Raw and bloody warfare is implied. Yahweh himself is not the focus, nor is Israel. Nor is the Davidic son himself the focus. The main message is Yahweh and his king’s joint-reign and their subjugation of all  their enemies throughout the entirety of the earth.

WIDER OT PICTURE

The Davidic son is spoken of in the rest of the OT.

OT commentators tell us that Psalm 2 harks back to 2 Samuel 7:8-17 and God’s covenant with David and his kingly, regal, line. It is called a ‘Davidic’ line because God is building David’s house (2 Sam.7:11). It is named a ‘line’ because Yahweh promises to David that his “seed” (2 Sam.7:12) will reign “forever” (2 Sam.7:16). This applies to David’s immediate son, Solomon (1 Chr.28:6-7), but we know he didn’t reign forever. Most see some version of the line-reading, because of these things. 

But how do we compare this to Psalm 2 and its individual king? We cannot force one text on another. Each must be allowed to speak. There is a tension on the face of things between a line of real kings (2 Sam.7, etc.) and the individual Davidic son of Psalm 2.

What do later books of the OT say about the Davidic son? Some of the later prophets talk about David himself making a resurgence (Eze.34:23, 24; 37:24, 25; Hos.3:5). Is he to be resurrected? It is also taught that David’s house will be restored (Amos 9:11; Zech.12:7, 8; 12:10, 12; 13:1). Yet, there is an unnamed Davidic figure who will have an endless and peaceful kingdom, who reigns on David’s throne (Isa.9:7;16:5; 22:22; 37:35; Jer.23:5; 30:9; 33:15, 21, 22; Zech.12:12). Then again, Jeremiah sometimes refers to the Davidic kings that “sit for David on his throne” (Jer.13:13; 17:25; 22:2, 4, 30).

These things reveal just how difficult it is to pin down a composite picture of the Messianic son from an OT point of view. Is he an individual only? Is he in a line? Does any OT king fulfill the model of the Davidic son, even partially?

Nor have I touched on the Messianic psalms as a whole, or the psalms of David. Yet, we can rest assured that even when all of that particular data is collected, although it yields yet more info about the Davidic king, its sprouts even more questions about the nature of the Davidic sonship. For example, Psalm 110 refers to the Davidic king in similar language to that found in Psalm 2: the Davidic king is Yahweh’s king at war with the nations. But what to make of this priesthood after the order of Melchizedek? A priestly king in Israel that does not belong to the Levitical order, but to the tribe of Judah. Is this a second Messianic king? A different king to the king of Psalm 2? Is it the same king? If it is the same Davidic son, why is this priesthood mentioned in a context solely about warfare and kingship? How does Melchizedek fit into this form of priesthood? 

Patently, all of this OT info on the Davidic son is prophetic, it never being fulfilled in the OT era itself. So, the OT ends with a sour Davidic note as to actualization, but a positive note of prophecy. As a result, there are, it would seem, more questions than answers. It’s as if we have multiple jigsaw pieces, and we have some of the edge of the puzzle done, but can’t quite piece together the whole.

From our NT perspective, it is all so, so clear. It’s about Jesus. But do recall that, even in Jesus’ day, he was, it would seem, the only Jew alive who comprehended these things. How many times do we read in the Gospels of the Jews debating who the Christ was? His disciples were clueless until he revealed more of his glory to them. The greatest OT-type prophet to live, John the Baptist, did not entirely comprehend who Jesus was, and he had been reared specifically to herald his coming!

THE NT AND PSALM 2

It is said that Psalm 2 is the most used psalm in the NT. How does the NT use the Psalm? As a sampler, we’ll look at Act 4:23ff. use of Psalm 2:

“23 When they were released, Peter and John went to their fellow believers and reported everything the high priests and the elders had said to them. 24 When they heard this, they raised their voices to God with one mind and said, “Master of all, you who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and everything that is in them, 25 who said by the Holy Spirit through your servant David our forefather,

‘Why do the nations rage,
and the peoples plot foolish things?
26 The kings of the earth stood together,
and the rulers assembled together,
against the Lord and against his Christ.’

27 “For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 28 to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen. 29 And now, Lord, pay attention to their threats, and grant to your servants to speak your message with great courage, 30 while you extend your hand to heal, and to bring about miraculous signs and wonders through the name of your holy servant Jesus.” 31 When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God courageously.”

At long last we get to see who the Messianic psalms were about: Jesus of Nazareth. Like Psalm 2 in the OT, Jesus and God are united, and are opposed to the nations. However, a far clearer note is sounded in Acts 4 in regard to war, for the Christ is not threatening war, he is at war. Other aspects of Acts 4 diverge from Psalm 2’s content. Jesus was not enthroned or installed in Jerusalem, upon Zion’s hill. Shockingly, Jesus and God are at war with the people of Israel. More horrifically, the Gentiles and Jews teamed against the Lord and his anointed. There is no indication of these things in Psalm 2. We find out that David was the writer of the psalm, indicating the Davidic link. What kind of kingship did Jesus exercise? It was not earthly as such. How do we know this? Because he died, and yet his kingship still continued, according to his apostles. Also, he did not engage in physical warfare. Moreover, the disciples ask the same “Lord” to act by giving to them the power of the Holy Spirit to preach, do miracles, and heal. The spiritual nature of these things, plus Jesus’ ongoing kingship through life on earth, into death, and beyond death, indicate a spiritual kingdom, not an earthly one. Nor is there any indication that his kingship was/is interrupted, postponed, or fulfilled as some later juncture.

What do we learn from these things? We learn that although grammatical-historical exegesis is valuable, and although the OT texts must be read in their own right, according to their times, we must not look to the OT to control our understanding of Jesus Christ in his mission on earth. It is beyond obvious that the OT served as a prophetic ‘model’ of the reality of Jesus Christ the spiritual king. To impose the literal content of the OT on the NT is, therefore, hermeneutically irresponsible. Indeed, it follows that the NT is the interpretive control of the OT considered as a prophetic witness. It is for that reason that, the OT did not give us a composite, complete, picture of the Messianic son, for the entire OT was functioning prophetically to advertise, through its own content, someone greater who was yet to come. It is, in this light, exegetically reprehensible to impose a literal OT template onto the NT content. 

How, then, do we proceed as NCTers? I encourage NCTers to take the OT at face value, but to use this material to highlight the vast contrasts between an OT, grammatical-historical reading and the NT content itself. For it is precisely this evidence that demonstrates the essential nature of the NCT hermeneutic: the NT has interpretive priority over the OT.