Son or Purity? – Psalm 2 – Hidden or Complex Prophetic Meaning Intended
It is common for Jews from Judaism who reject Christ to say that the word translated as “Son” in Psalms 2:12 should actually be “Purity”.
The below is not my thought but mostly KJV translators & JewsforJesus’ scholars regarding it which I find interesting (to which I agree), to quote:
- Regarding an Aramaic word used in Hebrew Poetry
The bigger issue is whether “בר (bar)” should be translated “Son”. The normal Hebrew word for “son” is “בנ (ben)”. “בר (bar)” means “son” in Aramaic (Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions). The word for “pure” in Hebrew is “בר (bar)” (Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions). That is why some translations have “Do homage in purity” at Psalm 2:12. However, “בר (bar)” is used to mean “son” in Proverbs 31:2 (“What, my son [ברי]? and what, the son [בר] of my womb? and what, the son [בר] of my vows?”), so it is possible for the Aramaic word to be used in Hebrew poetry.
- Response from a more Jewish Perspective
There’s still a Jewish way to look at it without any contradictions as the Aramaic word or that Hebrew word means either son or purity too (words in language mean that at that time).
Words change meaning in time, so arguing from today’s meaning or not at that time’s doesn’t make sense. Example, in English Charity used to mean Love a few centuries back.
Anyway, here’s a purely Jewish Scholastic view of it, to quote:
It is also claimed that this is not a Jewish interpretation of the verse. And finally, it is said that the word “bar” means “son” only in Aramaic, whereas this psalm is in Hebrew.
Yet some important Jewish sources translate “bar” as “son.” The translation can be supported by linguistic arguments. Therefore there is no basis for claiming that this rendering is a “Christian mistranslation.” Some of these sources are as follows:
The interpretation of Ibn Ezra (12th c.):
Ibn Ezra rejects the simple and acceptable meaning of ‘bar’ as pure and inclines to translate it as son, referring it to the “anointed one” in v. 2 and making it the apposite of “Thou art my son” in v. 7. Bar would then allude to Israel.
- Sarachek, The Doctrine of the Messiah in Medieval Jewish Literature (New York: Hermon Press, 1968), p. 121.
The interpretation of David Kimchi (13th c.), observing the validity of “son” as well as “pure”:
Qimchi observes that bar may either be the same as the common Hebrew ben, as in Prov. xxxi.2, or may mean “pure,” as in the phrase “pure of heart.” “If,” he says, “we adopt the reading son, then the sense will be, ‘kiss the son whom God hath called a son,’ saying, ‘Thou art my son;’ and the verb must be explained by the custom of slaves kissing the hand of their masters. But if we adopt the reading pure, it means, ‘What have I to do with you? for I am pure of heart, and there is no iniquity in me that you should come and fight against me; but it is your part to kiss me and to confess that I am king by the ordinance of God.’
cited in J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms: A New Translation with Introductions and Notes Explanatory and Critical (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), pp. 119-20.
The Isaac Leeser translation of the Hebrew Bible (19th c.):
Do homage to the son.
Isaac Leeser, Twenty-Four Books of the Holy Scriptures Carefully Translated After the Best Jewish Authorities (New York: Hebrew Publishing Company). Leeser’s translation was the standard American Jewish translation from 1845 until the Jewish Publication Society translation of 1917.
Willem A. VanGemeren, Professor of Old Testament and Chairman, Dept. of O.T. Studies, Reformed Theological Seminary:
In favor of the traditional translation are the context of the psalm (submission to the Lord and to the anointed), the proposal by Delitzsch that the sequence bar pen (“Son, lest”) avoids the dissonance of ben pen (KD, 1:98), and the suggestion by Craigie that the usage of the Aramaism may be intentionally directed to the foreign nations (Psalms 1-50, p. 64).
In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), p. 72.
Source:
https://jewsforjesus.org/answers/in-psalm-2-12-is-kiss-the-son-a-mistranslation-by-the-christians-2/
To argue from a typical basic usual Hebrew reading of it does not take into account many factors and hence may not convey the point correctly. A shallow reasoning for basic way of speaking (not taking out deep prophetic and hidden meanings) is to be rejected in this reading especially since this Psalm speaks of Gentiles too.
- Response from a mixed Gentile Perspective considered as well
It’s speaking to the Gentiles for that part & hence context change and Aramaic Son is meant.
Kiss the Son, less “He” (the Son is referred to). You practice righteousness not kiss it. Kissing is to a “Person” figuratively or metaphorically especially toward one who is King or God or Ruler as the Context warrants.
Verse 7 is spoken by the LORD to his Son. This is the God of Israel speaking to an Israelite Son. The audience, being an Israelite Son, is addressed as “Son” in the Hebrew language. Verse 12, however, is spoken to Gentiles. The Psalm begins with a question relating to the rebellion of the Gentiles (“heathen”, translated from “גוים (goyim)” is the same word for Gentiles). Verse 10 refers to judges “of the earth” and therefore the admonition in verse 12 to “Kiss the Son” is given to these Gentiles.
The Gentiles nearest to the psalmist were the Chaldeans who spoke Aramaic. To these Gentiles, this reverent individual is addressed as “Son” in the Aramaic language. The Psalm also emphasizes the contrast between Zion and the uttermost parts of the earth. Verse 6 says “Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.”
This coming Messiah is not just a generic ruler of the world. He has his roots in Israel, has a Hebrew character, and speaks the Hebrew language.
He is the “בנ (ben)” of Israel’s God. Then verse 8 says “…I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Here the focus shifts, or rather grows, from the locality of Israel to the entire globe. This coming Messiah is therefore no longer a local king of Israel. He is the “בר (bar)” of earth’s God. Thus the identification of the “Son” as either in the local language or in the lingua franca depends on the geographic context of the verse.
This second Psalm is indisputably loaded with theology. If it’s too complex for you, please continue in your less complex beliefs. For a detailed discussion, please consider (source):
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/kiss-the-son-or-do-homage-in-purity-in-psalm-212
P/S: Beware of Jewish Fables
The Psalm (Psalm 2) in is Hebrew, yes but a single word is in Aramaic there to prove a point to the immediate Gentiles who speak Aramaic to point them to the Son too.
Here’s an example of where the entire wordings are in Hebrew but in the middle of it we find a single verse in Aramaic.
Yes, Jeremiah 10:11 – a single sentence denouncing idolatry occurs in the middle of a Hebrew text but is in Aramaic. Probably since the focus of idolatry is more prevalent among the Gentiles & thus a focus is drawn to the word “Son in Aramaic” in Psalm 2:12 for like reasons too (a Biblical Analogy drawn).
So, it’s extremely rare but similarly is the case here that the Psalms 2 is in Hebrew but that word is in Aramaic for “Son” (and the grammar for “Son of” may not be revelant or even in existence as the Targum itself proves from a later time as the KJV scholars demonstrate, in link prior) for the purpose of Gentile emphasis as discussed.
Regarding other possible single Aramaic word occurrences in the middle of Hebrew Scripture, please consider:
Genesis 15:1 – the word במחזה (ba-maħaze, “in a vision”). According to the Zohar (I:88b), the word is Aramaic, as the usual Hebrew word would be במראה (ba-mar’e).
Numbers 23:10 – the word רבע (rôḇa‘, usually translated as “stock” or “fourth part”). Joseph H. Hertz, in his commentary on this verse, cites Friedrich Delitzsch’s claim (cited in William F. Albright’ JBL 63 (1944), p. 213, n.28) that it is an Aramaic word meaning “dust”.
Job 36:2a – Rashi, in his commentary on the verse, states that the phrase is in Aramaic.
Source:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Aramaic
Now even if Psalm 2:12 refers to purity instead of the Son, the “He” in Psalm 2:12 is the “Son” identified in other verses in this ‘same’ Psalm.
Example:
“I declare concerning a statute: Jehovah said unto me, ‘My Son Thou art, I to-day have brought thee forth.” (Psalm 2:7, YLT)
King David is speaking prophetically of “Lord Jesus Christ as the Messiah” and not referring to himself (as commonly erred or missed in Rabbinical Judaism) as ‘he speaks in the spirit prophetically’ as it is only Revealed or known absolutely with New Testament Inspired Divine Scripture in verses below too:
“So also Christ did not glorify Himself so as to become a high priest, but He who said to Him, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”;” (Hebrews 5:5, NASB)
“For to which of the angels did He ever say, “YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”?” (Hebrews 1:5, NASB)
This again proves that the Mysteries of Scripture (example, what is written about Christ in the Psalms too in context of Luke 24:44 – 45) cannot be understood with the Torah only but together with Inspired New Testament Scripture as well. A failure to believe the New Testament Scripture would cause one to not understand these great but hidden truths.
Shalom
“not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth. To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.” – apostle Paul (Titus 1:14 – 16, NASB)
