The Christian statement that Psalms 2:12 refers to Jesus.
| Psalm 2:12 | |
|---|---|
| KJV | Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. |
| Hebrew | [נַשְּׁקוּ־ naš-šə-qū-] [בַ֡ר ḇar] [פֶּן־ pen-] [יֶאֱנַ֤ף ye-’ĕ-nap̄] [וְתֹ֬אבְדוּ wə-ṯō-ḇə-ḏū] [דֶ֗רֶךְ ḏe-reḵ,] [כִּֽי־ kî-] [יִבְעַ֣ר yiḇ-‘ar] [כִּמְעַ֣ט kim-‘aṭ] [אַפּ֑וֹ ’ap-pōw] [אַ֝שְׁרֵ֗י ’aš-rê,] [כָּל־ kāl-] [ח֥וֹסֵי ḥō-w-sê] [בֽוֹ ḇōw] |
In isolation of all context, is it possible that this actually says 'kiss the son'?
The Pulpit Commentary, for example, notices that there must be some special meaning to this word other than in v.7;
In fact it is possible to raise a non-trivial issue with the rendering given by the KJV.
First is the rendering of 5401.[נַשְּׁקוּ־ naš-šə-qū-] (nashaq) as 'kiss'.
| Psalm 2:12 | |
|---|---|
| King James Version | Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, |
| New Living Translation | Submit to God’s royal son, |
| New American Standard | Do homage to the Son, |
| Christian Standard Bible | Pay homage to the Son |
| Holman Christian Standard Bible | Pay homage to the Son |
| Contemporary English Version | Show respect to his son |
| Good News Translation | and bow down to him; |
| NET Bible | Give sincere homage! |
| New Heart English Bible | Do homage in purity, |
| JPS Tanakh 1917 | Do homage in purity, |
| Brenton Septuagint Translation | Accept correction, |
| Douay-Rheims Bible | Embrace discipline, |
| World English Bible | Give sincere homage to the Son, |
The issue here is the KJV's use of a literal translation. If you look at the context of the psalm a literal translation appears to be a mistake, and the implied meaning seems more appropriate; the Hebrew principle here is that of the tautology.
The meanings of 11, 12 and 13 are advice to kings; They must, in the proposed real meaning:
These are actionable issues. What then do we make of “Kiss the Son;”, what kind of advice is this? In what manner could it be expected that someone would 'Kiss the Son'? On the surface of it, it doesn't make sense. This suggests that we should look deeper at the context of this passage; we would at minimum need to see some idea of who the Son is, otherwise this is an unactionable passage by that reading and there is no logical reason to choose it over the contextual 'give sincere homage' (etc).
At this point the Christian may begin to once again eisegesically read into this passage – however be reminded, “in the absence of all context…” was the precondition for this analysis!! Therefore the context can only come from a nearby verse in the Hebrew Scriptures. If no such passage can be found there is no reason to go with one reading over the other and the contextual variant must be chosen.* You cannot back-read into the text in order to justify your back-reading.
Therefore most modern translations now use 'sincere homage', 'show respect', etc.
It is important to understand this reading in context because it is the same case as the below; the contextual reading does not support the literal translation here; below, it does not support the paraphrase(!!)
Second is the rendering of 1248.[בַ֡ר ḇar] as 'son'. This is problematic because [בַ֡ר ḇar] does not actually mean 'Son' in Hebrew; it means 'purity'. This is not a paraphrase as with naš-šə-qū- (nashaq) above; the issue is the opposite, for some reason the translators of the KJV have decided to render this as 'son' instead of to go with the literal meaning. The issue will be the same; there is no reason to go with a paraphrase here! In fact this isn't even a paraphrase. There can be no question that bar does not mean son in Hebrew. It means son in Aramaic; but this book was not written in Aramaic.
Some will say that in fact bar does mean 'Son' in Hebrew; or that Hebrew writers were known to use an Aramaic word in their writings (like a 'borrow word' such as how the French word fuse (match) has been appropriated by English).
A cross reference will show the word [בַ֡ר ḇar] appears four times in the bible. Once in Psalms 2:12, and three times in Proverbs 31:2. The issue is that in each case the word is different:
So as we see, A is a unique usage; therefore the claim that this word means “son” in the same way that it means “son” in Proverbs 31. This is problematic because we can not use Proverbs 31 to shed complete light on the meaning of this word in Psalms 2. Instead, if we are to propose that it is possible for bar to mean son, we are going to need to see some other reference to this Son so we know who it is; again the issue is resolved contextually in the same manner as with nashaq.
The strong response is of course the argument that this is not a position presented out of lack of information in the sense that we read “Kiss the Son” and we just shrug our shoulders and say “Well, we don't know who the Son is, so it must be Jesus!” But in fact we do know who the son is: It's King David. We see this clearly by reading Psalm 2 and looking at what it actually says. Here is Psalms 2 (ESV) in it's entirety, emphasis added:
The Psalm begins by asking the Kings of the earth why they set themselves against the Lord and his anointed. The Psalm continues by pointing out that God has anointed David as King and set the nations as his heritage and the earth as his posession. It ends by (in either reading) telling the Kings of the world they must respect or give homage to King David. King David is the “Son” in this reading. There is no other passage which sheds light on this Psalm.
| Proverbs 31:2 | |
|---|---|
| King James Version | What, my son? and what, the son of my womb? and what, the son of my vows? |
| Contemporary English Version | My son Lemuel, you were born in answer to my prayers, so listen carefully. |
| Good News Translation | “You are my own dear son, the answer to my prayers. What shall I tell you? |
| Holman Christian Standard Bible | What should I say, my son? What, son of my womb? What, son of my vows? |
| International Standard Version | No, my son! No, my son whom I conceived! No, my son to whom I gave birth! |
So we see that it is possible to translate the passage in different ways. The question is why. Why is it being translated like this? Let's take a look at the contextual issue in the same way as with Psalm 2:12:
This passage is guidance from Lemuel's mother. Lemuel is a portmanteau of two words; “to him” and “God” (ex. Job 40:4); therefore King Lemuel in Hebrew means “The King to whom God spoke”. This has traditionally been considered a symbolic name for King Solomon, further corroborated by the Proverbs 1:1 “1 The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel”. This then becomes problematic because Solomon certainly did not consort with women in a drunken stupor; he was married to the daughter of the Pharaoh. Therefore the idea that this should read “What are you doing?” or “No, my son!” is problematic. As a friendly, fatherly guide to wisdom, it is more likely that this should read “Listen Carefully.” However, the tense of this word 'teach him' is sometimes rendered chastise–so nothing can be drawn out of the personage of the author.
So what then is 'son' here? does it mean 'son' or 'purity'?
What is purity? Was your mother's womb kept pure? What is the essence (purity) of my vows (ex. to the law, or to familial devotion)?
As the story goes, “When he married the daughter of Pharaoh on the day of the dedication of the Temple, she brought in for him many kinds of musical instruments, and he was awake all night and slept on the next day until four hours [after dawn], as is related in Pesikta (unknown, but found in Mid. Mishle and in Num. Rabbah 10:8), and the keys of the Temple were under his head. Regarding that time, we learned (Eduyoth 6:1): “Concerning the daily morning burnt-offering, that it was offered up at [the conclusion of] four hours. Then his mother entered and chastised him with all this prophecy.”
So there is further evidence to support the idea that this was originally given by Solomon's mother when he was married, and not because he was loose with women.
Finally, Rashi gives the following:
Thus, the first one refers to the mother's purity, the second refers to the purity of her womb with respect to her husband, and the third refers to the purity of her supplication; the answer to her prayers. Therefore there is support for both readings; in that they end up meaning the exact same thing.
But if the question is, can we use Proverbs 31 to show that bar means son, we cannot; for “the child of my vows” is more akin to the result of those vows and not exactly 'son' as would have been hoped.
Another problem for the 'son' interpretation comes from Psalm 3, which details the ways in which the wicked are fighting against King David. It reads:
It's clear then than Psalm 2, as is Psalm 3, talking about King David.
There is another issue. Many early translations did not say “kiss the son”! Ellicott's writes:
It would appear from this that the translation “kiss the son” is a later invention by the Christians, perhaps as some form of apologetics.
Matthew Poole's commentary and Gills' Exposition both say that v.7 refers to the Son of God (Christ) but this is shown to be false from the immediate reading of the verse.
Conclusion: There is no rationale to propose the word means 'son'. Christians themselves get out of this by doing what we did above and claiming that in both cases the meaning is essentially the same; they do this to admit the reading “kiss the son” to retain some semblance of Jesus in the Hebrew Scriptures:
Verse 12. - Kiss the Son. It is certainly remarkable that we have here a different word for “Son” from that employed in ver. 7, and ordinarily in the Hebrew Bible. Still, there is other evidence that the word here used, bar, existed in the Hebrew no less than in the Aramaic, viz. Proverbs 31:2, where it is repeated thrice. It was probably an archaic and poetic word, like our “sire” for “father,” rarely used, but, when used, intended to mark some special dignity. Hengstenberg suggests that the writer's motive in prefering bar to ben in this place was to avoid the cacophony which would have arisen from the juxtaposition of ben and pen (פן); and this is quite possible, but as a secondary rather than as the main reason. By “kiss the Son” we must understand “pay him homage,” salute him as King in the customary way (see 1 Samuel 10:1). Lest he be angry. The omission of a customary token of respect is an insult which naturally augers the object of it (Esther 3:5). And ye perish from the way; or, as to the way.” To anger the Son is to bring destruction on our “way,” or course in life. When his wrath is kindled but a little; rather, for soon his wrath may be kindled (see the Revised Version). Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. The writer ends with words of blessing, to relieve the general severity of the psalm (comp. Psalm 3:8; Psalm 5:12; Psalm 28:9; Psalm 41:13, etc.). (On the blessedness of trusting in God, see Psalm 34:8; Psalm 40:4; Psalm 84:12, etc.) Pulpit Commentary
The complete issue is explained beautifully in the book “The Virgin Birth Myth: The Misconception of Jesus” By Gerald Sigal:
In Psalms 2:12 it is stated, “Do homage in purity” [nash-ku bar], lest He be angry, and you perish in the way.“ The Christian translation of the Hebrew phrase nash-ku bar as “kiss the son” is based on a misinterpretation. The meaning of the Hebrew word (bar) is “pure” or “clear.” Only in Aramaic does it have the meaning of “son.” However, in Aramaic, bar is used only as a gentive or construct “son of” (Proverbs 31:2; Ezra 5:1-2, 6:14), whereas the absolute form of “Son” in Aramaic (which would have to be used in verse 12 is ber'a). Thus, according to the Christian construction that uses the Aramaic, the verse should have read nash-ku ber'a, “kiss the son,” not nash-ku bar, “kiss the son of.” Even though “son” could refer to David in verse 12, it is not the proper translation. There is no compelling reason to employ an Armaism in view of the Hebrew noun bein, “son”, in verse 7. The phrase is best rendered as, “do homage in purity,” because kissing is generally an expression of homage, as found, for example in 1 Samuel 10:1: “Then Samuel took the vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him.” Bar, meaning “purity,” occurs in the phrase “pure in heart” (Psalms 24:4, 73:1). The intention implied in verse 12 is: with sincerity of heart, acknowledge me, David, as God's anointed, and thereby avoid incurring God's anger. Thus, the Hebrew phrase nash-ku bar simply means “do homage in purity,” in the sense of expressing sincere loyalty.
There is a misconception that states that the Jewish biblical commentator, Ibn Ezra, explained nash-ku bar as “kiss the son.” As such, his commentary is usually rendered as: ”'Serve the Lord' revers to Y-H-V-H, while 'kiss the son' refers to his anointed one, and the meaning of bar is like [the meaning of bar in the phrase] 'what, my son [beri], and what, son of my womb [bar bitni] (Proverbs 31:2)? And thus it is written, 'You are My son' [Psalms 2:7]. And it is the custom of the nations in the world to put their hands under the hand of the king, as the brothers of Solomon did [see 1 Chronicles 29:24], or for the servant [to put his hand] under the thigh of his master [see Genesis 24:2], or to kiss the king. And this is the custom until today in the land of India.“
It is improbable that Ibn Ezra would have explained the word bar by appealing to the Aramaic word bar, “son of,” which being in the gentive or construct state would, in any case, be incorrect gramatically. Of course, there is the possibility that because of the proximity of the phrase, “you are My son,” there was an impetus to make a linguistic equation between the bar in the phrase nashku bar with the Aramaic word, bar. Indeed, there are some Jewish commentators who use a midrashic approach rather than citing the plain meaning and render bar in this context as “son”. But this would not be consistent with the exacting exegesis associated with Ibn Ezra. More than likely, it is the common understanding of what he wrote that is incorrect.
(p.197 missing)Sigal p.195-196
It would be fair to here include a partial rebuttal to the above, in the form of the claim; “In Aramaic, some critics allege that “בר (bar)” is in the construct (possessive) state, which would be translated “son of” as in Proverbs 31:2. It is alleged that the word must be in the emphatic state, “ברא (b'ra)”, to justify the translation as “the Son”. However, in the Targums “the construct state is occasionally used for the emphatic” (An Aramaic Method: A Class Book for the Study of The Elements of Aramaic, Part II: Elements of Grammar, Charles Rufus Brown (Chicago : American Publication Society of Hebrew, 1886), p. 89).”
This response seems to ignore the fact that The Hebrew Scriptures are not the Targum. Again, if this were the Targum, we would expect to see Aramaisms everywhere, as it would be written in Aramaic! But it wasn't, and so this is not a valid argument.
Also from Cambridge, on a slightly different note, as a supplement perhaps:
12. Kiss the Son] According to this rendering the exhortation to serve Jehovah is followed by an exhortation to pay homage to His representative. For the kiss of homage cp. 1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Kings 19:18; Job 31:27; Hosea 13:2. But this rendering must certainly be abandoned, (1) Not to mention some minor difficulties, it assumes that the Psalmist has used the Aramaic word bar for son (cp. Bar-jona, Bar-Jesus) instead of the usual Hebrew word ben. The only example of its use in the Hebrew of the O.T. (it is of course found in the Aramaic of Ezra and Daniel) is in Proverbs 31:2, a passage which contains other marked Aramaisms. No satisfactory reason has been suggested for its introduction here. We should not expect a poet to borrow a foreign word for son either for ‘emphasis’ or for ‘euphony.’
(2) None of the ancient Versions, with the exception of the Syriac, give this sense to the words. They represent two views as to the meaning, (a) The LXX, and of course the Versions dependent on it, render, Lay hold of instruction: and similarly the Targum, Receive instruction, (b) Symmachus and Jerome render, Worship purely; and to the same effect, but with his usual bald literalism, Aquila gives, Kiss choicely.
The Syriac gives the meaning Kiss the son: but its rendering is merely a transcription of the Hebrew words. The reading of the Ambrosian MS., which agrees with the rendering of the LXX, is a correction by a later hand to the reading of the Hexaplar Syriac.
Jerome was acquainted with the translation Worship the son, but rejected it as doubtful. The passage in his treatise against Ruffinus (i. 19) deserves quotation. He had been charged with inconsistency for translating Worship purely (adorate pure) in his Psalter, though he had given Worship the son (adorate filium) in his Commentary. After discussing the possible meanings of the words he concludes thus: “Why am I to blame, if I have given different translations of an ambiguous word? and while in my short commentary where there is opportunity for discussion I had said Worship the Son, in the text itself, to avoid all appearance of forced interpretation, and to leave no opening for Jewish cavils, I have said, Worship purely, or choicely; as Aquila also and Symmachus have translated it.”
It is however easier to shew that the rendering Kiss the Son is untenable, than to decide what rendering should be adopted. Bar (beside other senses inapplicable here) may mean choice, or, pure. Hence some commentators have adopted the renderings Worship the chosen one; or, Worship in purity (cp. Psalm 18:20; Psalm 18:24; Psalm 24:3-5). But the substantial agreement of the LXX and Targum points to the existence of a widely-spread early tradition as to the sense, and on the whole it seems best to follow their general direction and render, Embrace instruction, or perhaps, obedience. No rendering is free from difficulty, and it may be doubted whether the text is sound. But an exaggerated importance has frequently been attached to the words. The uncertainty as to their meaning does not affect the general drift of the Psalm, or its Messianic interpretation.</cite>
Therefore the conclusion is that it doesn't mean “kiss the son”, but the Christians will keep this reading and claim that the meaning of “kiss the son” is precisely that of “do homage in purity”.