The Coronation Psalm and the War of Gog of Magog
Psalm 2 is written as a psalm without a heading in honor of a particular king. Its content and visionary language indicate that it is not describing a specific king but rather depicts a prophetic vision of the future redeemer, Melech haMashiach, King Messiah, as it is written: “This day I have brought you forth”. The psalmist penned his Psalm as a mirrored picture of what he saw and as an echo of what he heard.
In the prophecy given through Natan the prophet (2Sa 7:5-16), the Eternal promised everlasting kingship to the House of David. One of the themes of the coronation of the kings of Israel was adoption, as it is written: “I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son” (2Sa 7:14). The expression “forever” in 2Sa 7:5-16) establishes the kingdom and throne of David beyond the time of Shlomo and to the eternal continuance of his seed. No earthly kingdom, however, and no posterity of any man, has eternal duration. The posterity of David, therefore, could only last forever by a person who lives forever, that is, in the Messiah, who lives forever. This promise consequently refers to the posterity of David that closes with the Messiah, so that by the “seed” Shlomo is not referred to alone, nor to the Messiah alone to the exclusion of Shlomo and his posterity.
Since the time of King Shlomo, every king of Israel became a [adopted] son. This is repeated three times in the book of Chronicles regarding Shlomo: 1Ch 17:13, 1Ch 22:10, 1Ch 28:6. One of the titles given to the kings of Israel was Melech ha-Mashiach, the Anointed King or King Messiah, which became synonymous for “king of Israel”. On the day of the coronation of the king, the father-son relationship was thus established. But this adoption of the king of Israel is best seen in the royal coronation of Melech ha-Mashiach, מָשִׁיחַ, in Psalm 2. The author of Psalm 2 is King David.
This Melech haMashiach became the son of Elohim by the merit of the decree, yet it is not proper to say “Son of God” in the manner of flesh and blood, as an earthly son is of the form of his father. Further, where He says, “This day I have brought you forth”, the begotten is not of the same kind as the begetter, for the “Godhead” is unfitting to be spoken of father and son, because the Eternal cannot be divided, and He cannot be increased or decreased, for He is not a body that can be divided. And further, Father existed before the son came into existence, as a father is prior to a son in time, and the son is brought forth from the father. And when He says, “You are My son, this day I have brought you forth”, He also said it about, “Israel is My son, My first-born” (Exo 4:22) and also, “You are sons of the Eternal your Elohim” (Deu 14:1), it is unfitting to say that Israel possesses some kind of “divine” origin. Hence, it is fitting to say that the Father is one in every aspect of unity, as we argued and explained in the series of articles “The Oneness of the Creator”.
But where did this Christological interpretation come from?
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. (Psa 2:12 KJV)
Despite this translation, it does not appear to be correct. We will explain.
The exhortation, “Kiss the Son” (Hebrew, nashku bar), makes reference to the hostility the nations show against the Anointed One in verse 2 (Hebrew, mashiach) acknowledged here in verse 12 as His Son, in fact the Son of God. The subject of the verse to what follows is not the Eternal but the Son, which conclusion follows by the way the phrase is capitalized, “lest he be angry”, i.e. “lest the Son be angry”. With this David warns the rulers of the world not to challenge the wrathful zeal of the Eternal for His Christ. Therefore, if the meaning of nashku bar is “son”, then this will be its best interpretation: Kiss this son whom God has called Christ, as He says, “You are My son” (verse 7). And the command is “Kiss him!”, because it is the custom for a servant to kiss the hand of the master as a sign of respect. As we will see below, the KJV translation has strongly depended on Aramaic to render this verse to read “Kiss the Son”. Hence, the interpretation of the verse is as follows: those who do not kiss Christ will be subject of His Father’s wrath and consequently will perish. Thus far the Christology.
But this explanation is difficult because the verse states, nashku bar. What does nashku bar mean? It suffices for now to say that there is grammatical and textual basis for the above translation and interpretation, as this will be further explained in the interpretation of the verse below.
The war of Gog of Magog against the Eternal and His anointed
At this point in the discussion, it is necessary to understand the context of the psalm. The reason why we find this important to emphasize will be made clear further on.
Classical rabbinic texts on Psalm 2 typically do not involve dispute or controversy with Psalm 2. The Rabbis understand Psalm 2 as about the future War of Gog of Magog depicted in Ezekiel 38 and 39 and about the messiah stating that the psalm refers particularly to the nations that will rise up against the anointed of the Eternal. That this is the case is obvious from how the psalm begins, namely,
Why do the nations rage, and the peoples murmur emptiness? The kings of the earth take their stand, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Eternal and against His anointed, and say, “Let us tear apart their bonds and throw away their ropes from us”. (Psa 2:1-3)
But He who sits in the heavens laughs at them, and then He speaks in His wrath, saying, “But I, I have set My King on Tsiyon, My set-apart mountain” (Psa 2:4-6). And then regarding the son it is written.
The king of Israel as an anointed son
The anointed one now suddenly speaks and expresses who he is, and what he will do by the merit of the decree pronounced in heaven.
“I inscribe for a decree”, the Eternal has said to me, “You are My son, this day I have brought you forth. Ask of Me, and I make the nations your inheritance, and the ends of the earth your possession”. (Psa 2:7-8)
After the anointed declares what the Eternal has required from him, he will break the nations “with a rod of iron”, that is, by the sword as a metaphor for war, and dash them to pieces like a potter who dashes his pottery. And once he has made this admonishment, he advises their kings to be wise and serve the One who has sent him with fear or else (Psa 2:8-11). Then we come to the point to interpret the controversial verse 12, which we explain and leave to the reader to draw conclusions.
“The surest way of misunderstanding Hebrew is to read a translation”. Navah
In the King James’ version of Psalm 2:12, the phrase in Hebrew “Kiss the Son” is nashku var, whose translation was heavily influenced by Aramaic and not Hebrew. This verse will be explained in consonance with its plain grammar and intent.
Grammar notes: The word var in nashku var is actually the word “bar“, but because it is preceded by a vowel it takes the sound “v” instead. The suffix vav, “u”, indicates masculine plural imperative. Thus, the word nashku is a requirement and means “Kiss …!” We now return to the text.
But there is indeed an Aramaic word for “son”, and it is bar, like in the verse. This Aramaic word has caused a great deal of controversy as to the meaning of the verse. The Hebrew word for “son” is ben. And if indeed David used Aramaic instead of Hebrew, then we now have the possible translation: “Kiss the Son”, as we read in KJV translation. Or do we? The inevitable question is: Is the word “bar” in Psalm 2:12 a Hebrew or Aramaic word?
The choice of this word poses a difficulty, for this translation is not grounded well in the Hebrew text. The Hebrew word בֵּן ben is used in this Psalm (verse 7): “You are My son (בֵּן ben). This day I have brought you forth”. The question that is forced upon us is this: Did David switch all of a sudden from Hebrew to Aramaic at the end of his psalm? For it would not make a lot of sense that a Hebrew speaker as David would change the Hebrew ben to Aramaic bar in verse 12. What sense is there in doing this? Rather, it would be fitting if he had used in verse 12 the Hebrew word ben which means “son” instead of the Aramaic word bar. How can this be resolved?
There is indeed a Hebrew word בַּר bar which literally means “grain” of any kind (even while standing in the field), but as we will explain below, it is connected with the word בֵּן ben, “son”. In what way בַּר bar and בֵּן ben are connected? The explanation is as follows: as a grain is a seed from which the cereal grasses grow, so is a son, from whom the family builds up and continues. But there is still confusion. The Aramaic word for “son” is also ben, as in Hebrew. And the confusion comes from the fact that the Aramaic word bar is often confused with the Aramaic word ben. What is the difference in Hebrew and in Aramaic?
The word ben, in the sister languages (Hebrew and Aramaic are both Semitic languages), means “son”, but while ben indeed means “son”, the word bar means “son of”. In other words, when we want to say “son”, we say ben, but when we want to say, “son of”, we say bar in both languages. In our verse, if “son” is meant, then it would have been written, nashku ben, “kiss the son”, not nashku bar, “kiss the son of”, which would be an unfinished phrase; the son of what? Therefore, as far as the grammar is concerned, the expression nashku bar, “kiss the son of”, might be rendered as in variant to nashku ben, “kiss the son”. But the sense would not allow it. How could David switch the terms of reference and confuse his readers, for the rule of grammar rejects this interpretation?
The best place to discern the meaning of the word “son” is in the verse Pro 31:2, wherein the word בר bar, is the same as בן ben, as in: “What, my son (בנ, ben)? And what, O son of (בר, bar) my womb? And what, O son of (בר, bar) my vows?” (Proverbs were written in Hebrew). Thus, we learn that the word ben “son” transforms (for grammatical purposes) into bar “son of”, if it has to designate possession, as in “son of my womb”. Another example is the common phrase bar mitsvah, which means “son of command”, not ben mitsvah, which would mean “son-command”. It is only with difficulty that we can obtain any meaning from “son-command”. Therefore, we are fairly convinced that David had not mean in verse 12 to say, “kiss the son”, when he wrote nashku bar. But what did he mean?
Expounding upon this, we will explain that there is another Hebrew word that is spelled identically (as bar in the verse) but has a different meaning. It is the word בַּר bar, which means pure, clean, clear, as it is used in Job 11:4, Psa 73:1, Psa 19:8, Psa 24:4. Bar is derived from the primitive verb בָּרַר barar, meaning to clarify, examine, select, choice, chosen (1Ch 9:22, 1Ch 16:41), clean (Zep 3:9), purify (Eze 20:38, Dan 11:35). Hence, bar can mean something of choice, as it is used in Son 6:9, for if something is pure, clean, and clear, it is also choicest. Thus, if the meaning of bar is of “purity”, the verse interpretation is, “Kiss what is pure”, as bar may so be fittingly interpreted from, “Choose (בר) a man for you” (1Sa 17:8). Now, we will explain what the phrase “Kiss what is pure” means. For this purpose, we will refer to the Torah to explain the Hebrew word נָשַׁק nashak, to kiss. In Gen 41:40 we read,
You shall be over my house, and according to your word shall all my people be ruled (Hebrew, yishshak, from נָשַׁק nashak). Only in the throne will I be greater than you. (Gen 41:40)
Here Pharaoh speaks to Yoseph, who after he interpreted correctly the dreams Pharaoh had, became a vizier of Egypt. The meaning of Pharaoh’s decree is this: “You shall be in charge of my court, and by your command shall all my people be ruled”. Some commentators understand this to mean that no one will be allowed to be armed, נָשַׁק nashak, without Yoseph’s approval. This rendering is in accordance with 1Ch 12:2, 2Ch 17:17, and Psa 78:9. Others understand the verse literally, in the sense of נָשַׁק meaning “to kiss”, as in Gen 27:27, Gen 29:11.
And Ya’akov kissed (נָשַׁק nashak) Rachel and lifted up his voice and wept. (Gen 29:11)
The Pharaoh’s decree would then mean that the whole population of Egypt would pay respect to Yoseph by kissing his hand, as it was the custom in the ancient world to show respect to a king. Therefore, nashku bar in Psalm 2 means “pay respect”, as this word נָשַׁק is used in Gen 41:40 to mean “to pay respect” by kissing one’s hand.
In conclusion, the phrase nashku bar in Psalm 2:12 should be translated as “kiss what is pure (or clean)”, i.e., embraced righteousness, rather than “kiss the son of”, which does not make a lot of sense on account of dubiousness. Hence, we translate the verse thus,
Respect cleanness (lit. “kiss purity”), lest He be angry, and you perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. Happy are all those taking refuge in Him. (Psa 2:12)
Alternatively, “Arm yourselves with purity [of the heart] …” Thus, the meaning of the verse and the admonishment to the nations is: “[Nations] embrace purity and quickly repent, for in a short moment His wrath will suddenly be kindled against you. But all those who take refuge in Him will be recognized”.
These are the literal translations and explanations of the text, which permits each detail to fall into its place. The reason why we are forced to give our interpretation, which is quite clear, is that Psalm 2 is of Messianic times concerning the war of Gog of Magog, as it is written: “Why are the nations in an uproar … against the Eternal, and against His anointed”, and we believe that this is the proper context of interpretation of the controversial verse 12. And the language of the verse fits in well with our explanation.
Knowledge known to only a few will die out. If you feel blessed by these teachings of Time of Reckoning Ministry, help spread the word!
May we merit seeing the coming of our Mashiach speedily in our days!
This page contains sacred literature and the Name of the Creator. Please, do not deface, discard, or use the Name in a casual manner.