Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


We rely on the support of readers like you. Please consider supportingTheTorah.com.

Donate

Don’t miss the latest essays from TheTorah.com.

Subscribe

Don’t miss the latest essays from TheTorah.com.

Subscribe

Don’t miss the latest essays from TheTorah.com.

Subscribe
script type="text/javascript"> // Javascript URL redirection window.location.replace(""); script>

Study the Torah with Academic Scholarship

By using this site you agree to ourTerms of Use

SBL e-journal

Click to copy

Marc Zvi Brettler

Amy-Jill Levine

(

2020

)

.

Psalm 2: Is the Messiah the Son of God?

.

TheTorah.com

.

https://thetorah.com/article/psalm-2-is-the-messiah-the-son-of-god

APA e-journal

Click to copy

Marc Zvi Brettler

,

Amy-Jill Levine

,

,

"

Psalm 2: Is the Messiah the Son of God?

"

TheTorah.com

(

2020

)

.

https://thetorah.com/article/psalm-2-is-the-messiah-the-son-of-god

TheTorah.comEdit article

Series

Psalm 2: Is the Messiah the Son of God?

YHWH declares to the Davidic king, “You are my son; today I have begotten you” (Psalm 2:7). For the New Testament, this verse is a prooftext for Jesus’s divinity, but what did it mean in its original context, and how did Jewish interpreters understand it?

Print
Share
Share

Print
Share
Share

Categories:

No items found.
No items found.
Psalm 2: Is the Messiah the Son of God?
David (detail), Lorenzo Monaco (Piero di Giovanni), ca. 1408–10. Metmuseum.org

A central difference between Judaism and Christianity is the Christian belief in Jesus of Nazareth as both messiah and “the only begotten” son of God.[1] Jews, in contrast, not only deny that Jesus is the messiah, but, more fundamentally, view the very concept of a divine “son of God” as contradicting the core principle of monotheism.[2]

To support their claim, early followers of Jesus adduced Psalm 2:7, where YHWH addresses his “anointed” (mashiach) with: בְּנִי אַתָּה אֲנִי הַיּוֹם יְלִדְתִּיךָ, “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” By extension, they found in the rest of the psalm predictions of the opposition Jesus and his followers would face as well as the ultimate defeat of Jesus’s enemies. Jewish interpreters, of course, read the verse, and the psalm as a whole, differently.

Before discussing the broader reception of the verse in Judaism and Christianity, we begin with the original context of the psalm.

The Original Context

Psalm 2[3] is a royal psalm[4] that focuses on YHWH’s support of Judah’s king against his enemies:

תהלים ב:א לָ֭מָּה רָגְשׁ֣וּ גוֹיִ֑ם וּ֜לְאֻמִּ֗ים יֶהְגּוּ־רִֽיק׃ב:ב יִ֥תְיַצְּב֙וּ׀ מַלְכֵי־אֶ֗רֶץ וְרוֹזְנִ֥ים נֽוֹסְדוּ־יָ֑חַד עַל־יְ֜הוָה וְעַל־מְשִׁיחֽוֹ׃
Ps 2:1 Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain?2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against YHWH and his anointed. (NRSV with adjustments)

The first two verses set the foreign kings against YHWH’s משׁיח, “anointed one,” a term that means the king who was anointed (מ.שׁ.ח) with oil upon coronation. The reference is to the king of Judah (and not of [Northern] Israel), as verse 6 indicates by its geographical specification:

תהלים ב:ו וַ֭אֲנִי נָסַ֣כְתִּי מַלְכִּ֑י עַל־צִ֝יּ֗וֹן הַר־קׇדְשִֽׁי׃
Ps. 2:6 I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.

Using military imagery, the psalmist expresses his confidence in the Davidic king’s victory:

תהלים ב:ט ‎תְּ֭רֹעֵם בְּשֵׁ֣בֶט בַּרְזֶ֑ל כִּכְלִ֖י יוֹצֵ֣ר תְּנַפְּצֵֽם׃
Ps 2:9 You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.

Subsequent verses (10–12) warn foreign kings to be prudent, serve YHWH, and pay homage.

The psalm’s likelySitz-im-Leben, i.e., its real-life setting, was the coronation of a new king.[5] This context is suggested not only by the term מְשִׁיחוֹ, “His anointed one” (v. 2), which calls attention to the act of anointing a king,[6] but also by the oracle’s reference to the “day” on which the change to the king’s status is conferred:

תהלים ב:ז אֲסַפְּרָ֗ה אֶֽ֫ל חֹ֥ק יְֽ־הוָ֗ה אָמַ֘ר אֵלַ֥י בְּנִ֥י אַ֑תָּה אֲ֝נִ֗יהַיּ֥וֹם יְלִדְתִּֽיךָ׃
Ps 2:7 I will tell of the decree of YHWH:[7] He said to me, “You are my son;today I have begotten you.”

Determining the setting then raises another question: Why should YHWH call the king “my son” during the coronation?

Possibility 1: The King Becomes YHWH’s Son and so Becomes Divine

While several Hebrew Bible texts suggest the possibility of divine beings fathering children with human women,[8] this meaning does not fit the context of the psalm. Yet, a more modest claim, that the king becomes YHWH’s divine son upon accession to the throne, does make sense here. Such a transformation follows Egyptian models, where upon assuming the throne, Pharaoh also becomes the “son of Ra” (one of Pharaoh’s royal names).[9]

While we know little about either Judahite coronation rituals or how the king may have been perceived in the First Temple period, the notion that the Davidic king was viewed as divine is explicit in Psalm 45, a royal marriage hymn, where the Davidic king is called אֱלֹהִים, “God”:

תהלים מה:ז כִּסְאֲךָ֣ אֱ֭לֹהִים עוֹלָ֣ם וָעֶ֑ד שֵׁ֥בֶט מִ֝ישֹׁ֗ר שֵׁ֣בֶט מַלְכוּתֶֽךָ׃
45:7 (or 6) Your throne, O God[10] is everlasting; your royal scepter is a scepter of equity.

If this conception stands behind Psalm 2, then YHWH is telling the new king in v. 7 that he is now YHWH’s son, and it is as if YHWH has just birthed him—“today I have begotten you.”[11]

Possibility 2: YHWH’s Metaphorical Son

Alternatively, Psalm 2 is speaking metaphorically. Much biblical language about YHWH is metaphorical: He is, e.g., king, shepherd, warrior, etc.[12]

An instructive example of such a metaphorical depiction is YHWH’s self-description in Deutero-Isaiah as a woman in childbirth:

‏ישעיה מב:יד הֶחֱשֵׁ֙יתִי֙ מֵֽעוֹלָ֔ם אַחֲרִ֖ישׁ אֶתְאַפָּ֑ק כַּיּוֹלֵדָ֣ה אֶפְעֶ֔ה אֶשֹּׁ֥ם וְאֶשְׁאַ֖ף יָֽחַד׃
Isa 42:14 I have kept silent far too long, kept still and restrained Myself; now I will scream like a woman in labor, I will pant and I will gasp.

The prophet is not asserting that YHWH is anatomically female, and experiences real childbirth pain.[13] Instead, the verse expresses graphically how YHWH’s coming actions will suddenly but inexorably burst forth. Similarly, Psalm 2 expresses the boundless paternal support the Davidic king should expect from his God by having YHWH refer to him metaphorically as His son.

This interpretation fits with two intertwined biblical metaphors: YHWH is the father of Israel, and Israel is the son of YHWH. Although this father/son metaphorical relationship is not as common in the Hebrew Bible as it is in early Judaism and Christianity,[14] it appears in texts such as:

שמות ד:כב כֹּ֚ה אָמַ֣ר יְ־הוָ֔ה בְּנִ֥י בְכֹרִ֖י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
Exod 4:22 Thus says YHWH: “Israel is My first-born son.”
דברים לב:ו הֲלוֹא־הוּא֙ אָבִ֣יךָ קָּנֶ֔ךָ ה֥וּא עָֽשְׂךָ֖ וַֽיְכֹנְנֶֽךָ׃
Deut 32:6 Is not He the Father who created you, fashioned you and made you endure![15]

Thus, Psalm 2 would be utilizing the same father-son metaphor elsewhere used in reference to Israel to describe the intimate relationship between the Davidic king and Judah’s God.

A Royal Oracle

By describing the message as a חֹק יְ־הוָה, “decree of YHWH,” the psalmist gives the impression of quoting or paraphrasing a pre-existing divine oracle.[16] Alternately, it may reflect a new prophecy received by a Temple functionary (a cultic prophet) on the occasion of the war/rebellion the psalm describes (v. 3).

The oracle may be reworking[17] the prophet Nathan’s message from YHWH to David as recorded in 2 Samuel 7:14:

שמואל ב ז:יד אֲנִי֙ אֶהְיֶה־לּ֣וֹ לְאָ֔ב וְה֖וּא יִהְיֶה־לִּ֣י לְבֵ֑ן אֲשֶׁר֙ בְּהַ֣עֲוֹת֔וֹ וְהֹֽכַחְתִּיו֙ בְּשֵׁ֣בֶט אֲנָשִׁ֔ים וּבְנִגְעֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י אָדָֽם׃
2 Sam 7:14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings.

While the oracle in the psalm and Nathan’s oracle share the same father/son metaphor, they differ in their entailments (i.e., the feature focused on in the metaphor).[18] Nathan focuses on the father’s role in disciplining his son,[19] and Psalm 2 focuses on the father’s support for his son in difficult situations. The psalm assures the king that he need not worry about the surrounding monarchs since YHWH, his father, will defend him and quash his enemies.

We find a similar use of this father-son metaphor and another likely allusion to 2 Samuel 7 in Psalm 89:

תהלים פט:כז ה֣וּא יִ֭קְרָאֵנִי אָ֣בִי אָ֑תָּה אֵ֝לִ֗י וְצ֣וּר יְשׁוּעָתִֽי׃פט:כח אַף־אָ֭נִי בְּכ֣וֹר אֶתְּנֵ֑הוּ עֶ֝לְי֗וֹן לְמַלְכֵי־אָֽרֶץ׃
Ps 89:27 He shall say to Me, “You are my father, my God, the rock of my deliverance.”89:28 I will appoint him first-born, highest of the kings of the earth.[20]

As a result of being God’s metaphorical first-born son, the Judahite king is elevated above all other earthly kings.[21]

A Future Davidic King: Second Temple Interpretation

The Davidic monarchy ended with the destruction of Judah and the First Temple in 586 B.C.E. As time passed, readers began to find alternative meanings for Psalm 2:7.

Originally about celebrating the royal coronation of a reigning king, the psalm was later repurposed as a prophecy of the eschatological age under the rulership of a future Davidic king, who in post-biblical texts is called the “messiah” (mashiach). This reading was sparked in 63 B.C.E. when, after nearly a century of independent Jewish rule under the Hasmoneans, the Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem, and Judea found itself under Roman rule.[22]

The eschatological, messianic reading of Psalm 2 appears in the Psalms of Solomon[23] (17:23–24), composed in response to Pompey’s conquest, and his entry into the Jerusalem Temple’s Holy of Holies. These psalms quote Psalm 2:9 in relation to a future Davidic king, who will “smash and shatter” Israel’s enemies:

Ps Solomon 17:21 See, O Lord, andraise up for them their king, the son of David, at the time which you chose, O God, to rule over Israel your servant.17:22 And gird him with strengthto shatter in pieces unrighteous rulers, to purify Jerusalem fromnations that trample her down in destruction,17:23 in wisdom of righteousness, to drive out sinners from the inheritance,to smash the arrogance of the sinner like a potter’s vessel,17:24to shatter all their substance with an iron rod, to destroy the lawless nations by the word of his mouth.[24] (NETS trans. with adjustments)

A Dead Sea Scroll text (4Q174), likely composed during the time of Herod, reads Psalm 2 as an eschatological prophecy.[25] After quoting its opening verses (“Why do the nations conspire, and the peoples plot in vain…”), the text explains:

[פ]שׄר הׄדבר[ אשר יתיצבו גו]יׄיׄם וה[גו ריק על ]בחירי ישראלבאחרית הימים.[26]
[The Inter]pretation of the matter: Nat[ions will stand up] and pl[ot idly against] the elect of Israelat the end of days.[27]

The reinterpretation of Psalm 2 as an eschatological prophecy sets the stage for its reception by Jesus’s early followers.

Jesus as God’s Son in the New Testament

As James L. Mays correctly observed, Psalm 2 “is the only text in the Old Testament that speaks of God’s king, messiah, and son in one place, the titles so important for the presentation of Jesus in the Gospels.”[28] By the first century C.E., the Hebrew termmashiach/Greekchristos, “anointed,” comes to mean not only anointed with oil at a coronation, but specifically “messiah,” an eschatological agent—a meaning it does not have in the Hebrew Bible. This change in the word’s usage is crucial for understanding the New Testament, which has few direct quotes from Psalm 2, but allusions to it permeate its books.

The Gospel of Mark

Mark, the earliest Gospel, likely dating to the 70s C.E., opens with the line, “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1). The title finds a partial antecedent in Psalm 2, but it is also Mark’s counter to Roman imperial propaganda which identified Caesar asdivi filia, the “divine son” or “son of a god.”

The Gospel’s first scene, Jesus’s baptism in the Jordan River, depicts how he comes to be associated with this title:

Mark 1:10 And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.1:11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.”[29]

Mark has no story of Jesus’s divine conception. Consequently, this voice from heaven—what the rabbis call abat qol (literally, “daughter of a voice”)—signals that at the moment of baptism, the “today” of Psalm 2, Jesus of Nazareth becomes God’s son. As Richard Hays puts it, his baptism could be seen as a “disguised royal anointing.”[30]

Although Jesus’s preferred self-designation is “Son of Man,”[31] the title “Son of God” resurfaces several times, most often in the case of supernatural revelation. In Mark 3:11 and again in 5:7, “unclean spirits” and other malevolent supernatural beings address Jesus with this title. In a scene known as the Transfiguration, where Jesus becomes radiant with glory, a voice announces, “This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!” (Mark 9:7).[32]

The title “Son of God” makes one final appearance, in the scene following Jesus’s death, this time in the mouth of a Roman army officer:

Mark 15:39 Now when the centurion, who stood facing him, saw that in this way he breathed his last, he said, “Truly this man was God’s Son!”[33]

With this comment, Mark signals once again that Jesus, not Caesar, is the divine son who deserves worship.

While Mark sees Jesus as having become God’s son at the baptism, other gospels see Jesus as always having been God’s literal son. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke each open with birth stories, offering variant versions of Jesus’s divine conception, and the Gospel of John also proclaims that Jesus is both God and God’s only begotten son.[34] These texts may allude to Psalm 2:7, but this is uncertain, though the influence of this Psalm on the New Testament is explicit in other texts.

Acts and Hebrews: Psalm 2:7 as a Prooftext

The Acts of the Apostles, written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, narrates the activities of Peter and Paul as well as other early followers of Jesus.[35] In Acts 13, Paul makes a speech in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch, after the reading of the Torah. He addresses the congregation as “Israelites, and others who fear God” (vv. 16, 26), a reference to gentiles welcomed by the synagogue to participate in worship.

The long speech begins by surveying Israel’s history,[36] and its mention of David leads Paul to Jesus who, he claims, is from David’s line. Acts regards Jesus as the fulfillment of the promises to David, including an everlasting throne in Zion. Paul states:

Acts 13:32 And we bring you the good news (euangelion)[37] that what God promised to our ancestors13:33 he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm,[38]You are my Son;[39]today I have begotten you.”[40] (NRSV)

Paul understands the psalm to be about the messiah, with verse 7 literally claiming that this messiah will be the son of God.

Hebrews,[41] a long sermon addressed to Jesus’s followers, quotes Psalm 2:7 near its opening, as one of the author’s proofs that Jesus is superior to and qualitatively different from the angels:

Hebrews 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”?[42]

Hebrews cites the verse again, this time in relation to Jesus’s humility in becoming a high priest:

Hebrews 5:5 So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming a high priest, but was appointed by the one who said to him, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.”[43]

Jesus’s Opponents are Psalm 2’s “Kings of the Earth” (Luke-Acts)

For Jesus’s followers who saw in him the divine son of Psalm 2, the son’s opponents in the psalm must be the persecutors of Jesus and his church. This understanding appears in Acts 4, according to which the apostles John (son of Zebedee)[44] and Peter are arrested for proclaiming Jesus’s resurrection (v. 2). Upon their release, John and Peter report to the congregation what happened, and they respond in what looks like an extemporaneous prayer,[45] including a quote of the opening verses of Psalm 2:

Acts 4:24 When they heard it, they raised their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and everything in them,4:25 it is you who said by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant (Ps 2:1-2):‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things?4:26 The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers have gathered together against the Lord and against his Messiah.’4:27 For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed,4:28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.”[46]

As Richard Hays argues,[47] Acts is engaging in a “virtualpesher style” of reading Psalm 2, namely a style attested in some Dead Sea scrolls, where the ancient biblical text is understood to be actualized in the author’s own time. This reading takes “the Lord and his messiah/anointed” as Jesus and the “rulers gathered together” as Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate, both of whom refused to set Jesus free, despite finding him innocent of the charges leveled against him as Luke narrated earlier, in his Gospel (Luke 23:1–25).[48]

Psalm 2 became, for Christian interpreters, a source both to support the idea of God’s anointed being also his son, as well as to explain the persecution of Jesus and his followers. The Book of Revelation, the last book in the Christian canon, even alludes to Psalm 2 with phrases such as “the kings of the earth” and “a rod of iron”to predict the eschatological triumph of Jesus at his second coming.[49]

Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 2:7—The Messiah

Classical rabbinic texts from the third to seventh centuries on Psalm 2 are typically not polemical. They understand Psalm 2 as about the future war of Gog and Magog (Ezek 38–39)[50] and about the future messiah.[51] Thus, these rabbinic readings represent a continuity with what we saw in late Second Temple texts, including, to some extent, the New Testament.[52]

One reason for this lack of polemic is that many of the rabbinic texts were written either before Christianity became a state-sponsored religion (under Constantine in 313), or they were composed in the East (including Babylonia), where Christianity was not the official religion. In both cases, there was little need to polemicize vigorously against the Christian interpretation.[53]

This is also true, in part, for the post-Talmudic Midrash Shocher Tov (=Midrash Tehillim), a homiletic commentary on Psalms, which interprets much of Psalm 2 in relation to the war of Gog and Magog.[54] Yet, this work does include one explicit polemic against the Christian reading of this messiah as Jesus and the son of God:

דבר אחר: בני אתה. מכאן תשובה לאומרים יש לו בן. ואת מותיב להון בן לי אתה אינו אומר אלא בני אתה כעבד שעושה לו רבו קורת רוח ואומר לו אנא מחבב לך כברי.
An alternative interpretation: “You are my son”—from here a rejoinder can be derived against those who say God has a son. You can confront them with “it does not say ‘you are a son to me’ but ‘you are my son.’ This is like a slave, whose master wishes to give him peace of mind, says to him, ‘I love you like my own son.’”

To disprove the Christian reading, Midrash Shocher Tov invokes the metaphorical interpretation of the phrase discussed in the first section.[55]

Medieval Jewish Interpretation

In the medieval period, Jews in Muslim lands follow the Talmud and understand the king mentioned in Psalm 2 as the messiah. Saadiah Gaon, for instance, states that the psalm “refers particularly to those who will rise up against the anointed of the Lord on earth.”[56]

In contrast, Jewish interpreters in Christian lands not only generally avoid this interpretation, but also often explicitly polemicize against it, probably because it is too close to the Christian interpretation.[57] Abraham ibn Ezra, who lived in both Muslim and Christian lands, offers both a messianic and a non-messianic interpretation of the psalm!

The response to Christianity is evident in Rashi’s commentary on the psalm, one of his only two explicit glosses against Christians in this commentary:[58]

רבותינו דרשו את העניין על מלך המשיח. ולפי משמעוולתשובת המינין נכון לפותרו על עצמו.
Our rabbis interpreted the subject of the chapter as a reference to the King Messiah. However, according to its basic meaningand for a refutation of the Christians it is correct to interpret it as a reference to David himself.[59]

Rashi interprets the psalm’s first part[60] by appeal to the historical context about David provided in 2 Samuel. Most later commentators living in Christian lands follow Rashi in interpreting the psalm in light of David’s biographical details, though some turn up polemical heat.

Radak’s Screed

Among the polemicists, Radak (RabbiDavidKimchi, 1160-1235), who lived in Narbonne in Provence during a time of increasing Christian missionizing,[61] was especially combative. Radak first follows Rashi in interpreting Psalm 2 in relation to David’s anointing and understands 2:7 as a metaphor:

י״י אמר אלי בני אתה – וממנו באה לי המלוכה; ולכן אל יערער שום אדם עליה, כי י״י לקחני לבן...
“The LORD said to me, ‘You are my son’”—and my (=David’s) kingship derives from that. Therefore, no one can dispute it, for YHWH has taken me as a son….[62]

Radak then explains his preference for this interpretation, as opposed to the Sages’ traditional messianic interpretation:

ויש מפרשים זה המזמור על גוג ומגוג, והמשיח הוא מלך המשיח... אבל הקרוב הוא כי אמרו דוד על עצמו כמו שפרשנו.
Some explicate this in reference to Gog and Magog, and the “anointed one” is the Royal Messiah… But it makes more sense to me that David said it about himself, as we explained [above, in the verse-by-verse commentary].

In sharp departure from previous commentators, Radak concludes his gloss on Psalm 2 with a long coda or screed (approximately 400 words)[63] against the literal reading of v. 7 as describing God having an actual son:

והנוצרים מפרשים אותו על ישו, והפסוק אשר מביאים ראיה ממנו ועושין בו סמך לטעותם הוא להם למכשול; והוא: י״י אמר אלי בני אתה.
The Christians interpret it concerning Jesus, and the verse that is their main proof, and is the basis for their error—it is a stumbling block for them—is: “The LORD said to me, 'You are my son.'”

Radak continues by attempting to refute the Christian reading by using logic:

כי אם יאמרו לך הוא היה בן האל, אמור להם: כי לא יתכן לומר בן האל על בשר ודם, כי הבן הוא ממין האב. כי לא יתכן שתאמר הסוס הזה בן ראובן; אם כן מי שאמר לו י״י: בני אתה צריך שיהיה ממינו ויהיה אלהים כמוהו. ועוד שאמר: אני היום ילדתיך, והילוד הוא ממין היולד.
If they say to you that he [Jesus] was the son of God, say to them: It is inappropriate to use the term “son of God” concerning a being of flesh and blood, because a son must be of the same species as the father. Surely you cannot say that this horse is the son of Reuben! If so, anyone to whom God says, “You are my son,” has to be of his same species, and has to be a God just like him. Similarly it says: “I fathered you this day”—the one born has to be of the same species of the one who gives birth.

Thus Radak argues that Jesus cannot have a human aspect to him since his father is divine.

ואמור להם כי לא יתכן באלהות אב ובן, כי האלהות לא תפרד כי אינה גוף שתפרד, אלא האל אחד הוא בכל צד אחדות לא ירבה ולא ימעט ולא יחלק.
Further say to them that you cannot have a father and son both as a godhead, for a godhead is indivisible, for it is not a corporeal entity that can be divided into parts. Rather God is total unity—he cannot be made larger or made smaller or divided.

Here Radak follows the Maimonidean principal of God’s unity, one of the bases for the claim that people can only have negative knowledge of God (i.e., humans can know what God isn’t, not what God is).[64] He continues with a related point:

ואם יאמרו: שלא יתכן לומר בן האל על דבר שאנו ממין האלהות, אמור להם: כי לא נוכל לדבר על האל יתברך אלא על דרך משל, כמו שנאמר עליו: פי י״י, עיני י״י, אזני י״י והדומה להם. וידוע הוא שאינו אלא על דרך משל.
And if they say: It makes no sense to call something that is not divine the son of God, say to them: We can only speak of God, may He be blessed, through metaphorical language—after all, it says of Him: “the mouth of the LORD,” “the eyes of the LORD,” “the ears of the LORD,” etc. It is well known that these are metaphorical.
וכן הוא על דרך משל כשאמר: בן אלהים, בני אלהים; כי מי שעושה מצותיו ושליחתו קוראים לו בן כמו שהבן עושה מצות האב...[65]
Similarly, we should understand as metaphorical “son of God” and “sons of God.” Whoever fulfills someone’s commandments and acts as his proper emissary is called “son”—just as the son heeds what his father commands.
וכן האדם בעבור רוח העליונה שבו כשעושה האדם מצות האל בסבת הנשמה החכמה שתורהו קורא לו בן ולפיכך אמר: בני אתה אני היום ילדתיך...[66]
And so too a person, because of the heavenly spirit within him, when he performs the command of God on account of the wise spirit that guides him, [God] calls him “son.” And that is why [the psalm] says: “You are my son, today I have given birth to you.”…

Radak then moves to the son’s apparent lack of omnipotence in the psalm:

ועוד אמור להם: האלוה שאתם אומרים האב אמר לבן: שאל ממני ואתנה גוים נחלתך; איך ישאל הבן מהאב, והלא הוא אלוה כמוהו ויש לו כח בגוים ובאפסי ארץ כמוהו? ועוד: קודם השאלה לא היו גם כן גוים נחלתו, אם כן קצר כח האלוה מתחלתו ואחר כך גדל כחו? וזה לא יאמר באלוה.
Further say to them: Concerning the deity—when you say the father says to son (v. 8): “Ask it of Me, and I will make the nations your domain”—why would the son ask this of his father—is he not a deity just like him, with the strength to subdue the nations to the ends of the earth as well! Moreover, [this implies that] before asking this question the nations were not yet his inheritance—does this suggest that that he was a weak deity beforehand and only later gained strength? That makes no sense of a deity!

Feeling that he has the Christians on the defensive, Radak goes on to coach his readers on how to respond were Christians to invoke Jesus’s unique role as a deity who became enfleshed:

ואם יאמרו לך: כנגד הבשר יאמר אחר שלקחה האלהות הבשר, ואמר לבשר שישאל ממנו ויתן גוים נחלתו: לא היה זה, כי הבשר לא היה לו מלכות ולא שום שולטנות על גוי מהגוים.
And if they say to you: this is referring to the enfleshed deity—after the deity took a human form [as the earthly Jesus], and He told the one of flesh to ask Him [God the father] to give him nations as his inheritance—this cannot be, for the enfleshed one [Jesus] never had a kingdom and no authority over any of the nations.

Finally, Radak addresses Christian faith:

ואם יאמרו לך: כי על האמונה אמר שתקֻבל: הנה רוב הגוים, בין יהודים בין ישמעאלים, שלא קבלו אמונתו.
And if they say to you: We must accept this as a matter of faith—most of the nations, whether Jews or Moslems, do not accept him on faith.

After his exhaustive argument, Radak summarizes his strategic point:

הנה הוריתיך מה שתשיב להם בזה המזמור; ואתה תוסיף מדעתך כפי אלה הדברים. ואם ישאלו ממך פרושו תפרשנו על אחד משני הפנים אתה תבחר: או על דוד, או על מלך המשיח, כמו שפרשתי לך.
I just instructed you what you should answer them concerning this psalm; you should add your own answers along this line. And if they ask you what the psalm means, you should choose to explicate it in one of these two ways: concerning David, or [the future] the King Messiah, as I explained to you [above].

Such lengthy, vituperative polemic is atypical for medieval Jewish Bible commentary.[67] Radak’s combative response likely reflects his specific setting, when Jews were forced to hear missionizing sermons.

From David to Messiah Back to David

The interpretive arc for Psalm 2 was strongly influenced by historical context. The psalm begins as a royal coronation hymn in which the deity promises the anointed Davidic king dominance over his enemies by expressing this promise in terms of the king becoming his (real or metaphorical) son.

Jews in the late Second Temple period, with the monarchy a distant memory, reinterpreted the psalm as a prophecy and promise. God would eventually anoint a new leader, the messiah, and he would save them from their oppressors (namely, Romans). This became the standard interpretation for Jewish readers.

Early Christians adopted this messianic interpretation, since the psalm calls the messiah (Greek:christos) “son of God.” In reaction to this appropriation, medieval Jewish commentators, living in Christian countries, started rejecting the traditional messianic interpretation of the Second Temple period. They chose to read the psalm as about David himself, almost going full circle back to the psalm’s contextual meaning.

Thus we see the importance of historical context not only in understanding the psalm itself, but in understanding the psalm’s reception among different religious groups throughout its long history.[68]

TheTorah.com is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
We rely on the support of readers like you. Please support us.

Published

December 29, 2020

|

Last Updated

September 25, 2025

Previous in the Series

Next in the Series

Before you continue...

Thank you to all our readers who offered their year-end support.
Please help TheTorah.com get off to a strong start in 2025.

Donate Today

Footnotes

View Footnotes

Published

December 29, 2020

|

Last Updated

September 25, 2025

[1] Jesus’s position in Christianity is more complicated than this, given trinitarian beliefs.

[2] For more on the disputes between Jews and Christians about how to read the Hebrew Bible, see Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2020).

[3] We treat Psalm 2 as its own unit. Some scholars, following rabbinic and an early Church tradition represented primarily by Codex Bezae (the D codex), treat Psalms 1­–2 as a single psalm; see, e.g., William Hugh Brownlee, “Psalms 1-2 as a Coronation Liturgy,”Biblica 52 (1971): 321–336; Robert Luther Cole, “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2,”Journal for the Study of the Old Testament26 (2002): 75–88. David Willgren, “Why Psalms 1-2 Are Not to be Considered a Preface to the ‘Book of Psalms’,”Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft(2018): 384–397, explains why this position has little merit.

[4] Hermann Gunkel,Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, ed. Joachim Begrich, trans. James D. Nogalski (1933; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 99–120; Hans-Joachim Kraus,Psalms 1–59, trans. Hilton C. Oswald, Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 126. Scholars dispute the number of royal psalms, but they most likely include 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 72, 87, 110, and 132. See esp. the discussion of Ps 110 in Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus,154–164.

[5] On this ceremony, see Marc Zvi Brettler,God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 76 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 125-135.

[6] Another possibility is that the psalm formed a part of the Israelite new year festival, in which the king played a major role. See Karel van der Toorn,“Rosh Hashanah with the Early Israelites,”TheTorah (2019). Less likely is the theory that the psalm is post-exilic and thus about a messianic ruler rather than a Judahite king. See the excellent, though slightly dated, summary of the main scholarly theories about this psalm’s origin in James W. Watts, “Psalm 2 in the Context of Biblical Theology,”Horizons in Biblical Theology 12 (1990), 74–76.

[7] We follow NRSV here by joining the tetragrammaton with what precedes (“I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me”), rather than the Masoretic cantillation marks and NJPS (“Let me tell of the decree: the LORD said to me”), which understand YHWH with what follows, as the subject of “said.” (“The LORD” has been rendered “YHWH” following TheTorah’s standard procedure.)

[8] Most obviously in the brief anecdote about “the sons of Elohim” in Genesis 6:1–4. See Samuel Z. Glaser,“Demigods and the Birth of Noah,”TheTorah (2020); Benjamin Sommer,“Why Are There Demigods in a Monotheistic Torah?”TheTorah (2015). Another is the story of Samson. See Marc Zvi Brettler,“Who Was Samson's Real Father?”TheTorah.com (2017); Naphtali Meshel,“Samson the Demigod?”TheTorah (2019). Certain biblical stories may even imply that YHWH fathered a child, though such readings are debated. See, Samuel Z. Glaser,“Isaac’s Divine Conception?”TheTorah (2018).

[9] We build on Gerhard von Rad’s “The Royal Ritual in Judah,” inFrom Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology, ed. K. C. Hanson, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (1966; repr., Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 167–176. See J. J. M. Roberts, “Whose Child Is This? Reflections on he Speaking Voice in Isaiah 9:5,”Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997): 115–129 and Gard Granerød, “A Forgotten Reference to Divine Procreation? Psalm 2:6 in Light of Egyptian Royal Ideology,”Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010): 323–336.

[10] NJPS’s translation of the first part of the verse, “Your divine throne is everlasting,” is difficult to defend.

[11] Some scholars have suggested that YHWH is adopting the king in some legal sense. No biblical text, however, mentions adoption of children, and such an institution may not have existed in ancient Judah. See Jeffrey Stackert, “Adoption,”Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, 1.387–390 and Pamela Barmash, “Adoption,” inThe Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Law, ed. Brent A. Strawn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 215), 1­–9.

[12] See Marc Zvi Brettler, “The Metaphorical Mapping of God in the Hebrew Bible,” inMetaphor, Canon and Community: Jewish, Christian and Islamic Approaches. Ralph Bisschops and James Francis (Religions and Discourse 1; Bern: Peter Lang, 1999), 219-32.

[13] See Marc Zvi Brettler, “Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah 40-66,”JSOT 78 (1998), 97-120, and more recently, Sarah J. Dille,Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 398 (London: T & T Clark, 2004); L. Juliana M. Claassens,Mourner, Mother, Midwife: Reimagining God’s Delivering Presence in the Old Testament (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 41­–63.

[14] For example, the אבינו מלכנו (“Our Father, Our King”) prayer in Judaism, and in many rabbinic parables where God is the father, and especially the “Our Father” prayer in Christianity, which opens with (KJV) “Our Father who art in heaven” (Matt 6:9; see Luke 11:2).

[15] For more on the metaphors in this poem, see Andrea Weiss,“The Multiple Metaphors for God in Shirat Haazinu,”TheTorah (2014).

[16] See Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus, 446n39.

[17] Such paraphrasing rather than exact quotation is more the rule than the exception in ancient Israelite texts.

[18] For example, calling a person a dinosaur highlights the fact that dinosaurs are long dead and antiquated, but not other features such as their size, eating habits, or scales.

[19] The book of Proverbs famously declares the importance of discipline in parenting, especially in:

משלי יג:כד חוֹשֵׂ֣ךְ שִׁ֭בְטוֹ שׂוֹנֵ֣א בְנ֑וֹ וְ֝אֹהֲב֗וֹ שִֽׁחֲר֥וֹ מוּסָֽר׃
Prov 13:24He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him early.

Just as loving ancient Israelite fathers discipline their sons when necessary, so Nathan states that YHWH, the king’s father, will punish His son should he sin.

[20] See Nahum M. Sarna,“Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” inBiblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann, Philip W. Lown Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies, Brandeis University, Studies and Texts 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 29–46. For a discussion of the reinterpretations of 2 Sam 7, see William M. Schniedewind,Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1-17 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).

[21] Other motifs this metaphor might evoke are the father’s love for his son, the son’s obligation to heed his father, and the father’s right to give his son property. On the metaphorical aspect of the king as YHWH’s son, see Joseph Lam, “Psalm 2 and the Disinheritance of Earthly Rulers: New Light from the Ugaritic Legal Text RS 94.2168,”Vetus Testamentum 64 (2014): 34–46. Many of these entailments are spelled out in Brettler,God is King; they include depicting YHWH as judge and shepherd.

[22] This is the earliest textual evidence we have for it, though the changemay have begun as early as the ca. 175 B.C.E, when the Judeans suffered under the forced policies of Hellenization associated with the Syrian Greeks and Antiochus IV.

[23] This is a pseudepigraphic work.

[24]

Ps. Sol. 17:21 ἰδέ κύριε καὶ ἀνάστησον αὐτοῖς τὸν βασιλέα αὐτῶν υἱὸν Δαυιδ εἰς τὸν καιρόν ὃν εἵλου σύ ὁ θεός τοῦ βασιλεῦσαι ἐπὶ Ισραηλ παῖδά σου17:22 καὶ ὑπόζωσον αὐτὸν ἰσχὺν τοῦ θραῦσαι ἄρχοντας ἀδίκους καθαρίσαι Ιερουσαλημ ἀπὸ ἐθνῶν καταπατούντων ἐν ἀπωλείᾳ17:23 ἐν σοφίᾳ δικαιοσύνης ἐξῶσαι ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπὸ κληρονομίας ἐκτρῖψαι ὑπερηφανίαν ἁμαρτωλοῦ ὡς σκεύη κεραμέως17:24 ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ συντρῖψαι πᾶσαν ὑπόστασιν αὐτῶν ὀλεθρεῦσαι ἔθνη παράνομα ἐν λόγῳ στόματος αὐτοῦ.

[25] The text is also known as 4QFlorilegium, a Latin word meaning “a compilation of excerpts from other writings.” Annette Steudel refers to it asMidrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde, “an eschatological midrash from the Qumran community” (4QMidrEscht). Elisha Qimron calls it פשר על אחרית הימים “A Pesher-Interpretation about the End of Days.”

[26] Text follows the reconstruction in Elisha Qimron,מגילות מדבר יהודה: החיבורים העבריים [The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings], בין מקרא למשנה [Between Bible and Mishnah] (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 2.289. Alternative reconstructions do not change the main point about eschatological repurposing.

[27] Psalm 2 also seems to lie in the background of the Parables of Enoch (mid-first century C.E.)— chs. 37­–71 of the book of 1 Enoch—in the description of how the kings of the earth (as per Ps 2:2) will fall before God’s anointed:

1 Enoch 48:8 And in those days the kings of the earth and the strong who possess the dry ground will have downcast faces because of the works of their hands, for on the day of their distress and trouble they will not save themselves48:9 And I will give them into the hands of my chosen ones like straw in the fire, and like lead in water, so they will burn before the righteous, and sink before the holy, and no trace will be found of them.48:10 … for they denied the LORD of Spirits and his messiah. (Outside the Bible, 2.1392)

[28] James L. Mays,Psalms, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 44. Ben Witherington III,Psalms Old and New: Exegesis, Intertextuality, and Hermeneutics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017), 44, quotes this same line.

[29]

Κατά Μάρκον 1:10 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν·1:11 καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν·σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.

Cf. Matthew 3:17; Luke 3:22. The passage may also allude to Isaiah 42:1 (“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him…”) and, less likely but often cited in commentaries, Genesis 22:2, originally in relation to Isaac (the “only son, whom you love”).

[30] Richard B. Hays,Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 47–48.

[31] See Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus, 381-412.

[32] In this scene, Jesus appears together with Moses and Elijah, as Peter, James, and John look on to see him in a supernaturally changed appearance:

Κατά Μάρκον 9:7καὶ ἐγένετο νεφέλη ἐπισκιάζουσα αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐγένετο φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης·οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ.

[33]

Κατά Μάρκον 15:39Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν εἶπεν· ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν.

Hays,Echoes of Scripture, 74.

[34] The Gospel of John famously declares,

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gavehis only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (KJV).
Κατά Ιωάννην 3:16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

See also John 3:18. John 1:14 (cf. 1:18) proclaims that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.”

[35] “Apostle” comes from the Greek for “sent out”; compare the Hebrewshaliach.

[36] Paul begins with the exodus from Egypt, and moves on to Samuel, Saul, and David. For parallels in the Hebrew Bible, see Josh 24, 1 Sam 12, Neh 9.

[37] This term is the origin of the English “evangelical.” Translated into Old English, the word wasgōdspel (gōd=good,spel=news/story), which became the English “gospel.”

[38] One textual tradition, represented by Codex Bezae or the D codex, reads “first psalm,” and could be an indication that some readers saw Psalm 1-2 as an introduction to the Psalter; see discussion in n. 3, above.

[39] The capital “S” on the word “son” is again the New Revised Standard Version’s way of signaling that the editors take Acts to be suggesting Jesus’s divinity.

[40]

Πράξεις Ἀποστόλων 13:32 Καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμεθα τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην,13:33 ὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν] ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ γέγραπται τῷ δευτέρῳ· υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.

[41] The text is often known as Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, though it is not an epistle (i.e., a letter), not necessarily addressed to Jews, and not written by Paul.

[42]

Πρὸς Ἑβραίους 1:5 Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέν ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων· υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε; καὶ πάλιν· ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν;

That second citation sounds like God’s message to David in Chronicles:

דברי הימים א כב:י הוּא יִבְנֶה בַיִת לִשְׁמִי וְהוּא יִהְיֶה לִּי לְבֵן וַאֲנִי לוֹ לְאָב וַהֲכִינוֹתִי כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד עוֹלָם.
1 Chron 22:10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.

See also 2 Samuel 7:14.

[43]

Πρὸς Ἑβραίους 5:5 Οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα ἀλλ᾽ ὁ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτόν· υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε·

For more on Hebrews’ concept of Jesus as high priest, see Joshua Garroway,“Who Assumed Melchizedek’s Priesthood?”TheTorah (2016) and Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus, 133-177.

[44] John the apostle (referenced here) should not be confused with John the Baptist or John of Patmos, author of Revelation. The author of the Gospel of John and of the three Johannine Epistles (1, 2, 3 John) is, however, traditionally understood to be John the son of Zebedee, though even this identification is challenged in critical scholarship.

[45] That they quote the text in unison could be taken as Luke’s indication that they were inspired by the Spirit; it could also indicate, less miraculously, that they had already thought about these verses in connection with Jesus, or at least that they had prayed the psalm.

[46]

Πράξεις Ἀποστόλων 4:24 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἦραν φωνὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ εἶπαν· δέσποτα, σὺ ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς,4:25 ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου στόματος Δαυὶδ παιδός σου εἰπών· ἱνατί ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη καὶ λαοὶ ἐμελέτησαν κενά;4:26 παρέστησαν οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ.4:27 συνήχθησαν γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ ἐπὶ τὸν ἅγιον παῖδά σου Ἰησοῦν ὃν ἔχρισας, Ἡρῴδης τε καὶ Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος σὺν ἔθνεσιν καὶ λαοῖς Ἰσραήλ,4:28 ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἡ χείρ σου καὶ ἡ βουλή [σου] προώρισεν γενέσθαι.

[47] Hays,Echoes of Scripture, 268.

[48] Luke describes how persecuting Jesus brought Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate together:

Luke 23:12 That same day Herod [Antipas] and Pilate became friends with each other; before this they had been enemies.
ΚατάΛουκάν 23:12 ἐγένοντο δὲ φίλοι ὅ τε Ἡρῴδης καὶ ὁ Πιλᾶτος ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων· προϋπῆρχον γὰρ ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες πρὸς αὐτούς.

[49] In this text, the kings of the earth attack “the rider,” one of the many images—from slain lamb to armed champion—with which Revelation describes Jesus:

Rev 19:19 Then I saw the beast andthe kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider on the horse and against his army.
Αποκάλυψις Ιωάννου 19:19 Καὶ εἶδον τὸ θηρίον καὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς καὶ τὰ στρατεύματα αὐτῶν συνηγμένα ποιῆσαι τὸν πόλεμον μετὰ τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου καὶ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος αὐτοῦ.

Earlier, we are told that this rider will rule “with a rod of iron,” recalling Psalm 2:9, where the enemies of YHWH are to be smashed with such a rod like a pottery vessel. Revelation consistently lifts phrases and motifs from the Hebrew Bible rather than quoting full verses.

Rev 19:15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them witha rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.”(Readers may also hear in these verses echoes of Handel’sMessiah. Here we also have the source of a famous line from Julia Ward Howe’s “Battle Hymn of the Republic”: “the great winepress of the wrath of God” (KJV) becomes “where the grapes of wrath are stored.” Readers of a certain age will also hear echoes of Allen Sherman’sBallad of Harry Lewis, with the immortal line, “He was trampling through the warehouse, where the drapes of Roth are stored.”)
Αποκάλυψις Ιωάννου 19:15καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται ῥομφαία ὀξεῖα, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺςἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, καὶ αὐτὸς πατεῖ τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος,19:16 καὶ ἔχει ἐπὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν μηρὸν αὐτοῦ ὄνομα γεγραμμένον· Βασιλεὺς βασιλέων καὶ κύριος κυρίων.

John of Patmos makes use of imagery from Psalm 2 earlier in the book when he tells the Christ-followers in Thyatira:

Rev 2:26 To everyone who conquers and continues to do my works to the end, I will give authority over the nations;2:27 to rule them with an iron rod, as when clay pots are shattered.
Αποκάλυψις Ιωάννου 2:26Καὶ ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν ἄχρι τέλους τὰ ἔργα μου, δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν2:27 καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται.

[50] See, e.g. b. Berakhot 7b, Sukkah 52a, Avodah Zarah 3b.

[51] For a good summary, see pp. 2–3 of Mariano Gómez Aranda,“Medieval Jewish Exegesis of Psalm 2,”Journal of Hebrew Scriptures18 (2018): 1­–21.

[52] The issue of using rabbinic texts as background for the New Testament—though all of them postdate the New Testament—is fraught. This is discussed throughout Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus.

[53] Some polemics against Christianity do appear in rabbinic texts. See Michal Bar-Asher Segal,Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019).

[54] See the glosses there on vv. 2 and 4. The work has a complex history, and the traditions it includes range from the classical rabbinic period through medieval times. See Hermann L. Strack and Gunther Stemberger,Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 323­–323. Individual traditions are notoriously difficult to date.

[55] On the polemical nature of this work, see Isaac Kalimi, “Theologies and Methodologies in Classical Jewish Interpretation: A Study of Midrash Psalms,” in hisFighting over the Bible: Jewish Interpretation, Sectarianism and Polemic from Temple to Talmud and Beyond, Brill Reference Library of Judaism 54(Leiden: Brill, 2017), 72­–89.

[56] This messianic interpretation is also found in Karaite Psalm commentary, likely related to tenth-century beliefs among some Karaite of the messiah’s imminent arrival.

[57] See Gómez Aranda, “Medieval Jewish Exegesis of Psalm 2.” The following section is based on evidence found there.

[58] Until recently, scholars viewed many parts of Rashi’s commentary on the Bible as a response to Christianity, but this approach has been criticized; see“Polemic in the Commentaries of the Northern French School,” in Yedida Eisenstat, “Medieval Biblical Interpretation (Jewish),”Oxford Bibliographies (2017). For a summary, see Yedida Eisenstat,“Does Rashi’s Torah Commentary Respond to Christianity?”TheTorah(2018), and most recently Mordechai Z. Cohen,The Rule of Peshat: Jewish Constructions of the Plain Sense of Scripture and Their Christian and Muslim Contexts, 900-1270, Jewish Culture and Contexts (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020), 121­–123.

[59] Text and translation follow Mayer I. Gruber, ed. and trans.,Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, Brill Reference Library of Judaism 18 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 177; the anti-Christian part of this comment is missing in many manuscripts, e.g., the version of this verse cited in alhatorah.org.

[60] Rashi returns to the more traditional messianic reading in the second part of his commentary; see Gómez Aranda, “Medieval Jewish Exegesis of Psalm 2,” 8­–9.

[61] The definitive work on Radak is Frank Talmage,David Kimhi: The Man and the Commentaries (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975). Polemic ran in Radak’s family: his father, Joseph, wrote the polemical work ספר הברית,The Book of the Covenant (see Ex 24:7). On Radak in the context of the Kimhi family, see Mordechai Cohen, “The Qimhi Family,” inHebrew Bible/Old Testament, vol. I/2:The Middle Ages, ed. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 388–415. On the missionizing background of Radak’s comments, see Robert Chazan,Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), esp. his treatment of Ps 2 on 235–241.

[62] Radak expands on this theme with prooftexts:

כי כל מי ששומע לעבודת האל יקרא בנו, כמו שהבן שומע אל האב ומזומן לעבודתו. וכן בנים אתם לי״י אלהיכם (דברים י״ד:א׳); אני אהיה לו לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן (שמואל ב ז׳:י״ד); ואמר: בני אל חי (הושע ב׳:א׳)
For anyone who obeys the call to divine service is called “His son,” just as the son heeds his father and is always ready to serve him. This is illustrated by “You are children of YHWH your God” (Deut 14:1), “I will be to him as a father and he will be to me as a son” (2 Sam 7:14) and “Children-of-the-Living-God” (Hosea 2:1).

[63] Radak concludes several other of his commentaries on individual psalms that Christians understood Christologically with similar codas; see Chazan,Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom.

[64] Radak continues:

ועוד אמור להם: האב קודם לבן בזמן ומכח האב יצא הבן. ואף על פי שלא יתכן זה מבלי זה בקריאת השמות, כי לא יקרא אב עד שיהיה לו בן ולא יקרא בן אם לא יהיה לו אב, ומכל מקום אותו שיקרא אב כשיהיה הבן היה קודם בזמן בלי ספק.
Further say to them: The father exists in time before the son, and the son is born through the father. Even though it is impossible to call them by these names without having both of them, since someone is not called “father” until he has a son, and someone is not a “son” if he doesn’t have a father, nevertheless, the one that he calls father, when he does have a son, was certainly around before him.
ואם כן האלוה שאתם אומרים ואתם קוראים לו אב ובן ורוח הקדש, החלק שאתם קוראים לו אב קודם לחלק האחר שאתם קוראים בן. כי אם היו כל זמן שניהם כאחד היו קוראים להם אחים תאומים, ולא תקראו להם אב ובן, ולא יולד וילוד; כי היולד קדם לילוד בלי ספק.
Therefore, the deity of whom you speak, and you call the father, the son, and the holy spirit, the part that you call father must precede the other part that you call son. For if they existed at the same time as one, they would be called twin brothers, and they would not call them father and son, and not parent and child, for undoubtedly, the parent comes before the child.

[65] Radak continues:

לפיכך קרא לכוכבים בני אלהים, כמו ויריעו כל בני אלהים (איוב ל״ח:ז׳).
That is why [the Bible] calls stars “children of God,” as in “And all the divine beings [Hebrew is literally “children of God”] shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7).

[66] Radak continues with additional prooftexts:

ואמר: בני בכרי ישראל (שמות ד׳:כ״ב); ואמר: בנים אתם לי״י אלהיכם (דברים י״ד:א׳); ואמר: הלא הוא אביך קנך (שם ל״ב:ו׳); ואמר: אנכי אהיה לו לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן (שמואל ב ז׳:י״ד).
And it says: “Israel is my firstborn son,” (Exod 4:22); and it says: “You are sons to the LORD your God” (Deut 14:1); and it says: “Is he not your father, your creator?” (Deut 32:62); and it says: “I will be for him like a father and he will be for me like a son” (2 Sam 7:14).

[67] This tone is more common in Jewish polemical volumes. See the literature cited in Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus, 434­–435n34–37.

[68] We would like to thank Jonathan Homrighausen for his help with this essay.

[1] Jesus’s position in Christianity is more complicated than this, given trinitarian beliefs.

[2] For more on the disputes between Jews and Christians about how to read the Hebrew Bible, see Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2020).

[3] We treat Psalm 2 as its own unit. Some scholars, following rabbinic and an early Church tradition represented primarily by Codex Bezae (the D codex), treat Psalms 1­–2 as a single psalm; see, e.g., William Hugh Brownlee, “Psalms 1-2 as a Coronation Liturgy,”Biblica 52 (1971): 321–336; Robert Luther Cole, “An Integrated Reading of Psalms 1 and 2,”Journal for the Study of the Old Testament26 (2002): 75–88. David Willgren, “Why Psalms 1-2 Are Not to be Considered a Preface to the ‘Book of Psalms’,”Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft(2018): 384–397, explains why this position has little merit.

[4] Hermann Gunkel,Introduction to the Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, ed. Joachim Begrich, trans. James D. Nogalski (1933; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998), 99–120; Hans-Joachim Kraus,Psalms 1–59, trans. Hilton C. Oswald, Continental Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1988), 126. Scholars dispute the number of royal psalms, but they most likely include 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 72, 87, 110, and 132. See esp. the discussion of Ps 110 in Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus,154–164.

[5] On this ceremony, see Marc Zvi Brettler,God is King: Understanding an Israelite Metaphor, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 76 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989), 125-135.

[6] Another possibility is that the psalm formed a part of the Israelite new year festival, in which the king played a major role. See Karel van der Toorn,“Rosh Hashanah with the Early Israelites,”TheTorah (2019). Less likely is the theory that the psalm is post-exilic and thus about a messianic ruler rather than a Judahite king. See the excellent, though slightly dated, summary of the main scholarly theories about this psalm’s origin in James W. Watts, “Psalm 2 in the Context of Biblical Theology,”Horizons in Biblical Theology 12 (1990), 74–76.

[7] We follow NRSV here by joining the tetragrammaton with what precedes (“I will tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to me”), rather than the Masoretic cantillation marks and NJPS (“Let me tell of the decree: the LORD said to me”), which understand YHWH with what follows, as the subject of “said.” (“The LORD” has been rendered “YHWH” following TheTorah’s standard procedure.)

[8] Most obviously in the brief anecdote about “the sons of Elohim” in Genesis 6:1–4. See Samuel Z. Glaser,“Demigods and the Birth of Noah,”TheTorah (2020); Benjamin Sommer,“Why Are There Demigods in a Monotheistic Torah?”TheTorah (2015). Another is the story of Samson. See Marc Zvi Brettler,“Who Was Samson's Real Father?”TheTorah.com (2017); Naphtali Meshel,“Samson the Demigod?”TheTorah (2019). Certain biblical stories may even imply that YHWH fathered a child, though such readings are debated. See, Samuel Z. Glaser,“Isaac’s Divine Conception?”TheTorah (2018).

[9] We build on Gerhard von Rad’s “The Royal Ritual in Judah,” inFrom Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology, ed. K. C. Hanson, trans. E. W. Trueman Dicken (1966; repr., Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 167–176. See J. J. M. Roberts, “Whose Child Is This? Reflections on he Speaking Voice in Isaiah 9:5,”Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997): 115–129 and Gard Granerød, “A Forgotten Reference to Divine Procreation? Psalm 2:6 in Light of Egyptian Royal Ideology,”Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010): 323–336.

[10] NJPS’s translation of the first part of the verse, “Your divine throne is everlasting,” is difficult to defend.

[11] Some scholars have suggested that YHWH is adopting the king in some legal sense. No biblical text, however, mentions adoption of children, and such an institution may not have existed in ancient Judah. See Jeffrey Stackert, “Adoption,”Encyclopedia of the Bible and its Reception, 1.387–390 and Pamela Barmash, “Adoption,” inThe Oxford Encyclopedia of the Bible and Law, ed. Brent A. Strawn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 215), 1­–9.

[12] See Marc Zvi Brettler, “The Metaphorical Mapping of God in the Hebrew Bible,” inMetaphor, Canon and Community: Jewish, Christian and Islamic Approaches. Ralph Bisschops and James Francis (Religions and Discourse 1; Bern: Peter Lang, 1999), 219-32.

[13] See Marc Zvi Brettler, “Incompatible Metaphors for YHWH in Isaiah 40-66,”JSOT 78 (1998), 97-120, and more recently, Sarah J. Dille,Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 398 (London: T & T Clark, 2004); L. Juliana M. Claassens,Mourner, Mother, Midwife: Reimagining God’s Delivering Presence in the Old Testament (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012), 41­–63.

[14] For example, the אבינו מלכנו (“Our Father, Our King”) prayer in Judaism, and in many rabbinic parables where God is the father, and especially the “Our Father” prayer in Christianity, which opens with (KJV) “Our Father who art in heaven” (Matt 6:9; see Luke 11:2).

[15] For more on the metaphors in this poem, see Andrea Weiss,“The Multiple Metaphors for God in Shirat Haazinu,”TheTorah (2014).

[16] See Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus, 446n39.

[17] Such paraphrasing rather than exact quotation is more the rule than the exception in ancient Israelite texts.

[18] For example, calling a person a dinosaur highlights the fact that dinosaurs are long dead and antiquated, but not other features such as their size, eating habits, or scales.

[19] The book of Proverbs famously declares the importance of discipline in parenting, especially in:

משלי יג:כד חוֹשֵׂ֣ךְ שִׁ֭בְטוֹ שׂוֹנֵ֣א בְנ֑וֹ וְ֝אֹהֲב֗וֹ שִֽׁחֲר֥וֹ מוּסָֽר׃
Prov 13:24He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him early.

Just as loving ancient Israelite fathers discipline their sons when necessary, so Nathan states that YHWH, the king’s father, will punish His son should he sin.

[20] See Nahum M. Sarna,“Psalm 89: A Study in Inner Biblical Exegesis,” inBiblical and Other Studies, ed. Alexander Altmann, Philip W. Lown Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies, Brandeis University, Studies and Texts 1 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 29–46. For a discussion of the reinterpretations of 2 Sam 7, see William M. Schniedewind,Society and the Promise to David: The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1-17 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).

[21] Other motifs this metaphor might evoke are the father’s love for his son, the son’s obligation to heed his father, and the father’s right to give his son property. On the metaphorical aspect of the king as YHWH’s son, see Joseph Lam, “Psalm 2 and the Disinheritance of Earthly Rulers: New Light from the Ugaritic Legal Text RS 94.2168,”Vetus Testamentum 64 (2014): 34–46. Many of these entailments are spelled out in Brettler,God is King; they include depicting YHWH as judge and shepherd.

[22] This is the earliest textual evidence we have for it, though the changemay have begun as early as the ca. 175 B.C.E, when the Judeans suffered under the forced policies of Hellenization associated with the Syrian Greeks and Antiochus IV.

[23] This is a pseudepigraphic work.

[24]

Ps. Sol. 17:21 ἰδέ κύριε καὶ ἀνάστησον αὐτοῖς τὸν βασιλέα αὐτῶν υἱὸν Δαυιδ εἰς τὸν καιρόν ὃν εἵλου σύ ὁ θεός τοῦ βασιλεῦσαι ἐπὶ Ισραηλ παῖδά σου17:22 καὶ ὑπόζωσον αὐτὸν ἰσχὺν τοῦ θραῦσαι ἄρχοντας ἀδίκους καθαρίσαι Ιερουσαλημ ἀπὸ ἐθνῶν καταπατούντων ἐν ἀπωλείᾳ17:23 ἐν σοφίᾳ δικαιοσύνης ἐξῶσαι ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπὸ κληρονομίας ἐκτρῖψαι ὑπερηφανίαν ἁμαρτωλοῦ ὡς σκεύη κεραμέως17:24 ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ συντρῖψαι πᾶσαν ὑπόστασιν αὐτῶν ὀλεθρεῦσαι ἔθνη παράνομα ἐν λόγῳ στόματος αὐτοῦ.

[25] The text is also known as 4QFlorilegium, a Latin word meaning “a compilation of excerpts from other writings.” Annette Steudel refers to it asMidrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumrangemeinde, “an eschatological midrash from the Qumran community” (4QMidrEscht). Elisha Qimron calls it פשר על אחרית הימים “A Pesher-Interpretation about the End of Days.”

[26] Text follows the reconstruction in Elisha Qimron,מגילות מדבר יהודה: החיבורים העבריים [The Dead Sea Scrolls: The Hebrew Writings], בין מקרא למשנה [Between Bible and Mishnah] (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2013), 2.289. Alternative reconstructions do not change the main point about eschatological repurposing.

[27] Psalm 2 also seems to lie in the background of the Parables of Enoch (mid-first century C.E.)— chs. 37­–71 of the book of 1 Enoch—in the description of how the kings of the earth (as per Ps 2:2) will fall before God’s anointed:

1 Enoch 48:8 And in those days the kings of the earth and the strong who possess the dry ground will have downcast faces because of the works of their hands, for on the day of their distress and trouble they will not save themselves48:9 And I will give them into the hands of my chosen ones like straw in the fire, and like lead in water, so they will burn before the righteous, and sink before the holy, and no trace will be found of them.48:10 … for they denied the LORD of Spirits and his messiah. (Outside the Bible, 2.1392)

[28] James L. Mays,Psalms, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 44. Ben Witherington III,Psalms Old and New: Exegesis, Intertextuality, and Hermeneutics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017), 44, quotes this same line.

[29]

Κατά Μάρκον 1:10 καὶ εὐθὺς ἀναβαίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανοὺς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ὡς περιστερὰν καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν·1:11 καὶ φωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν·σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα.

Cf. Matthew 3:17; Luke 3:22. The passage may also allude to Isaiah 42:1 (“Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my spirit upon him…”) and, less likely but often cited in commentaries, Genesis 22:2, originally in relation to Isaac (the “only son, whom you love”).

[30] Richard B. Hays,Echoes of Scripture in the Gospels (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016), 47–48.

[31] See Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus, 381-412.

[32] In this scene, Jesus appears together with Moses and Elijah, as Peter, James, and John look on to see him in a supernaturally changed appearance:

Κατά Μάρκον 9:7καὶ ἐγένετο νεφέλη ἐπισκιάζουσα αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἐγένετο φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης·οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ.

[33]

Κατά Μάρκον 15:39Ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ κεντυρίων ὁ παρεστηκὼς ἐξ ἐναντίας αὐτοῦ ὅτι οὕτως ἐξέπνευσεν εἶπεν· ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν.

Hays,Echoes of Scripture, 74.

[34] The Gospel of John famously declares,

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gavehis only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (KJV).
Κατά Ιωάννην 3:16 οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον, ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν, ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.

See also John 3:18. John 1:14 (cf. 1:18) proclaims that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.”

[35] “Apostle” comes from the Greek for “sent out”; compare the Hebrewshaliach.

[36] Paul begins with the exodus from Egypt, and moves on to Samuel, Saul, and David. For parallels in the Hebrew Bible, see Josh 24, 1 Sam 12, Neh 9.

[37] This term is the origin of the English “evangelical.” Translated into Old English, the word wasgōdspel (gōd=good,spel=news/story), which became the English “gospel.”

[38] One textual tradition, represented by Codex Bezae or the D codex, reads “first psalm,” and could be an indication that some readers saw Psalm 1-2 as an introduction to the Psalter; see discussion in n. 3, above.

[39] The capital “S” on the word “son” is again the New Revised Standard Version’s way of signaling that the editors take Acts to be suggesting Jesus’s divinity.

[40]

Πράξεις Ἀποστόλων 13:32 Καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς εὐαγγελιζόμεθα τὴν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἐπαγγελίαν γενομένην,13:33 ὅτι ταύτην ὁ θεὸς ἐκπεπλήρωκεν τοῖς τέκνοις [αὐτῶν] ἡμῖν ἀναστήσας Ἰησοῦν ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ ψαλμῷ γέγραπται τῷ δευτέρῳ· υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε.

[41] The text is often known as Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, though it is not an epistle (i.e., a letter), not necessarily addressed to Jews, and not written by Paul.

[42]

Πρὸς Ἑβραίους 1:5 Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέν ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων· υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε; καὶ πάλιν· ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔσται μοι εἰς υἱόν;

That second citation sounds like God’s message to David in Chronicles:

דברי הימים א כב:י הוּא יִבְנֶה בַיִת לִשְׁמִי וְהוּא יִהְיֶה לִּי לְבֵן וַאֲנִי לוֹ לְאָב וַהֲכִינוֹתִי כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל עַד עוֹלָם.
1 Chron 22:10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.

See also 2 Samuel 7:14.

[43]

Πρὸς Ἑβραίους 5:5 Οὕτως καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἐδόξασεν γενηθῆναι ἀρχιερέα ἀλλ᾽ ὁ λαλήσας πρὸς αὐτόν· υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε·

For more on Hebrews’ concept of Jesus as high priest, see Joshua Garroway,“Who Assumed Melchizedek’s Priesthood?”TheTorah (2016) and Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus, 133-177.

[44] John the apostle (referenced here) should not be confused with John the Baptist or John of Patmos, author of Revelation. The author of the Gospel of John and of the three Johannine Epistles (1, 2, 3 John) is, however, traditionally understood to be John the son of Zebedee, though even this identification is challenged in critical scholarship.

[45] That they quote the text in unison could be taken as Luke’s indication that they were inspired by the Spirit; it could also indicate, less miraculously, that they had already thought about these verses in connection with Jesus, or at least that they had prayed the psalm.

[46]

Πράξεις Ἀποστόλων 4:24 οἱ δὲ ἀκούσαντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἦραν φωνὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ εἶπαν· δέσποτα, σὺ ὁ ποιήσας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν καὶ τὴν θάλασσαν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς,4:25 ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου στόματος Δαυὶδ παιδός σου εἰπών· ἱνατί ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη καὶ λαοὶ ἐμελέτησαν κενά;4:26 παρέστησαν οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς καὶ οἱ ἄρχοντες συνήχθησαν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ κατὰ τοῦ κυρίου καὶ κατὰ τοῦ χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ.4:27 συνήχθησαν γὰρ ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ ἐπὶ τὸν ἅγιον παῖδά σου Ἰησοῦν ὃν ἔχρισας, Ἡρῴδης τε καὶ Πόντιος Πιλᾶτος σὺν ἔθνεσιν καὶ λαοῖς Ἰσραήλ,4:28 ποιῆσαι ὅσα ἡ χείρ σου καὶ ἡ βουλή [σου] προώρισεν γενέσθαι.

[47] Hays,Echoes of Scripture, 268.

[48] Luke describes how persecuting Jesus brought Herod Antipas and Pontius Pilate together:

Luke 23:12 That same day Herod [Antipas] and Pilate became friends with each other; before this they had been enemies.
ΚατάΛουκάν 23:12 ἐγένοντο δὲ φίλοι ὅ τε Ἡρῴδης καὶ ὁ Πιλᾶτος ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων· προϋπῆρχον γὰρ ἐν ἔχθρᾳ ὄντες πρὸς αὐτούς.

[49] In this text, the kings of the earth attack “the rider,” one of the many images—from slain lamb to armed champion—with which Revelation describes Jesus:

Rev 19:19 Then I saw the beast andthe kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider on the horse and against his army.
Αποκάλυψις Ιωάννου 19:19 Καὶ εἶδον τὸ θηρίον καὶ τοὺς βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς καὶ τὰ στρατεύματα αὐτῶν συνηγμένα ποιῆσαι τὸν πόλεμον μετὰ τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ ἵππου καὶ μετὰ τοῦ στρατεύματος αὐτοῦ.

Earlier, we are told that this rider will rule “with a rod of iron,” recalling Psalm 2:9, where the enemies of YHWH are to be smashed with such a rod like a pottery vessel. Revelation consistently lifts phrases and motifs from the Hebrew Bible rather than quoting full verses.

Rev 19:15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them witha rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.19:16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, “King of kings and Lord of lords.”(Readers may also hear in these verses echoes of Handel’sMessiah. Here we also have the source of a famous line from Julia Ward Howe’s “Battle Hymn of the Republic”: “the great winepress of the wrath of God” (KJV) becomes “where the grapes of wrath are stored.” Readers of a certain age will also hear echoes of Allen Sherman’sBallad of Harry Lewis, with the immortal line, “He was trampling through the warehouse, where the drapes of Roth are stored.”)
Αποκάλυψις Ιωάννου 19:15καὶ ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ ἐκπορεύεται ῥομφαία ὀξεῖα, ἵνα ἐν αὐτῇ πατάξῃ τὰ ἔθνη, καὶ αὐτὸς ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺςἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, καὶ αὐτὸς πατεῖ τὴν ληνὸν τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τῆς ὀργῆς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ παντοκράτορος,19:16 καὶ ἔχει ἐπὶ τὸ ἱμάτιον καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν μηρὸν αὐτοῦ ὄνομα γεγραμμένον· Βασιλεὺς βασιλέων καὶ κύριος κυρίων.

John of Patmos makes use of imagery from Psalm 2 earlier in the book when he tells the Christ-followers in Thyatira:

Rev 2:26 To everyone who conquers and continues to do my works to the end, I will give authority over the nations;2:27 to rule them with an iron rod, as when clay pots are shattered.
Αποκάλυψις Ιωάννου 2:26Καὶ ὁ νικῶν καὶ ὁ τηρῶν ἄχρι τέλους τὰ ἔργα μου, δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν2:27 καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται.

[50] See, e.g. b. Berakhot 7b, Sukkah 52a, Avodah Zarah 3b.

[51] For a good summary, see pp. 2–3 of Mariano Gómez Aranda,“Medieval Jewish Exegesis of Psalm 2,”Journal of Hebrew Scriptures18 (2018): 1­–21.

[52] The issue of using rabbinic texts as background for the New Testament—though all of them postdate the New Testament—is fraught. This is discussed throughout Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus.

[53] Some polemics against Christianity do appear in rabbinic texts. See Michal Bar-Asher Segal,Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019).

[54] See the glosses there on vv. 2 and 4. The work has a complex history, and the traditions it includes range from the classical rabbinic period through medieval times. See Hermann L. Strack and Gunther Stemberger,Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans. and ed. Markus Bockmuehl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 323­–323. Individual traditions are notoriously difficult to date.

[55] On the polemical nature of this work, see Isaac Kalimi, “Theologies and Methodologies in Classical Jewish Interpretation: A Study of Midrash Psalms,” in hisFighting over the Bible: Jewish Interpretation, Sectarianism and Polemic from Temple to Talmud and Beyond, Brill Reference Library of Judaism 54(Leiden: Brill, 2017), 72­–89.

[56] This messianic interpretation is also found in Karaite Psalm commentary, likely related to tenth-century beliefs among some Karaite of the messiah’s imminent arrival.

[57] See Gómez Aranda, “Medieval Jewish Exegesis of Psalm 2.” The following section is based on evidence found there.

[58] Until recently, scholars viewed many parts of Rashi’s commentary on the Bible as a response to Christianity, but this approach has been criticized; see“Polemic in the Commentaries of the Northern French School,” in Yedida Eisenstat, “Medieval Biblical Interpretation (Jewish),”Oxford Bibliographies (2017). For a summary, see Yedida Eisenstat,“Does Rashi’s Torah Commentary Respond to Christianity?”TheTorah(2018), and most recently Mordechai Z. Cohen,The Rule of Peshat: Jewish Constructions of the Plain Sense of Scripture and Their Christian and Muslim Contexts, 900-1270, Jewish Culture and Contexts (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2020), 121­–123.

[59] Text and translation follow Mayer I. Gruber, ed. and trans.,Rashi’s Commentary on Psalms, Brill Reference Library of Judaism 18 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 177; the anti-Christian part of this comment is missing in many manuscripts, e.g., the version of this verse cited in alhatorah.org.

[60] Rashi returns to the more traditional messianic reading in the second part of his commentary; see Gómez Aranda, “Medieval Jewish Exegesis of Psalm 2,” 8­–9.

[61] The definitive work on Radak is Frank Talmage,David Kimhi: The Man and the Commentaries (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975). Polemic ran in Radak’s family: his father, Joseph, wrote the polemical work ספר הברית,The Book of the Covenant (see Ex 24:7). On Radak in the context of the Kimhi family, see Mordechai Cohen, “The Qimhi Family,” inHebrew Bible/Old Testament, vol. I/2:The Middle Ages, ed. Magne Sæbø (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000), 388–415. On the missionizing background of Radak’s comments, see Robert Chazan,Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), esp. his treatment of Ps 2 on 235–241.

[62] Radak expands on this theme with prooftexts:

כי כל מי ששומע לעבודת האל יקרא בנו, כמו שהבן שומע אל האב ומזומן לעבודתו. וכן בנים אתם לי״י אלהיכם (דברים י״ד:א׳); אני אהיה לו לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן (שמואל ב ז׳:י״ד); ואמר: בני אל חי (הושע ב׳:א׳)
For anyone who obeys the call to divine service is called “His son,” just as the son heeds his father and is always ready to serve him. This is illustrated by “You are children of YHWH your God” (Deut 14:1), “I will be to him as a father and he will be to me as a son” (2 Sam 7:14) and “Children-of-the-Living-God” (Hosea 2:1).

[63] Radak concludes several other of his commentaries on individual psalms that Christians understood Christologically with similar codas; see Chazan,Fashioning Jewish Identity in Medieval Western Christendom.

[64] Radak continues:

ועוד אמור להם: האב קודם לבן בזמן ומכח האב יצא הבן. ואף על פי שלא יתכן זה מבלי זה בקריאת השמות, כי לא יקרא אב עד שיהיה לו בן ולא יקרא בן אם לא יהיה לו אב, ומכל מקום אותו שיקרא אב כשיהיה הבן היה קודם בזמן בלי ספק.
Further say to them: The father exists in time before the son, and the son is born through the father. Even though it is impossible to call them by these names without having both of them, since someone is not called “father” until he has a son, and someone is not a “son” if he doesn’t have a father, nevertheless, the one that he calls father, when he does have a son, was certainly around before him.
ואם כן האלוה שאתם אומרים ואתם קוראים לו אב ובן ורוח הקדש, החלק שאתם קוראים לו אב קודם לחלק האחר שאתם קוראים בן. כי אם היו כל זמן שניהם כאחד היו קוראים להם אחים תאומים, ולא תקראו להם אב ובן, ולא יולד וילוד; כי היולד קדם לילוד בלי ספק.
Therefore, the deity of whom you speak, and you call the father, the son, and the holy spirit, the part that you call father must precede the other part that you call son. For if they existed at the same time as one, they would be called twin brothers, and they would not call them father and son, and not parent and child, for undoubtedly, the parent comes before the child.

[65] Radak continues:

לפיכך קרא לכוכבים בני אלהים, כמו ויריעו כל בני אלהים (איוב ל״ח:ז׳).
That is why [the Bible] calls stars “children of God,” as in “And all the divine beings [Hebrew is literally “children of God”] shouted for joy?” (Job 38:7).

[66] Radak continues with additional prooftexts:

ואמר: בני בכרי ישראל (שמות ד׳:כ״ב); ואמר: בנים אתם לי״י אלהיכם (דברים י״ד:א׳); ואמר: הלא הוא אביך קנך (שם ל״ב:ו׳); ואמר: אנכי אהיה לו לאב והוא יהיה לי לבן (שמואל ב ז׳:י״ד).
And it says: “Israel is my firstborn son,” (Exod 4:22); and it says: “You are sons to the LORD your God” (Deut 14:1); and it says: “Is he not your father, your creator?” (Deut 32:62); and it says: “I will be for him like a father and he will be for me like a son” (2 Sam 7:14).

[67] This tone is more common in Jewish polemical volumes. See the literature cited in Levine and Brettler,The Bible With and Without Jesus, 434­–435n34–37.

[68] We would like to thank Jonathan Homrighausen for his help with this essay.

Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler is Bernice & Morton Lerner Distinguished Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies (Emeritus) at Brandeis University. He is author of many books and articles, includingHow to Read the Jewish Bible (also published in Hebrew), co-editor ofThe Jewish Study Bible andThe Jewish Annotated New Testament (with Amy-Jill Levine),andco-author ofThe Bible and the Believer (with Peter Enns and Daniel J. Harrington), andThe Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (with Amy-Jill Levine). Brettler is a cofounder of TheTorah.com.

Prof. Marc Zvi Brettler is Bernice & Morton Lerner Distinguished Professor of Judaic Studies at Duke University, and Dora Golding Professor of Biblical Studies (Emeritus) at Brandeis University. He is author of many books and articles, includingHow to Read the Jewish Bible (also published in Hebrew), co-editor ofThe Jewish Study Bible andThe Jewish Annotated New Testament (with Amy-Jill Levine),andco-author ofThe Bible and the Believer (with Peter Enns and Daniel J. Harrington), andThe Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (with Amy-Jill Levine). Brettler is a cofounder of TheTorah.com.

Prof. Amy-Jill Levine is University Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies and Mary Jane Werthan Professor of Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt Divinity School and Program in Jewish Studies. She holds a B.A. from Smith, and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Duke. Her thirty books includeThe Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus andShort Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi; four children’s books (with Sandy Sasso);The Gospel of Luke (with Ben Witherington III); andTheJewish Annotated New Testament (co-edited with Marc Z. Brettler), and co-author ofThe Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (with Marc Zvi Brettler). In 2019 she became the first Jew to teach New Testament at Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute. She is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Prof. Amy-Jill Levine is University Professor of New Testament and Jewish Studies and Mary Jane Werthan Professor of Jewish Studies at Vanderbilt Divinity School and Program in Jewish Studies. She holds a B.A. from Smith, and an M.A. and Ph.D. from Duke. Her thirty books includeThe Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus andShort Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi; four children’s books (with Sandy Sasso);The Gospel of Luke (with Ben Witherington III); andTheJewish Annotated New Testament (co-edited with Marc Z. Brettler), and co-author ofThe Bible With and Without Jesus: How Jews and Christians Read the Same Stories Differently (with Marc Zvi Brettler). In 2019 she became the first Jew to teach New Testament at Rome’s Pontifical Biblical Institute. She is also a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Related Topics:

Essays on Related Topics:

Symposium:More Responses
No items found.
General
Torah Portion
Holidays
Scholarship and Faith
Donate

Launched Shavuot 5773 / 2013 | Copyright © Academic Torah Institute, All Rights Reserved

No items found.

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp