Latest / Reformed Thinking / Why Do the Nations Rage? God’s Anointed King Reigns (Psalm 2) | Carl Friedrich Keil et al.

Transcript

Why Do the Nations Rage? God’s Anointed King Reigns (Psalm 2) | Carl Friedrich Keil et al. · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reform Thinking. So, you know, when we usually
0:03
talk about a global summit of world leaders, there is a very
0:07
specific expectation. Oh, for sure.
0:08
You expect diplomacy, treaties, that sort of thing.
0:11
Right. You picture heads of state in
0:14
like tailored suits sitting around these polished mahogany
0:18
tables in Geneva or Davos. Yeah, trying to solve an
0:21
economic crisis, maybe. Or broker A ceasefire.
0:24
People expect to see polite smiles for the cameras and,
0:26
well, a lot of bureaucratic hand wringing.
0:29
It's all very refined, very controlled.
0:31
But imagine for a second, a completely different scenario.
0:34
Just picture this. Imagine that the greatest
0:36
leaders of humanity, the kings, the presidents, the generals,
0:40
the absolute elite of the earth. The heavyweights.
0:43
Yeah, the heavyweights, they all gathered together and they sign
0:45
a treaty for one specific reason.
0:47
To overthrow God. Yes, they are raising their
0:50
fists, shouting into the sky, demanding to break the chains of
0:54
their Creator. It is a wild image.
0:56
It really is. And what is God's initial
0:58
reaction to this unified, massive, terrifying human
1:02
rebellion? I.
1:03
Mean he doesn't panic. He does not panic, he doesn't
1:06
send an army. He simply sits in the heavens,
1:09
looks down at them and laughs. That reaction is just, it's
1:12
chilling, honestly. It is so today we are taking a
1:16
deep dive into Carl Friedrich Keel's commentary on Psalm 2
1:20
from the commentary on the Old Testament, and we are going to
1:23
look closely at that precise scene.
1:25
It is such a dense piece of text to unpack.
1:28
It really is. Our mission today is to extract
1:32
the absolute best insights from Kiel's meticulous research.
1:36
We want to figure out why this ancient text became the absolute
1:40
blueprint for the New Testament writers.
1:42
That image of the rebellion sets the stage brilliantly for what
1:46
we are about to look into from the source material.
1:48
Yeah, it really frames the whole discussion.
1:49
Because if we connect this to the broader theological
1:52
framework, we operate from, you know, as Protestant Christians
1:55
who hold to reform theology. Right.
1:58
Specifically adhering to the Westminster Confession.
2:00
Yes, we confess that God from all eternity did freely and
2:03
unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.
2:06
Which means he is never reactionary.
2:08
Spot on. He is never caught off guard by
2:11
human decisions or massive political movements or cultural
2:16
shifts. He is completely sovereign over
2:18
all of it. And when you read Keel's
2:20
analysis of Psalm 2, you see that specific theological
2:24
reality just leaping off the page.
2:26
Because the rebellion of humanity is fierce.
2:28
It is fierce, it is calculated, and it is global, but it
2:32
shatters against the immovable reality of God's eternal decree.
2:36
The text forces you to look at earthly chaos and immediately
2:40
contrast it with heavenly dominion.
2:42
Yeah, and Keel brings out the sheer weight of that contrast
2:45
through his linguistic analysis. It's fascinating.
2:47
OK, so let's unpack this structural setup first, because
2:50
before Keel even gets to the rebellion itself, he points out
2:53
something really interesting about how this text is
2:55
physically placed in our Bible. The bookends, right?
2:58
Yeah, a lot of people read the Psalms as isolated poems, like,
3:02
you know, drawing a random card from a deck.
3:04
Just flipping to a random page for comfort.
3:06
Right, but Keel structurally connects Psalm 2 to the very
3:10
beginning of the Psalter, to Psalm 1.
3:12
And he does this by looking at the specific Hebrew words that
3:16
bookend these two texts. I always find it fascinating
3:18
when ancient editors leave these little bread crumbs for us to
3:21
follow. Oh, it's brilliant.
3:22
What stands out here is Keel's observation regarding the Hebrew
3:26
word ashtray. Which translates to bless it or
3:29
happy? Yes, bless it, Psalm One begins
3:32
with this very word. Blessed is the man who walks not
3:35
in the counsel of the wicked. I know that one well.
3:38
And then when you read all the way to the very end of Psalm 2,
3:41
it concludes with that identical word.
3:44
Blessed are all they who hide in Him.
3:46
So it starts with blessed and ends with Blessed, right?
3:49
Keel argues that this is not a coincidence at all.
3:52
This is a literary device known as an inclusio.
3:55
Like a set of book ends. Precisely.
3:57
These two Psalms are deliberately paired together to
4:00
act as a double door entrance into the entire Book of Psalms.
4:03
I love that visual, a double door entrance.
4:05
But what makes this pairing so brilliant to me is that they
4:08
operate in entirely different genres.
4:09
They really do. They have completely different
4:11
tones. Right, because Psalm 1 is
4:13
didactic. It is teaching.
4:15
It lays out the moral instructions for a righteous
4:18
life. And it does it in a very calm,
4:21
black and white instructional tone.
4:23
You have the image of a tree planted by streams of water.
4:26
It's very quiet. Very pastoral, but song 2 on the
4:30
other hand, is highly prophetic. It's loud.
4:32
It is loud. It's written with the vivid
4:34
directness of a dramatic representation.
4:37
Keel actually compares it to a Greek drama.
4:39
Oh wow, like an actual stage play?
4:42
Yeah, complete with different actors stepping up to the
4:44
microphone, so to speak, and a chorus that comments on the
4:47
action. That structural contrast really
4:51
shifts how you read them. It actually reminds me of the
4:53
relationship between the Law and the prophets in the broader
4:56
scope of Scripture. Oh, that is a great analogy.
4:59
Because the law gives you the instruction right that the
5:01
didactic teaching of how to live the boundaries what God requires
5:05
it is straightforward and clear. Just like Psalm 1.
5:08
Right. But the prophets give you the
5:11
grand, sweeping vision of God's redemptive historical plan, and
5:15
they often use intense, dramatic and sometimes violent imagery to
5:20
wake you up. Just like Psalm 2.
5:22
Exactly. I mean, yes, spot on.
5:24
They pair together beautifully to give a complete picture of
5:27
God's interaction with the world.
5:28
They give you the micro on the macro view.
5:30
But this raises a serious question for me.
5:32
If this text is so crucial to the whole layout of the Psalter,
5:36
why is Keel so insistent on the anonymity of the human author?
5:41
The authorship debate. Yeah, because we have New
5:44
Testament clues that seem to point directly to David.
5:46
Doesn't the early church in the book of Acts explicitly say
5:50
David wrote this? They do say that, and it is a
5:52
highly debated point in biblical scholarship, but Keel approaches
5:57
it with intense scholarly rigor. So what does he conclude?
6:00
He explicitly rejects Davidic authorship.
6:02
Wait, really? Even with the verse in Acts.
6:05
Yes. Now you might immediately point
6:08
to Acts chapter 4, verse 25. That's where the early church is
6:11
praying and they say that God spoke by the mouth of our Father
6:14
David your servant, before they quote song too.
6:17
Right. Most people read that and assume
6:19
the case is closed. David wrote it.
6:21
But Keel explains that in the New Testament, the phrase Hymn
6:24
of David is frequently used as a generic, coordinated idea for
6:28
the word Psalm. OK, I'm trying to wrap my head
6:30
around that. What does that mean in everyday
6:32
terms? It was a categorical shorthand.
6:35
It was not a strict historical attribution of direct
6:38
penmanship. Oh I see.
6:39
Like how people today might call every single copy machine a
6:43
Xerox. Yes, or every tissue a Kleenex.
6:46
OK, if that makes sense. It is very similar to how a 1st
6:49
century Jewish person might refer to the entire Psalter as
6:53
the Psalms of David, even though we know Moses or the sons of
6:56
Korah wrote several of them. So it is a categorical label
6:59
rather than a strict copyright claim.
7:02
That shifts the perspective entirely.
7:04
It really frees you from having to force the text to fit David's
7:08
specific life events. But Keel doesn't just stop at
7:11
ruling out David, does he? He systematically rules out
7:14
other historical figures that scholars have tried to attach to
7:17
this text. He absolutely does.
7:19
He takes them down 1 by 1. First.
7:20
He dismisses Solomon very quickly.
7:22
Why Solomon? He seems like a good candidate
7:24
for a royal Psalm. Well, Keel notes that while
7:27
Solomon's reign was certainly troubled toward its end with
7:29
various adversaries, you know he had enemies pop up, right?
7:32
It completely lacked this specific type of violent unified
7:36
coalition of nations rising up to overthrow his dominion.
7:41
It just doesn't fit his historical profile.
7:43
No, the situation simply does not fit the historical record of
7:45
Solomon's life. He was known for peace and
7:48
diplomacy. He wasn't known for shattering
7:50
in global coalitions with a rod of iron.
7:52
Precisely, then, Keel takes aim at a theory put forward by a
7:56
German rationalist scholar named Hitzig.
7:59
OK, what was Hitzig's theory? Hitzig argued that the Psalm was
8:02
written much later, specifically about a man named Alexander
8:06
Geneus. Alexander Geneus.
8:08
OK, applying this text to him seems incredibly problematic
8:12
from a theological standpoint. It's a disaster.
8:14
Because Geneus was a Hasmonean king, right?
8:17
And history records him as a brutal, bloodthirsty,
8:21
fratricidal ruler. He was a monster, frankly.
8:24
He literally crucified hundreds of his own people, the
8:27
Pharisees, while having a feast with his concubines.
8:29
Yes, the historical accounts of him are horrific.
8:32
So if you take a text that establishes the holy righteous
8:36
kingship of God's anointed and you try to map it onto a man
8:39
like Geneus. It just breaks down completely.
8:42
You turn the moral character of the text into what Keel calls a
8:46
detestable false. That is spot on.
8:49
You cannot map the righteous rule of God's Son onto a
8:52
sadistic tyrant without destroying the covenantal
8:56
integrity of the text. So Keel is extremely protective
8:59
of the moral character of scripture here.
9:01
Highly protective, he notes that while the historical situation
9:05
of the text might somewhat reflect the times of kings like
9:09
Uzziah or Hezekiah. Because they both inherited the
9:11
Kingdom in a weakened condition. Right, right.
9:13
And they faced alienated, rebellious neighboring nation.
9:17
So the political climate is a bit closer.
9:20
But still not a perfect match. Exactly.
9:22
I mean, yes, there is simply no definitive historical proof to
9:25
lock it in, and Keel affirms that this lack of historical
9:28
proof is actually a massive feature of the text.
9:31
A feature, not a bug. Yes, because the author is
9:34
wonderfully anonymous. The human figure fades entirely
9:37
into the background. Oh, I see.
9:38
So you aren't distracted. Right.
9:40
Your attention is not divided between analyzing the historical
9:43
David and looking forward to the Messiah.
9:45
The focus remains completely and exclusively on the messianic
9:49
promise. That is beautiful.
9:51
So because the human author steps off the stage, the actual
9:55
voices in the text, starting with the rebellious nations,
9:59
takes center stage. The camera zooms right in on
10:02
them. And that brings us to the first
10:03
3 verses, the theater of human rebellion.
10:06
The imagery here is so visceral. It jumps right out at you.
10:10
You have the kings of the earth taking up a defiant posture.
10:13
Let's look closely at the language Cal unpacks here,
10:16
starting with the very first word of the text.
10:18
Keel breaks down what he calls the grammar of Astonishment.
10:22
That opens the scene the. Grammar of astonishment.
10:25
I like that. The Psalm begins with the Hebrew
10:27
interrogative lama, which means wherefore or why so it?
10:31
Starts with a question. Yes, and Keel points out a
10:33
brilliant grammatical nuance here regarding how this question
10:36
functions, because llama behaves differently depending on the
10:40
verb tense that follows it. OK, break that down for us.
10:42
When llama is followed by a verb in the perfect tense, it
10:46
questions the ground or the reason for the lawlessness.
10:49
Like looking backwards at the cause.
10:51
Yes, it is asking on what basis have the people's banded
10:56
together so tumultuously? What is your justification?
11:01
Interesting. And what about the other tense?
11:03
But when Lama is followed by the future tense, it questions the
11:06
aim or the goal of this ineffectual action.
11:10
Looking forward. Right, it asks to what purpose
11:13
are they imagining this? What do you actually think you
11:16
can accomplish? So the grammatical structure
11:18
itself condemns the rebellion from the very first breath.
11:21
It completely shuts them down. It highlights that the action is
11:24
completely groundless and entirely fruitless.
11:27
They have no right to rebel and they have no chance of winning.
11:30
That is the whole point of the opening question.
11:32
That is a phenomenal layer of meaning to extract from a single
11:35
interrogative word, and Keel dives into the specific words
11:39
used for their plotting, right? Yes, he focuses on the word
11:42
Rick. Which translates to emptiness.
11:45
Right. He notes that Rick is an
11:46
accusative object governed by the verb hugga.
11:49
Now, my understanding is that Hugga usually means a quiet
11:53
inward musing, like a dull muttering.
11:56
Yeah, like an under the breath kind of speaking.
11:58
So these nations are not just sitting around having
12:01
philosophical thoughts about independence.
12:03
Far from it. They are actively muttering a
12:06
deceitful, empty plot. They are whispering a conspiracy
12:10
that is devoid of reason and has no chance of continuation.
12:14
Yes, the sheer emptiness of their plot is a core theme, but
12:18
the rebellion is not just mental or verbal.
12:20
It becomes physical. It translates into physical
12:23
political action. The kings of the earth rise up,
12:26
and the rulers take counsel together.
12:28
And Keel brings in some fascinating linguistic nuances
12:31
here, too. He does.
12:32
He looks at the Arabic roots of these Hebrew words to get a
12:35
better sense of their ancient flavor.
12:37
What does he find? For instance, the word for their
12:39
deliberating is no sad. Keel traces this to the Arabic
12:43
root sawata. Sawata.
12:45
What does that mean? It carries the primary meaning
12:47
of pressing close to an object or speaking secretly with
12:50
someone. Oh wow, it paints a picture.
12:53
It paints a picture of these kings pressing their shoulders
12:56
together in a dark room, deliberating confidentially.
13:01
Whispering their seditions so no one overhears them.
13:03
Exactly. It is the ultimate backroom
13:06
deal. They are huddling up to scheme,
13:09
I think, of a modern corporate boardroom where a hostile
13:12
takeover is being planned. That's a perfect modern
13:15
equivalent. The people involved aren't
13:17
shouting their plans from a balcony.
13:19
They are leaning in close, keeping their voices low.
13:22
And Keel also looks at the word used for the rulers themselves,
13:25
which is Raznim. And he connects that to another
13:28
Arabic route. Right.
13:29
Yes to the Arabic rizuna, which means to be weighty.
13:32
Weighty. So these are not foot soldiers
13:35
or peasants staging a grassroots riot.
13:37
No, these are the grave dignitaries, the heavyweights of
13:40
human society. Think of the billionaires, the
13:43
Supreme Court justices, the prime ministers.
13:45
The elites. Right.
13:46
The people who hold all the earthly authority are the ones
13:49
pressing close together in the dark to overthrow Yahweh.
13:52
And they state their goal very clearly in verse three.
13:55
Let us burst their bands asunder and castaway their cords from
13:58
us. They view God's rule as bondage.
14:01
Keel explicitly calls this a battle for freedom, but a
14:05
freedom that is fundamentally opposed to God.
14:07
It is a dark irony. How does Keel handle that
14:10
specific sychological framing because it is so relevant to how
14:14
people view religion today? That psychological framing is a
14:18
critical insight into the nature of sin itself.
14:20
They perceive the moral and sovereign law of God as
14:23
restrictive chains. They look at the covenant, they
14:26
look at divine justice, and they see it as a prison.
14:29
Right. But Keel also highlights a
14:31
highly specific spelling note that proves these rulers are, in
14:35
reality, completely subject to the God they're rebelling
14:38
against. A spelling note.
14:39
Yeah, a tiny grammatical detail that carries massive theological
14:43
weight. He points out the spelling of
14:45
the phrase from us, the Hebrew word mimenu.
14:48
OK, what is special about Mimenu?
14:50
Keel notes this is the Palestinian mode of writing,
14:52
which means from us, but the Babylonian scholars would rate
14:55
it differently to mean from him. So the translation hinges on
14:59
regional spelling variations. Yes, and Keel treats the text
15:03
with meticulous care to establish a theological point.
15:07
These rulers are currently, at this very moment, subject to
15:11
Yahweh and His Anointed. They are not fighting appear.
15:14
No, they are not 2 sovereign nations going to war on equal
15:17
footing. They are subjects attempting a
15:20
coup against an absolute monarch.
15:22
Precisely. The chords they are trying to
15:24
cast off are the very things currently holding their world
15:27
together. That is just incredible.
15:28
And while the kings of the Earth are pressing close together to
15:31
whisper their empty plots and complain about their chains.
15:34
The perspective completely changes.
15:36
Yes, the perspective of the text violently shifts upward.
15:40
We move from the dark, smoky backroom of human politics to
15:44
the unapproachable light of the divine throne.
15:46
Room to see how heaven reacts. Right, looking at verses 4
15:49
through 6. The contrast of domains here is
15:51
staggering. Down below you have earthly
15:53
chaos, frantic, whispering, sweaty rebellion.
15:56
And up above. Up above you have Yahweh
15:59
described as Yashev Bashimaim, He who is enthroned in the
16:02
heavens. Notice the posture there.
16:05
The Kings are rising up, taking a stand, pacing the floor.
16:07
But God is seated. He is seated, he is at rest, he
16:11
controls whatever takes place below with absolute,
16:14
unquestioned authority. And his first response to this
16:17
massive global uprising is laughter.
16:21
But it is not a joyful laugh. Not at all.
16:23
It is derision. It is the laughter of someone
16:26
looking at an Ant trying to derail a freight train.
16:29
That is a brilliant way to phrase it.
16:30
It highlights the absurdity of the rebellion.
16:33
Now here is where it gets incredibly interesting to me.
16:35
Keel focuses on the word as, which translates to then in
16:40
verse 5. Then shall he speak to them in
16:42
his wrath. Yes, it is a word that points
16:45
towards a future crisis. God does not strike them down
16:48
the very second they begin whispering.
16:49
He waits. He exercises forbearance.
16:52
I always wonder why God allows evil to persist as long as it
16:55
does. How does Keel describe this
16:57
dynamic of God waiting before he acts?
17:00
Keel uses a striking phrase here that really captures the essence
17:03
of divine patience and judgement.
17:05
What does he say? He says God allows the boundless
17:08
stupidity of the infinitely little one to come to a climax.
17:12
The boundless stupidity of the infinitely little one.
17:15
Let that sink in. It is quite the insult,
17:17
honestly. God permits the rebellion to
17:19
reach its absolute peak, allowing humanity to flex it's
17:23
tiny muscles to the utmost limit of their perceived strength.
17:26
He lets them gather their armies, draft their treaties,
17:30
build their ultimate coalition. He lets the extreme limit of
17:34
divine forbearance be reached, and only then, at the very
17:38
climax of their arrogance, does he intervene.
17:41
Only then does he thrust them down to the earth, undeceived.
17:44
He shatters their illusion of autonomy in an instant.
17:47
The waiting actually heightens the devastation of the
17:49
judgement. It does, And when he does
17:51
finally speak, the vocabulary Keel highlights is terrifying.
17:55
Because the wrath of God is not just an emotional state, right?
17:58
It is a destructive force. Right.
18:00
We tend to think of wrath as just intense anger, like someone
18:03
losing their temper, but Keel shows it is much more
18:06
comprehensive than that. So what word does Keel unpack
18:09
here? He unpacked attacks the Hebrew
18:11
word bahal, and he draws on its cognate ballah and the Arabic
18:16
ballah. And what is the root meaning of
18:18
those words? The root meaning is to let loose
18:21
or to let go. In this context, it means to
18:24
completely confound and disconcert the mind.
18:27
So God does not just defeat their armies physically.
18:30
No, he shatters their mental state.
18:32
Which is huge. Military strategists will tell
18:35
you that war is largely psychological.
18:37
If the mind breaks, the army collapses.
18:39
God strikes him with absolute mental terror, and Keel
18:43
brilliantly describes the poetic structure of verse 5 to
18:45
illustrate the sudden catastrophe.
18:48
How does the poetry reflect that?
18:49
He says, verse 5A Then shall he speak to them in his wrath is
18:52
like a rolling peel of Thunder. A rolling peel of Thunder.
18:55
OK. And verse 5B and Thunder them
18:57
down. And his hot displeasure is like
18:59
a destructive lightning flash. Oh wow, so the linguistic rhythm
19:03
of the text mimics A catastrophic storm breaking
19:05
right over the heads of the rebels.
19:07
You can hear the boom and see the flash in the Hebrew
19:09
phrasing. So the storm breaks, the
19:11
lightning flashes, and God speaks his countermeasure to the
19:15
rebellion. He says, And yet have I set my
19:19
king upon Zion, my holy hill? This brings up a massive
19:23
linguistic argument Keel makes. Yes, regarding the word for set
19:28
or anointed, the Hebrew word nessac.
19:31
This is one of his most fascinating points.
19:33
I always picture this as a ceremony where a prophet pours a
19:36
horn of olive oil over a King's head.
19:39
You know, like Samuel did with David.
19:40
That is the classic Sunday school picture we all have.
19:43
But Keel pushes back on that visual completely, doesn't he?
19:46
He does, and this is a real master class in linguistic
19:49
analysis from Keel. He argues that NESAC does not
19:53
mean to pour a liquid upon something like anointing oil.
19:56
Then what does it mean? He traces it to the meaning of
19:58
pouring wide and firm. Pouring wide and firm, like
20:01
pouring concrete. Close.
20:03
Think of an ancient foundry casting metal.
20:05
You heat the iron until it is molten.
20:07
You pour the molten metal into a mold and it sets firmly in a
20:10
place. So it is a structural
20:12
installation. Yes, it transitions from the
20:15
Latin concept of funder to pour into funder to establish or
20:20
constitute. So God is not just putting a
20:22
temporary oil stain on a man's forehead.
20:25
No, he is casting his king into the foundation of reality like
20:28
unbending iron. That is a phenomenal analogy,
20:31
casting metal instead of pouring oil.
20:34
It implies absolute permanence. You can wipe an oil stain away
20:37
with a cloth, but a cast iron pillar is immovable.
20:41
The kings are trying to burst ropes and God responds by
20:44
dropping a cast iron king onto the board.
20:46
I love how you put that. It is an unshakeable reality.
20:49
And Keel finds support for this in other ancient texts too,
20:52
right? He does.
20:53
He further supports this by citing the Targum.
20:55
Which is the ancient Aramaic translation and paraphrase of
20:58
the Hebrew Bible used by the Jewish people.
21:01
Correct. The Targum inserts the phrase at
21:03
profession am, which means I have set him up or I have
21:07
appointed him. So it is explicitly about
21:09
appointment. Yes, it proves that the
21:11
installation spoken of here is about absolute royal authority
21:14
being established on Zion, rather than a literal historical
21:18
anointing ceremony taking place on that specific dirt hill.
21:22
And Keel notes that Zion here refers to the hill of the city
21:25
of David specifically, including Moriah.
21:27
Right. It is the Holy Hill, the resting
21:30
place of the Divine Presence, that is the permanent seat of
21:33
this King's throne. So God silences the rebellion by
21:36
pointing to this unshakable iron cast king on Zion.
21:40
And immediately after God announces his king, the King
21:43
himself steps forward to speak. Which moves us right into verses
21:47
7 through 9, where we find the inviolable decree and the iron
21:51
scepter. And the transition here is
21:52
jarring. It really is.
21:54
Usually in these ancient texts there is some kind of narrator
21:57
bridging the gap, but that doesn't happen here.
22:00
It is sudden and highly dramatic.
22:02
Keel observes that there is absolutely no transitional
22:05
formula. The psalmist does not say.
22:07
And then the king replied. No, the Anointed One simply
22:10
begins speaking, revealing exactly who he is and what he
22:13
has the authority to do. The psalmist is just acting as a
22:16
seer here at this point. He is just mirroring the picture
22:19
of what he saw and echoing what he heard in this divine throne
22:22
room. He is transcribing the vision
22:24
live. Right.
22:25
And the king starts by declaring A decree.
22:28
I will speak concerning A decree.
22:30
Yahweh saith unto me, Thou art my son.
22:33
This day have I begotten thee. And Q points out some really
22:36
specific grammatical marks on the name of God here.
22:39
Oh right, the cantillation marks.
22:42
What do those indicate about how we are supposed to read this out
22:44
loud? Keel notes that the name of God
22:46
Yahweh has a Rydia Magnum and a Gaja by the Sheba.
22:50
Which are marks used to guide the chanting of the text in the
22:53
synagogue, Right? Yes.
22:54
They guide the public reading, and they signal a highly solemn
22:58
extended intonation. So the reader doesn't just rush
23:00
past it. No, the voice of the reader is
23:02
supposed to drop, slow down and carry a massive weight of
23:06
reverence here. Because the king is housing a
23:09
Chica decree. It is a formal legal
23:11
pronouncement. I think of a chica as an
23:13
unalterable royal constitution. It is not a suggestion, it is
23:18
not a temporary policy and it is definitely not open for a vote.
23:22
It is the bedrock law of the Kingdom.
23:24
And the content of this constitution is the father
23:26
declaring the sonship of the king.
23:28
Keel connects this phrase this day have I begotten thee using
23:32
the Hebrew word Yalad. And he traces that back to the
23:34
Davidic promise in Second Samuel Chapter 7, doesn't he?
23:37
He does. That connection is vital for
23:39
understanding the whole theology of the text.
23:41
How does that Old Testament history inform what is happening
23:45
in this heavenly vision? Well, the verb yalad combines
23:48
the ideas of begetting and bearing, Keel says it refers to
23:52
an operation of divine force exalted above human biology.
23:55
It is the begetting into a royal existence.
23:58
Yes, in Second Samuel 7, God makes a covenant with David,
24:02
promising that David's seed would have an everlasting
24:05
Kingdom. And God says I will be to him a
24:07
father, and he shall be to me a son.
24:10
So Keel argues that this promise is the foundation for the decree
24:13
in Psalm 2. Right.
24:15
Whether the initial historical shadow was David or Solomon.
24:18
Second Samuel 7 is the first proclamation of this royal
24:20
decree. And from this unique sonship
24:23
flows the King's absolute claim to the dominion of the entire
24:26
world. It is a legal, covenantal
24:28
reality. Which brings us right into verse
24:30
8, where the Father says to the Son, demand of me, and I will
24:34
give thee the nations for thine inheritance.
24:36
And Keel points out a fascinating grammatical.
24:39
Quirk here he identifies demand of me as a cohortative.
24:43
Yes. What does a cohortative signify
24:45
regarding the Sun's authority? It doesn't sound like he has to
24:48
beg for it. Not at all.
24:50
The cohortative form here shows that the Sun only needs to
24:54
express the desire to appropriate the world dominion
24:57
that has already been allotted to him.
24:59
He just has to ask. He does not have to fight the
25:01
Father for it, nor does he have to conquer the Earth through his
25:04
own independent military campaign.
25:07
The inheritance is entirely secure.
25:09
Think of it as a grammatical blank check.
25:11
A blank check. I like that.
25:13
He only needs to be willing to ask, and the entirety of the
25:16
heathen nations, the very ones currently pressing their
25:19
shoulders together in rebellion, are handed over to him as his
25:22
personal possession. And what he does with those
25:25
rebellious nations leads to the terrifying imagery of verse 9.
25:30
Thou shalt break them with an iron scepter, like a Potter's
25:33
vessels shout, that dashed them in pieces.
25:35
The visual of the iron scepter. Yes, but we actually have two
25:40
very different visions of this scepter colliding here based on
25:44
translation choices. This is a massive point of
25:47
discussion in biblical scholarship.
25:49
Keel notes a stark contrast between the Hebrew text and the
25:52
Septuagint, which is the ancient Greek translation of the Old
25:54
Testament. The implications are huge
25:56
depending on which word you use. Let's look closely at this.
25:59
What does the Hebrew text say? The Hebrew text uses the verb
26:02
taroa, which means to break or to shatter into pieces.
26:06
Like smashing A fragile clay pot with a hammer.
26:09
It is violent and decisive. However, the Septuagint
26:12
translates this action using the Greek word poemanin.
26:16
Which means to shepherd or to rule.
26:19
Those seem like completely opposing actions, shattering a
26:22
clay pot versus guiding sheep with a shepherd staff.
26:25
One is destruction, the other is protection.
26:27
How does Keel synthesize these two distinct ideas without
26:30
compromising the text? It seems like a contradiction.
26:33
Keel brings them together by looking closely at the
26:36
instrument being used, the iron scepter or shave it.
26:40
The shave it. The shave It can be a shepherd
26:42
staff used for guiding, directing and protecting the
26:45
flock like we see famously in Psalm 23.
26:47
Right. Thy rod and thy staff, they
26:50
comfort me. But when that staff is made of
26:52
solid iron, and when it is turned against those who remain
26:55
steadfast in their rebellion against God.
26:58
The function changes. Yes, the instrument of peace
27:02
becomes an instrument of absolute punitive might.
27:05
It is terrifying. Synthesis.
27:07
The shepherd's staff of the Messiah is iron.
27:10
It will gently guide his sheep who submit to him, but it will
27:14
violently shatter the wolves and the rebels who try to attack the
27:18
flock. The material of the scepter
27:20
dictates its dual function. Exactly.
27:22
So let's recap the scene. The rebellious kings of the
27:25
Earth are plotting in the dark to cast off God's cords, and the
27:28
anointing king is standing on Zion holding an iron Mace
27:32
capable of shattering them like cheap pottery.
27:34
The tension is incredible. Logically, this terrifying
27:37
reality has to lead to an ultimatum.
27:39
The tension is too high to just leave it there.
27:41
The psalmist has to step back into the frame.
27:44
He does. He steps back into the frame to
27:46
address the earthly leaders directly.
27:50
Which brings us to the final section, the warning and the
27:53
true refuge in verses 10 through 12.
27:56
The psalmist begins this final address with Viata, which
28:00
translates to and now. And now it sounds like a
28:05
transition to an application. Keel explains that this is a
28:08
standard rhetorical formula. It is used to draw appropriate
28:12
practical conclusions from a prophetic vision.
28:14
So he is turning the camera back to earth.
28:16
Yes, the psalmist has seen the heavenly reality, he has heard
28:19
the unalterable decree, and now he aims his words directly at
28:23
the Shafty Aretes, the judges or rulers of the earth.
28:26
He is saying, based on what I just showed you, here's what we
28:29
must do. And he demands a complete change
28:31
in their posture. Because they started the Psalm
28:33
standing up, taking a defined clients dance, pressing their
28:36
shoulders together in arrogant rebellion.
28:37
But now the psalmist commands them to take a posture of
28:40
absolute submission. Keel uses a fascinating
28:43
grammatical term here to describe the command be
28:45
admonished. He calls it an if tolerativum
28:49
Ah. Yes, the niffle tolerativum.
28:52
Can you translate that grammar into everyday language for us?
28:56
Gladly the verb is no SAR. Tolerative nifal means allowing
29:01
an action to happen to yourself. Allowing it to happen.
29:04
It translates to let oneself be chastened or allow yourself to
29:08
be instructed. So it's about dropping their
29:10
guard. Yes, the psalmist is telling
29:12
these proud, weighty dignitaries to drop their defenses, to stop
29:17
fighting the inevitable, and to willingly submit to correction.
29:21
And this submission is paired with the command to serve Yahweh
29:25
with fear and rejoice with trembling.
29:27
That phrase rejoice with trembling is so interesting,
29:30
Kiel. Clarifies that the command to
29:32
rejoice kielu is not a tautology for shaking with fear.
29:35
Right. It is a genuine, rapturous
29:37
manifestation of joy. Joy at the privilege of being a
29:40
servant to such a magnificent deficit God.
29:42
But to prevent that joy from mutating into arrogant security
29:45
or casual haughtiness, it must be blended with trembling.
29:48
It is a reverence born from the knowledge that God is a
29:51
consuming fire. I want to spend some serious
29:53
time on verse 12 because there is an intense translation debate
29:57
centered on the phrase nashkubar.
30:00
Oh, this is a huge debate. Traditionally, this is
30:02
translated as Kiss the Sun. Honestly, Kiss the Sun sounds
30:07
incredibly weird to modern ears. It really does.
30:09
It almost sounds romantic, or maybe like a mafia trope where
30:12
you kiss the Dons ring. Why are translators fighting
30:16
over this phrase? And why is Keel so stubborn
30:19
about keeping the word kiss? The difficulty arises from the
30:22
word bar. OK, what is the issue with bar?
30:26
Several ancient versions, including the Septuagint, the
30:28
Targum, and the Latin Vulgate, translated bar to mean purity,
30:32
chastity, or discipline. So they rendered the phrase as
30:36
embrace purity or submit to discipline.
30:38
Right, and modern scholars in Keel's era, like Hutfeld,
30:42
translated as yield sincerely. He wanted to soften the
30:45
language. Yes, they wanted to make it an
30:46
abstract moral command, but Keel completely rejects these
30:50
readings. Why is he so adamant about
30:52
rejecting them? Submitting to discipline sounds
30:54
like a perfectly reasonable religious command.
30:56
Keel relies strictly on the linguistic evidence in the
30:59
immediate context. Walk us through his logic.
31:02
First, he points out that the peel form of the verb nuschek
31:05
exclusively means to kiss and never anything else.
31:09
It does not mean to embrace an abstract concept.
31:11
You cannot literally kiss discipline, fairpoint.
31:15
Second, while bore can mean purity, bar is used elsewhere in
31:21
Scripture to mean son. Where does he pull that from?
31:23
Keel cites Proverbs 31 verse 2, where King Lemuel's mother
31:27
repeatedly calls him Bar meaning son of my womb.
31:31
Oh, so there is biblical precedent for it meaning son.
31:33
Yes, Keel argues that in the context of this highly solemn
31:37
poetic discourse, where Yahweh has just explicitly declared his
31:41
anointed to be his Son in verse 7, nothing is more natural than
31:45
for bar to function as the unique son of God here.
31:48
Yielding to a concept it is easy.
31:49
Yielding to a ruling person demands total submission.
31:52
That is the core of it. So if nishek strictly means to
31:55
kiss and bar means the sun, the command is literally kiss the
31:59
sun. Unapologetically.
32:00
But as we establish, this isn't a romantic kiss, and it isn't
32:03
the kiss of betrayal. Like Judas in the garden.
32:05
No, Keel points back to the Old Testament cultural context to
32:08
explain the mechanism of this action.
32:10
Specifically looking at the interaction between the prophets
32:13
Samuel and King Saul in First Samuel chapter 10.
32:16
Exactly right. When Samuel anointed Saul as
32:19
king over Israel, Samuel kissed him.
32:21
In the ancient Near East, that kiss was a formal, political and
32:26
covenantal act of doing homage. It was a physical demonstration
32:30
of submission and fealty to the newly installed king.
32:33
So when the psalmist commands the judges of the earth to kiss
32:36
the sun, he's a demanding that they bow down and pledge their
32:40
absolute allegiance to the anointed king on Zion.
32:43
It is a demand for absolute surrender.
32:45
And the warning attached to this command is severe, lest he be
32:48
angry and you perish from the way.
32:50
Now, Keel makes a nuanced point here about who the she is in
32:54
that warning. I think many modern Christians
32:56
read this and assume it's the Son who is getting angry.
32:59
It is easy to make that assumption, but Keel argues
33:02
otherwise. He looks at the consistent usage
33:04
of language throughout the Old Testament, right?
33:06
He argues that the wrath mentioned here, lest he be
33:09
angry, refers to Yahweh the Father, not the Son.
33:14
Interesting. Why does he draw that line?
33:16
While the New Testament certainly speaks of the wrath of
33:19
the Lamb, in the Old Testament framework taking confiding
33:22
refuge is almost exclusively associated with Yahweh, and the
33:26
day of wrath is always the day of the wrath of God the Father.
33:30
Therefore, Keel translates the warning as Lest Yahweh be angry
33:34
because you have refused to do homage to His installed Son.
33:37
Insult to the son is an insult to the father who cast him as
33:40
king. It is a unified affront to
33:43
heaven. Keel also clarifies the word
33:45
chemat, describing the speed of this wrath.
33:47
Right. It does not mean the wrath will
33:48
only burn for a little while and then cool.
33:50
Off he says it means the wrath might kindle easily or suddenly.
33:54
It is a hair trigger reality for those who remain an active
33:57
rebellion. But the Psalm does not end on
34:00
the note of sudden destruction. It ends with a blessing.
34:03
Blessed are all they who hide in Him.
34:06
And the verb used for hiding here, chasabi, is incredibly
34:09
dense in its meaning. Keel defines Chasabi not merely
34:13
as fleeing away from danger, but is wear AB dear.
34:17
Hiding oneself entirely and intimately within Yahweh.
34:20
It is taking confiding refuge. The rebellious kings want to
34:23
cast God off and stand on their own out in the open.
34:27
They want autonomy. The righteous person recognizes
34:30
the storm of divine justice, sees the lightning flash of
34:33
God's displeasure, and runs to hide themselves completely
34:36
within the sovereign protection of God.
34:38
It is a stunning contrast to the opening scene.
34:41
You have the empty muttering of the rebels in the dark pressing
34:44
their shoulders together in a doomed plot versus the quiet,
34:47
secure refuge of the believer hiding in God.
34:50
It is a complete inversion. And this exhaustive, meticulous
34:54
Old Testament analysis that Kiel provides is precisely why this
34:57
text becomes the most crucial blueprint for the New Testament
35:00
writers. They did not just randomly pull
35:02
verses out of context to sound spiritual.
35:04
No, they understood the massive theological reality of Psalm 2.
35:08
Which brings us to our final section, the New Testament
35:11
Fulfillment and Apostolic authority.
35:13
Keel catalogs an impressive list of New Testament citations that
35:17
rely directly on the architecture of Psalm 2.
35:20
We already mentioned Acts 4. Right where the early Church
35:22
identifies the coalition of Herod, Pontius Pilate, the
35:25
Gentiles, and the people of Israel as the literal historical
35:29
fulfillment of the raging nations.
35:31
Conspiring against Jesus. Yes, and in the Epistle to the
35:34
Hebrews, the author places Psalm 2 side by side with Psalm 110 to
35:39
prove that Christ's divine sonship makes him vastly
35:42
superior to the angels. And the apostle Paul preaches
35:45
from this exact text in Acts 13, and he references the same
35:49
theological concept in Romans 1, specifically focusing on the
35:52
phrase This day have I begotten thee.
35:55
Paul connects that today directly to the resurrection of
35:58
Jesus from the dead. How does Keel explain that
36:01
connection? Keel explains that the Today day
36:03
of the decree, according to its proper historical fulfillment,
36:07
is the day of Jesus's resurrection.
36:09
So the resurrection is the event that triggers this.
36:11
By being born from the dead to eternal life at the right hand
36:14
of God, Jesus entered upon his eternal kingship in his human
36:18
nature. The church historically refers
36:20
to this is the Diaz regalis, the royal day.
36:23
The resurrection is the visible, undeniable vindication of the
36:27
sun's installation on the Heavenly Zion.
36:30
It proves the decree is active. That structural reality anchors
36:34
the Christology of the entire New Testament.
36:37
Keel points out that the very titles used for Jesus the
36:40
Christ, which means the Anointed One and the Son of God, reached
36:44
directly back to Psalm 2 and Daniel 9.
36:46
They are completely grounded in this Old Testament framework.
36:49
When Nathaniel declares Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are
36:53
the king of Israel. In John chapter 1 he is pulling
36:57
language straight from Psalm 2. And when the high priest demands
36:59
in Matthew 26 tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God, he
37:03
is quoting the legal framework of this exact Psalm.
37:06
This is where Keele introduces a very sharp critique of certain
37:09
theological scholars of his own day, specifically naming Dewett
37:12
and Huppfeldt. Yes, he does not hold back.
37:15
These scholars argue that Psalm 2 should not be applied to the
37:18
Christian conceptions of the Messiah, treating it simply as
37:21
an ancient political poem about a local Israelite king.
37:24
Keele pushes back with a immense force against this reductionist
37:28
view. I really appreciate Keel's tone
37:30
here. He essentially says that we must
37:32
gauge the meaning of the Old Testament text by the language
37:35
of the apostles rather than the authoritative utterances of the
37:39
professorial chair. It is a great.
37:42
Line. I want to pause on that because
37:43
it's such a bold stance. Why is it so vital to gauge the
37:48
Old Testament by the New Testament apostles instead of
37:51
relying on the academic theories of university professors?
37:54
Because it comes down to a matter of revelation versus
37:57
speculation. Say more about that.
38:00
Keel refuses to let academic skepticism override Apostolic
38:03
revelation. If Peter, Paul and John, under
38:06
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, say this text is
38:09
fundamentally about Jesus than it is about Jesus.
38:11
Regardless of what a German university professor thinks is
38:14
more historically plausible. Exactly right.
38:16
Keel's dedication to the unity of Scripture is absolute here.
38:20
He points to the Book of Revelation chapter 19 to deliver
38:23
his final theological blow to the skeptics, doesn't he?
38:26
He does. In Revelation, Jesus appears
38:28
exactly as Psalm 2 represents him, striking down the nations
38:32
and ruling them with a rod of iron.
38:34
It is the ultimate fulfillment. Keel explains that the Messianic
38:37
office is twofold. Jesus is the Savior and He is
38:41
the Judge. Redemption is the beginning of
38:43
his work and judgement is the end of his work.
38:46
He bears side by side the Scepter of Peace to shepherd his
38:49
flock and the Iron Scepter to shatter his enemies.
38:52
Wow. Let's synthesize this massive
38:54
scope of text we have worked through today.
38:57
We started in the murky, chaotic backrooms of human politics,
39:01
watching the greatest, most weighty dignitaries of the earth
39:04
muttering their empty plots to cast off the cords of their
39:08
creator, the. Sheer arrogance of it.
39:10
We saw the violent shift in perspective to the heavenly
39:12
throne room where Yahweh sits in absolute, unbothered
39:16
sovereignty, laughing at the boundless stupidity of human
39:19
rebellion. The contrast is jarring.
39:21
We heard the Thunder and lightning of God's wrath as He
39:23
announces the immovable cast iron installation of His
39:26
anointed King on Zion. An unshakable reality.
39:30
We listened to the King himself, read the unalterable decree of
39:33
his eternal sonship, and claimed the entire globe is his
39:37
inheritance, wielding an iron scepter capable of shattering
39:40
nations like clay pots. He just has to ask for it.
39:43
And finally we heard the urgent merciful warning to the leaders
39:47
of the earth to drop their weapons, submit to correction,
39:50
and kiss the sun in homage before the sudden wrath of
39:53
Yahweh consumes them, finding true refuge by hiding in
39:57
entirely in Him. It is a breathtaking movement
40:00
from lawless rebellion to the absolute necessity of submissive
40:03
faith. It really is.
40:04
The text demands a response. It does not allow for
40:07
neutrality. You are either pressing your
40:09
shoulder into the rebellious coalition, imagining an empty
40:12
plot against the Iron Cast King, or you are bowing down, kissing
40:16
the sun, and hiding yourself in the sovereign refuge of Yahweh.
40:20
There is no third option. None at all.
40:22
And that brings me to a final thought.
40:24
I want to leave with you. Drawn directly from Keels, close
40:27
polemic Keel noted that when Jesus arrived the first time,
40:31
the carnal messianic hopes of the Jews completely melted away.
40:34
Because they wanted a military commander to crush Rome.
40:37
Right, and instead they got a suffering servant who died on a
40:39
cross. But Keel issues a severe warning
40:42
for the future. He says that the ultra spiritual
40:44
messianic creations of enlightened exegetes will also
40:48
melt away at his second coming as judge.
40:50
That is a staggering thought. In other words, if you have
40:53
constructed a version of Jesus in your mind who only holds a
40:56
shepherd's staff and never wields an iron scepter, a Jesus
40:59
who only redeems but never judges, that Jesus will melt
41:03
away when the true King arrives. So I leave you with this to
41:06
consider in what ways might your own modern expectations of
41:10
Christ need to be dismantled and reformed by the sheer unyielding
41:14
reality of the King with the iron scepter?