Latest / Reformed Thinking / Why Do the Nations Rage? God’s Anointed King Reigns (Psalm 2) | Biblical Studies Press

Transcript

Why Do the Nations Rage? God’s Anointed King Reigns (Psalm 2) | Biblical Studies Press · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Picture a war room. You have the the most brilliant
• 0:03
  military strategist, the wealthiest heads of state and
• 0:06
  the sharpest political minds, and they're all huddled around a
• 0:10
  massive table. Right.
• 0:11
  The ultimate think. Tank.
• 0:12
  Yeah, precisely. They are moving pieces on a map,
• 0:15
  drafting legislation, pooling their vast resources to
• 0:18
  overthrow a supreme ruler, and they are entirely confident.
• 0:23
  Oh. Absolutely.
• 0:24
  They have the numbers, the wealth, the weapons.
• 0:26
  They've calculated every single variable.
• 0:29
  But you know, what they've failed to realize is that the
• 0:31
  ruler they are plotting against is not sitting in a rival
• 0:34
  capital. He is the one who created the
• 0:36
  map itself. Yeah.
• 0:37
  He forged the iron in their weapons.
• 0:39
  Exactly. I mean spot on.
• 0:41
  He sustains the very oxygen in their war room, and as he
• 0:46
  watches their grand secretive conspiracy unfold, he does not
• 0:49
  mobilize troops. He does not break a sweat.
• 0:51
  He well. He just.
• 0:53
  Laughs. It is a staggering image.
• 0:54
  Welcome to Reform Thinking. OK, let's unpack this today.
• 0:57
  Our deep dive is an intense textual investigation of the NET
• 1:00
  Bible, 1st Edition Notes on Psalm 2.
• 1:03
  And our objective today is singular and very focused,
• 1:06
  right? We are going to understand the
• 1:08
  precise grammatical nuances, the historical context of the
• 1:11
  ancient Near East, and the theological significance of
• 1:15
  human rebellion against God's preordained decrees.
• 1:19
  We are essentially pulling apart the vocabulary of hubris.
• 1:22
  We are looking at what happens when finite creatures attempt to
• 1:25
  arm wrestle the infinite creator.
• 1:27
  And before we jump into the verses, let's lay out our
• 1:30
  theological framework for you, the listener.
• 1:32
  We are viewing this through a strictly reformed theological
• 1:35
  lens. Yes, we are Protestant
• 1:37
  Christians, and our framework for analyzing these verses
• 1:40
  adheres to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
• 1:42
  So as we read the rebellion of the nations, we will be
• 1:46
  evaluating it against the backdrop of God's absolute
• 1:48
  sovereignty and the total depravity of the human heart.
• 1:52
  The contrast between the scheming of humanity and the
• 1:54
  decree of heaven requires us to look really closely at the
• 1:58
  Hebrew text, the Aramaic cognates, and the ancient Near
• 2:01
  Eastern treaty language. And just a quick reminder, our
• 2:03
  ground rule for the show, both of us are committed to letting
• 2:07
  each other finish our complete thoughts.
• 2:09
  There is 0 interrupting or talking over one another here.
• 2:12
  We want a clean, respectful dialogue.
• 2:14
  Absolutely good ground rule. So let us begin right at the
• 2:18
  ground level with verses one through 3.
• 2:20
  We start by looking at the chaotic actions of humanity
• 2:23
  before the camera pans up, so to speak, to shift our gaze to
• 2:27
  heaven. Right verse one opens with a
• 2:29
  rhetorical question. Why do the nations rebel?
• 2:33
  And the psalmist is not looking for an informational answer
• 2:35
  there, right? He's not confused by the
• 2:38
  geopolitical landscape. No, not at all.
• 2:40
  He's expressing absolute outrage at the audacity of the nations
• 2:43
  rebelling against God and his chosen King.
• 2:45
  He is looking at this global conspiracy and asking like, what
• 2:49
  possesses you to think this could possibly work?
• 2:51
  And that outrage is captured brilliantly in the Hebrew
• 2:54
  vocabulary. The text uses the verb regash
• 2:57
  for this rebellion. Regash, that is a pretty rare
• 3:01
  word, isn't? It it is an exceedingly rare
• 3:03
  word. In fact, it occurs only here in
• 3:05
  the entire Hebrew Bible. Wow, only here.
• 3:08
  So how do we figure out what it actually means?
• 3:11
  Well, to figure out its precise shade of meaning, we have to
• 3:15
  look outside the immediate Hebrew lexicon and consult its
• 3:18
  Aramaic cognate. Right.
• 3:20
  And we find that in the book of Daniel chapter 6, I believe.
• 3:22
  Yes, specifically chapter 6. So if you recall that narrative,
• 3:26
  Daniel has been elevated to a massive position of authority in
• 3:29
  the Persian Empire under King Darius.
• 3:32
  And the other government officials the say traps and
• 3:34
  administrators, they are just consumed with envy.
• 3:37
  They want to tear Daniel down. Precisely, and the Aramaic
• 3:41
  cognitive regash is used to describe how these officials
• 3:43
  acted as a conspiring group. They did not just formally
• 3:47
  petition the king. No, they formed a restless
• 3:50
  murmuring mob like assembly. They were whispering in the
• 3:53
  government halls. So when the psalmist uses Regash
• 3:55
  in Psalm 2, he is looking at the nations and seeing the same type
• 4:00
  of whispered collective plotting.
• 4:02
  Yes. It is not a formal declaration
• 4:04
  of war delivered by an ambassador.
• 4:06
  It is a restless, chaotic underground scheming.
• 4:09
  And the vocabulary continues to build that specific picture of
• 4:12
  underground plotting. The notes point to the Hebrew
• 4:15
  verb haga. Haga.
• 4:17
  Yeah, that is a fascinating word.
• 4:19
  Normally when you encounter this word in the biblical text, it
• 4:22
  means to recite quietly or to meditate like.
• 4:25
  Meditating on the law of the Lord day and night, right?
• 4:28
  It brings to mind the image of a cow chewing its cud.
• 4:32
  You know, a slow, deliberate, repetitive process of digestion.
• 4:35
  But here that word takes on a metonymic meaning.
• 4:39
  It means to devise, plan or plot.
• 4:42
  They are not chewing on the law of God, they are chewing on
• 4:45
  their hatred of it. And the shift in that word
• 4:48
  reveals something vital about the anatomy of sin.
• 4:51
  How so? Well, meditation is a slow,
• 4:54
  deliberate focus of the mind. By using a word associated with
• 4:57
  quiet meditation to describe political and spiritual
• 5:00
  rebellion, the text illustrates that this rebellion is not a
• 5:03
  spontaneous crime of passion. So the nations are not just
• 5:07
  lashing out in a momentary irrational fit of raid.
• 5:10
  No, they are ruminating on their hostility.
• 5:12
  They are chewing on their resentment toward God's
• 5:14
  authority. It is a calculated, heavily
• 5:17
  internalized hostility. The kings of the Earth are
• 5:20
  actively engaged in planning their own rebellion, savoring
• 5:24
  the thought of their own autonomy.
• 5:25
  And we also see the phrase devising emptiness or the Hebrew
• 5:29
  word Rick. Rick, that word is fascinating
• 5:32
  because it does double duty, right?
• 5:33
  It really does. On one hand, it indicates the
• 5:35
  guaranteed outcome of their plots.
• 5:37
  Meaning no matter how much they scheme, the result will be a
• 5:41
  vacuum. It will just fail.
• 5:43
  Spot on. But on the other hand, Rick
• 5:46
  highlights their total moral bankruptcy.
• 5:48
  The very substance of their meditation is void of any moral
• 5:52
  weight. Then verse 2 introduces the
• 5:54
  kings of the earth. The notes classify this as a
• 5:56
  hyperbolic reference. Yes, these are not equal
• 5:59
  superpowers squaring off against God.
• 6:02
  These are kings who had already been conquered by and were
• 6:04
  subject to the Davidic King. So they are vassal kings and
• 6:08
  they take their stand and conspire together using the
• 6:10
  Hebrew verb yassad or it's alternate forms said.
• 6:14
  Which gives us a physical posture of defiance.
• 6:16
  Finally, in verse 3, we see their actual goal.
• 6:19
  They want to throw off the shackles.
• 6:20
  They view the righteous rule of the Lord and His vice Regent as
• 6:24
  a literal prism. And this is where we must apply
• 6:27
  our Reformed framework, specifically the doctrine of
• 6:30
  total depravity, to understand the mechanics of this rebellion.
• 6:33
  Yes, total depravity as articulated in the Westminster
• 6:36
  Confession, teaches that humanity through the fall has
• 6:40
  wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good
• 6:43
  accompanying salvation. So as a natural man, being all
• 6:46
  together averse from that good and dead in sin, he is not able
• 6:50
  by his own strength to convert himself right.
• 6:53
  His default setting is hostility toward his creator.
• 6:56
  When we read that the kings of the earth view God's decrees and
• 6:58
  righteous laws as shackles to be cast off, we are seeing the raw
• 7:02
  exposure of the unregenerate heart.
• 7:04
  Humanity in its natural state does not view God's law as a
• 7:08
  protective boundary or a loving guideline.
• 7:10
  They view it as chains. They perceive divine authority
• 7:13
  as tyranny. And they gather together, and
• 7:15
  their quiet meditation, their haga, is entirely consumed with
• 7:19
  how to break free from the one who sustains their existence.
• 7:21
  Think about it like a group of disgruntled corporate employees.
• 7:25
  They are whispering around the water cooler, having these
• 7:28
  quiet, hushed conversations. Yeah, devising A hostile
• 7:32
  takeover of the company. Exactly.
• 7:34
  They are drafting emails on company laptops, organizing
• 7:37
  secret meetings in the company boardroom, and convincing
• 7:40
  themselves they have the leverage to pull this off.
• 7:43
  But they are completely oblivious to the fact that the
• 7:46
  CEO they are plotting against personally owns the very
• 7:49
  building they are standing in. Right, he owns the water cooler
• 7:52
  they are whispering around. He signs the paychecks that
• 7:55
  allow them to feed their families.
• 7:56
  Their plot is completely detached from reality.
• 7:59
  They are using the resources given to them by the ruler to
• 8:01
  plot against the ruler. It is just absolute emptiness.
• 8:06
  It really is. But I have a question about
• 8:07
  this. If they're plotting is so
• 8:09
  obviously futile, and if they're meditating on this so heavily,
• 8:13
  why does their intellect fail to grasp the absurdity of their
• 8:16
  situation? Well, the failure of their
• 8:18
  intellect is a direct symptom of that total depravity.
• 8:22
  Depravity does not just corrupt the moral compass, it darkens
• 8:25
  the mind. It makes humanity fundamentally
• 8:28
  irrational when it comes to the things of God.
• 8:30
  Yes. The Apostle Paul writes about
• 8:33
  this in his letter to the Romans, describing how humanity
• 8:36
  suppressed the truth in unrighteousness and as a result,
• 8:39
  they're foolish. Hearts were darkened.
• 8:41
  These kings are highly educated. They are military tacticians.
• 8:45
  They are political savants. But their spiritual deadness
• 8:48
  creates a massive blind spot. Zinn demands autonomy.
• 8:53
  It screams that the creature can usurp the Creator.
• 8:56
  So they surround themselves with their own military might, their
• 8:59
  own wealth, and their own sycophantic counselors.
• 9:03
  Creating a massive echo chamber that reinforces their delusion
• 9:06
  of strength. They.
• 9:07
  Look at their Chariots and their gold, and they convince
• 9:10
  themselves that they can sever the invisible cords of divine
• 9:13
  sovereignty. Which brings us perfectly to the
• 9:15
  second major movement of the text, covering verses 4 through
• 9:18
  6, the sovereigns reaction from the throne.
• 9:21
  Right, because the earthly kings have plotted A futile rebellion.
• 9:26
  The logical next step is to examine the direct reaction from
• 9:29
  the heavens. You just spent time analyzing
• 9:31
  the restless, murmuring, plotting chaos of the nations.
• 9:34
  And now that chaos is met with the absolute stillness of God.
• 9:39
  Verse 4 describes God as sitting using the Hebrew verb yashav.
• 9:44
  The translators know this is used metonymically for sitting
• 9:47
  enthroned. He is not pacing the floors of
• 9:50
  heaven and anxiety. He is entirely secure.
• 9:52
  The juxtaposition is deliberate and stark.
• 9:55
  Down on Earth, the kings are raging, taking their stand,
• 9:58
  sweating over their maps and forging their weapons.
• 10:01
  Up in heaven, God is seated. He is at rest.
• 10:04
  And his reaction to this global, coordinated rebellion is
• 10:08
  derisive laughter and scoffing. The grammatical structure here
• 10:11
  is really significant, right? The Hebrew imperfect verbal
• 10:14
  forms in verses four and five are doing heavy lifting.
• 10:17
  They absolutely are. Hebrew verbs often communicate
• 10:20
  aspect rather than strict tense. In this case, the imperfect
• 10:23
  forms describe the action from the perspective of an eyewitness
• 10:26
  watching the divine response unfold in real time.
• 10:29
  Yes, the psalmist is pulling the reader into the throne room,
• 10:32
  placing you right there, watching the Almighty laugh at
• 10:35
  the absurdity of the human plot as it happens.
• 10:37
  I want to look at the theological implications of this
• 10:39
  laughter from our reformed framework.
• 10:41
  OK, let's do that. The Westminster Confession
• 10:44
  teaches the immutability of God. He does not change, and His
• 10:48
  eternal decrees are fixed. He is outside of time, declaring
• 10:52
  the end from the beginning. So when we look at God sitting
• 10:55
  and thrown and laughing, it is a flawless illustration of
• 10:59
  absolute sovereignty. Earthly conspiracies, no matter
• 11:02
  how widespread, well funded or organized, do not threaten the
• 11:06
  eternal decrees of God in the slightest.
• 11:09
  He lasts because the outcome is already preordained.
• 11:12
  There is no alternate timeline, no multiverse scenario where the
• 11:15
  kings of the Earth successfully overthrow the Creator.
• 11:19
  Their failure is as certain as God's existence.
• 11:22
  What do you think is the psychological impact on these
• 11:24
  rebellious kings when they realize that the creator of the
• 11:27
  universe is not threatened by their rebellion but actually
• 11:29
  mocks it? The psychological impact would
• 11:32
  be devastating. Think about how conflict works
• 11:34
  among peers. Right.
• 11:35
  If an enemy takes your rebellion seriously, if they mobilize
• 11:38
  troops, declare a state of emergency and show signs of
• 11:41
  worry, it validates your. Exactly.
• 11:43
  It tells you that you are a legitimate threat.
• 11:45
  It feeds your ego. But when the target of your
• 11:48
  rebellion responds with derisive laughter, it completely strips
• 11:52
  away the illusion of autonomy and might that you have spent
• 11:56
  your whole life building. It exposes your nakedness and
• 11:59
  your absolute impotence. It communicates that the gulf
• 12:02
  between the creator and the creature is infinite.
• 12:05
  The kings realize they are finite, fragile beings
• 12:09
  attempting to intimidate the infinite God.
• 12:11
  And the text notes that this mocking does not remain as
• 12:14
  laughter. It shifts to terrifying rage in
• 12:17
  verse 5. The language focuses heavily on
• 12:19
  the psychological terror this anger strikes into the
• 12:21
  rebellious kings. God is not just dismissing them,
• 12:24
  He is speaking to them and his anger and terrifying them in his
• 12:27
  fury. Then in verse 6, the Lord speaks
• 12:30
  His first direct words in the Psalm.
• 12:32
  He uses an emphatic first person pronoun, which translates to I
• 12:36
  myself have installed my king. He does not say my king has
• 12:39
  managed to secure his throne. He says I myself have done this.
• 12:43
  That emphatic pronoun is the linguistic hammer that shatters
• 12:46
  the rebellion. God is declaring His unmediated
• 12:49
  direct action in the political affairs of the earth.
• 12:51
  He has placed his king on Zion, his holy hill.
• 12:55
  The earthly kings were trying to throw off the shackles, but God
• 12:58
  responds by pointing to the heavy, immovable reality of His
• 13:01
  chosen vice Regent. He silences the chaotic
• 13:04
  murmuring of the nations by declaring a fixed, unalterable
• 13:08
  fact. The installation of the King is
• 13:10
  not up for negotiation. It is not subject to a
• 13:13
  democratic vote among the nations.
• 13:15
  It is a divine decree. And this moves us into verses 7
• 13:19
  through 9, the decree, the Sun and universal dominion.
• 13:23
  God scoffing gives way to a formal declaration of his
• 13:26
  established order. The Davidic king now speaks in
• 13:29
  verse 7, relating the Lord's decree.
• 13:32
  You are my son. Today I have become your father.
• 13:35
  This is where the historical context becomes really vital.
• 13:37
  We are dealing with ancient Near Eastern adoption language
• 13:40
  associated with covenants of grant, a concept heavily
• 13:43
  researched by scholars like M Weinfeld.
• 13:46
  The Covenant of Grant is a crucial key to unlocking this
• 13:48
  passage, isn't it? It really is.
• 13:50
  In the ancient Near East, political relationships were
• 13:52
  defined by specific types of covenants.
• 13:55
  You had suzerain vassal treaties where a greater king demanded
• 13:59
  loyalty from a lesser king under threat of curses.
• 14:02
  But the covenant of Grant was entirely different.
• 14:05
  A Lord or a great king would reward a remarkably faithful
• 14:09
  subject by elevating him to a special status.
• 14:13
  This elevation was legally referred to as sonship.
• 14:15
  Right. Like a literal son, this
• 14:18
  faithful subject received an inheritance which was viewed as
• 14:21
  an unconditional eternal gift. This usually took the form of a
• 14:25
  vast tract of land or the promise of a lasting dynasty.
• 14:28
  So when the Lord says to the Davidic King, You are my son, he
• 14:32
  is utilizing this widely recognized ancient legal and
• 14:36
  political language. He is not talking about
• 14:38
  biological reproduction. He is making a legal declaration
• 14:41
  of status and inheritance. And the scale of that
• 14:44
  inheritance is what makes this text so massive.
• 14:46
  In a typical ancient covenant of grant, the faithful servant
• 14:49
  might get a few cities or a fertile valley.
• 14:51
  But in verse 8, the Lord expands the scope entirely.
• 14:55
  The inheritance promised here is Universal Dominion.
• 14:57
  The Lord says, ask me and I will give you the nation's as your
• 15:01
  inheritance, the ends of the earth as your personal property.
• 15:04
  He is giving the very nations that were plotting rebellion in
• 15:07
  verse one to the king as an inheritance.
• 15:09
  This. Requires us to look closely at a
• 15:11
  huge textual criticism detail in verse 9.
• 15:14
  Yes, we encounter a serious translation debate regarding
• 15:18
  what the King will do to these nations.
• 15:20
  The Septuagint, which is the ancient Greek translation of the
• 15:22
  Old Testament, reads. You will shepherd them.
• 15:25
  This Greek reading is highly influential because it is
• 15:28
  actually quoted multiple times in the New Testament,
• 15:31
  specifically in Revelation 2.2712, point 5 and 19.15.
• 15:36
  This Greek translation assumes the underlying Hebrew word is
• 15:39
  RA, which means to shepherd. However, the Masoretic Text, the
• 15:44
  authoritative Hebrew text we rely on, has a vocalization that
• 15:47
  favors the word RA, which means to break.
• 15:50
  And the translators of the Ned Bible argue strongly that the
• 15:53
  context supports the Masoretic Text reading of break.
• 15:56
  Just look at the surrounding vocabulary to see why break
• 15:59
  makes more sense. The very next line uses the
• 16:01
  Hebrew word nafats, which means to smash.
• 16:05
  You also have the king wielding a royal scepter, a chebbit.
• 16:09
  In the ancient world, a royal scepter was not a shepherds
• 16:12
  crook used for guiding sheep. It was often a heavy Mace.
• 16:16
  A weapon of war symbolizing absolute sovereignty and the
• 16:19
  might to crush opposition. And the nations are explicitly
• 16:23
  compared to fragile pottery being smashed to pieces.
• 16:26
  The imagery is unyielding. A clay jar struck by an iron
• 16:30
  Mace does not just crack, it shatters into useless shards.
• 16:34
  You do not smash a flock of sheep, you shepherd them, but
• 16:37
  you absolutely smash a rebellious vessel.
• 16:39
  The iron scepter represents a rule that will not bend OR
• 16:42
  compromise. The nation's despite all their
• 16:45
  plotting, their vast armies and their grandstanding and verses
• 16:49
  one through three are revealed to be nothing more than fired
• 16:52
  clay going up against solid iron.
• 16:54
  I want to push back on this imagery for a second, just to
• 16:56
  play devil's advocate. Sure, go for it.
• 16:58
  If the nations are already like fragile pottery.
• 17:01
  If they are fundamentally weak and easily shattered, why did
• 17:04
  they perceive themselves as capable of breaking the shackles
• 17:08
  of an iron scepter? Yeah, how do they develop such a
• 17:11
  massive blind spot regarding their own fragility?
• 17:14
  Exactly. Well, that blind spot is the
• 17:16
  psychological outworking of their depravity.
• 17:19
  They surround themselves with the trappings of status
• 17:21
  Chariots, gold fortresses. In the human realm, these things
• 17:25
  constitute strength. They judge their durability by
• 17:28
  looking at their neighbors, who are also made of clay.
• 17:31
  So compared to another clay pot, a reinforced clay pot looks
• 17:34
  invincible. Spot on.
• 17:36
  They fail to understand the difference in material.
• 17:39
  They are measuring themselves against horizontal earthly
• 17:42
  standards rather than the vertical divine standard.
• 17:45
  They forget that the breath in their lungs is on loan from the
• 17:48
  God they're defying. Furthermore, connecting this to
• 17:51
  our broader theological framework, this covenant of
• 17:54
  grant given to the Davidic King is a direct foreshadowing of the
• 17:57
  covenant of grace. In Reformed theology, we
• 18:00
  understand that the promises made to David point to Jesus
• 18:02
  Christ. Christ is the true and final
• 18:05
  Son, the perfect mediator. The absolute inheritance of the
• 18:09
  nation's belongs to Him. He is the one who will rule with
• 18:12
  an iron scepter, and his dominion is truly universal and
• 18:15
  eternal. The Davidic King in Jerusalem
• 18:18
  was a local, temporal, imperfect picture of the cosmic, eternal
• 18:22
  reality of Christ's reign. The transition from the local
• 18:26
  Davidic king to the cosmic reign of Christ forces a decision upon
• 18:29
  the listener. This brings us to verses 10
• 18:31
  through 12, the ultimatum, submission or swift destruction.
• 18:36
  Because the Sun has been installed with universal
• 18:38
  dominion and an iron scepter, A definitive choice is forced upon
• 18:43
  the earthly kings. Neutrality is entirely
• 18:45
  impossible. You cannot simply opt out of
• 18:48
  this Kingdom or declare yourself a non combatant.
• 18:50
  The text highlights that the speaker, whether it is the
• 18:53
  psalmist or the king himself, directly addresses the rebels.
• 18:57
  The verb used to address them is in the NIFL.
• 18:59
  Stem carries what grammarians call a tolerative nuance.
• 19:03
  This means the Kings are being urged to submit to the advice
• 19:06
  being given. They are commanded to yield to
• 19:08
  the Lord's sovereignty, which in their historical context
• 19:12
  practically meant paying regular tribute to the Davidic King.
• 19:15
  The requirement for tribute is standard Ancient Near Eastern
• 19:18
  protocol. When a vassal king submitted to
• 19:21
  a suzerain, he proved his loyalty by sending gold,
• 19:24
  resources and military aid. But the psalmist moves past just
• 19:27
  monetary tribute into heavier emotional and spiritual
• 19:31
  territory. This brings up two huge
• 19:33
  translation debates that alter how we read the text.
• 19:36
  First, there's the phrase traditionally rendered rejoice
• 19:39
  with trembling. The verb used here is gill,
• 19:42
  which usually means rejoice. However, linguists argue that
• 19:46
  rejoicing does not fit well in conjunction with the phrase in
• 19:49
  trembling, you do not typically throw a party while shaking in
• 19:53
  terror. Instead, it is highly likely
• 19:55
  that Gil here cares a polarized meaning.
• 19:58
  In certain contexts, like Hosea 10.5, it means to mourn or
• 20:02
  lament. This Morning acts as an autonomy
• 20:05
  for repenting of their rebellious ways.
• 20:07
  They are not being told to have a terrified celebration, they
• 20:09
  are being told to weep and repent over their treason.
• 20:12
  The idea of lamenting makes far more logical sense in the
• 20:14
  context of an ultimatum. Then we reached the 2nd and
• 20:17
  perhaps most famous translation debate in this Psalm, the phrase
• 20:21
  Kiss the sun. This phrase is heavily embedded
• 20:23
  in Western Christianity. It is in classic hymns, it is
• 20:27
  preached from pulpits, and it is in almost every classic English
• 20:29
  translation. But the translation relies on
• 20:32
  the word bar, which is Aramaic for sun, not Hebrew.
• 20:36
  The Hebrew word for sun is Ben, which was already used earlier
• 20:39
  in the Psalm. Dropping a single Aramaic word
• 20:42
  into the middle of a Hebrew poem is highly unusual, and it makes
• 20:46
  scholars suspicious of this reading.
• 20:48
  The linguistic analysis suggests it makes much better sense to
• 20:51
  read bar as a standard Hebrew adjective meaning pure
• 20:55
  functioning adverbially. Alternatively, some scholars
• 20:58
  suggest a conjectural emendation, adjusting the text
• 21:01
  slightly to read in trembling kiss his feet.
• 21:06
  Regardless of the precise grammatical route, the verb
• 21:08
  nashak, meaning kiss, is clearly metonymic for showing homage or
• 21:12
  submission. To understand why this specific
• 21:15
  type of homage is demanded, we have to look at the historical
• 21:18
  context of the vassal treaties of Esser Haddon.
• 21:21
  Esser Haddon was a king of the Neo Syrian Empire in the 7th
• 21:24
  century BC. He was a master of psychological
• 21:26
  warfare and political control. When he made treaties with
• 21:29
  vassal kings, he knew that a king might swear an oath of
• 21:32
  loyalty with his lips while secretly planning a future
• 21:35
  rebellion in his heart. They might pay the tribute, but
• 21:38
  sharpen their swords in the basement.
• 21:40
  The Easter Haddon treaties explicitly warned vassals
• 21:43
  against this exact behavior. They contained terrifying,
• 21:46
  detailed curses invoked upon anyone who swore the oath with
• 21:49
  only their words, but did not commit with their entire heart.
• 21:53
  The psalmist is issuing A remarkably similar warning.
• 21:57
  It is not enough to simply pay the monetary tribute.
• 22:00
  It is not enough to perform the outward ritual of kissing the
• 22:03
  King's feet. The homage must be sincere.
• 22:06
  The repentance must be genuine. God sees through diplomatic
• 22:10
  theater, but you know the phrase kiss the sun is so famous.
• 22:13
  Yes, it is. How should a reader process this
• 22:16
  when grammatical evidence points toward a different reading, like
• 22:19
  sincerely pay homage or kiss his feet in purity?
• 22:23
  Does losing that traditional phrasing change the theological
• 22:26
  impact of the passage? Well, it requires a shift in how
• 22:28
  we read our Bibles, certainly. Yep.
• 22:30
  But a rigorous analysis of the text requires us to go where the
• 22:33
  grammar leads, right? In this case, adjusting the
• 22:35
  translation does not diminish the theological impact at all,
• 22:38
  it sharpens it. Because the traditional reading
• 22:40
  Kiss the Sun points clearly to the person of the king.
• 22:44
  But the linguistically tighter reading sincerely pay homage
• 22:48
  points to the necessary posture of the human heart.
• 22:51
  From a Reformed perspective, God demands the whole person.
• 22:56
  He does not want the hypocritical lip service that
• 22:59
  the Easter head entreaties warned against.
• 23:01
  He demands total internal submission.
• 23:04
  The theological reality remains identical.
• 23:06
  The rebellious nations must bow to God's chosen King, the
• 23:10
  clarified. Translation simply spotlights
• 23:12
  that this submission must be authentic, rooting out the
• 23:15
  insidious hidden rebellion of the heart that we saw back in
• 23:18
  verse one. Following this demand for
• 23:20
  sincere homage, the text moves to a stark warning.
• 23:23
  The language used for drawing anger is a specific technical
• 23:26
  term. It indicates an anger that can
• 23:28
  burn quickly like fire, which was the most destructive force
• 23:31
  known in ancient Israel. They did not have explosives.
• 23:34
  A fast moving fire was the ultimate uncontrollable
• 23:37
  destruction. The warning states that the
• 23:39
  rebellious kings will perish in the way using the Hebrew word
• 23:42
  Derek. This word Derek is functioning
• 23:45
  syntactically as an adverbial accusative.
• 23:48
  It does not refer to a physical pathway or Rd. they're walking
• 23:51
  on. It refers to their behavior,
• 23:53
  their rebellious conduct. They will perish in the very act
• 23:57
  of their rebellion. Their destruction is tied
• 23:59
  inextricably to their conduct, but the Psalm does not end on
• 24:03
  the note of burning fire and shattered pottery.
• 24:05
  No, it ends with a blessing. The word for blessing is an
• 24:09
  abstract plural denoting A comprehensive state of
• 24:12
  happiness, security, and well-being.
• 24:14
  This blessing is reserved for those who take shelter in Him.
• 24:18
  This phrase is a well known biblical idiom for seeking
• 24:22
  protection. In the ancient world, seeking a
• 24:25
  King's protection fundamentally demonstrated loyalty to that
• 24:28
  king. You did not ask a rival king to
• 24:31
  protect you unless you were submitting to his rule.
• 24:33
  In the theology of the Psalms, taking shelter in the Lord is
• 24:36
  the exact opposite of the wicked plotting we saw in verse one.
• 24:39
  It is the ultimate expression of faith, dependence and
• 24:42
  allegiance. We have covered an immense
• 24:44
  amount of ground today. Let's summarize the severe
• 24:47
  contrast we have examined. Good idea.
• 24:49
  On one side we have the empty, morally bankrupt, whispered
• 24:53
  plotting of humanity. It is driven by a depraved
• 24:57
  desire to cast off the righteous authority of God.
• 25:00
  They are chewing on their own hubris.
• 25:02
  On the other side we have the secure preordained decrees of
• 25:04
  God, who sits enthroned outside of time, mocks the feudal
• 25:08
  schemes of men, and installs his chosen king with universal
• 25:12
  dominion. The contrast is between the
• 25:14
  fragile fired clay of human ego and the unyielding iron scepter
• 25:19
  of divine sovereignty. And this contrast is not just an
• 25:21
  academic exercise in theology. It has immediate real world
• 25:25
  application. The notes briefly reference
• 25:27
  Psalm 3, which provides a perfect historical example of
• 25:30
  this theology lived out. According to the historical
• 25:32
  superscription, David wrote Psalm 3 while fleeing Jerusalem
• 25:36
  during a massive, violent coup led by his own son Absalom.
• 25:40
  This was an actual breathing conspiracy.
• 25:43
  The kings of the earth, or in this case the leaders of Israel,
• 25:45
  were literally plotting against him.
• 25:47
  They had the numbers and they had the momentum.
• 25:49
  Yet in Psalm 3, David relies entirely on the divine Oracle of
• 25:52
  Psalm 2. He puts the concept of taking
• 25:55
  shelter into immediate practical action amid a real world crisis.
• 26:00
  He writes that he lies down and sleeps securely, knowing that
• 26:03
  salvation belongs to the Lord. He understands that God's
• 26:06
  decrees cannot be overturned by a military coup or a slick
• 26:10
  political campaign. He views his physical reality
• 26:13
  through the lens of God's sovereign decree.
• 26:16
  David lived out the theology of Psalm 2 while running for his
• 26:19
  life. In Psalm 3, he knew the pottery
• 26:21
  could not break the iron. He absolutely did.
• 26:23
  That brings us to our final thought for you, the listener to
• 26:26
  carry with you. We've spent this time seeing
• 26:28
  that God's decrees are entirely secure, and that human rebellion
• 26:32
  is as futile as a clay jar striking a Mace.
• 26:35
  It is a sobering reality. So I want to leave you with this
• 26:38
  question to chew on. Yeah.
• 26:40
  If this is the absolute reality of the universe, how does that
• 26:43
  change the way you read the Daily News regarding the
• 26:46
  political plotting, the closed door meetings, and the
• 26:48
  geopolitical posturing of modern nations?
• 26:51
  Something to really think about. Keep analyzing the text closely
• 26:54
  and we will see your next time on our next deep dive.