Anti-Missionary Arguments, part 8.

Tampering with the Text: Psalm 2:11-12

The Anti-missionary’s charge:

Psalm 2. By simply leaving off one Aramaic word, the entire verse is altered. In the King James Version it reads, “Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you perish from the way” (Psalm 2:11-12).

The Jewish Tanakh says “Do homage in purity (nash-ku bar) lest He be angry and you perish”. The meaning of the Hebrew word “bar” is pure or clear. Yes, in Aramaic, the word “bar” does mean son but it is used only as a combination of two words – SON OF. If in Aramaic, the author wanted to mean just the son, he would have used the phrase “ber’a with the letter alef at the end. (Psalm 2:11-12).

HaDavar response

Jacob, your objection is actually a moot point. We can go into all the technicalities of Aramaic, and Hebrew, however the result of all that would be the same. The point of verse 12 is submission to Israel’s sovereign King.

There is ample evidence in rabbinic writings that this is a Messianic Psalm. The great Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Alfred Edersheim in his classic work The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah is documents this fact. In appendix 9 of that work he lists one complete page of rabbinic quotes and references attesting to the fact that Psalm 2 is a Messianic psalm. I am not going to take the time to type all of that out for you, but I am quite willing to Xerox the page and send you the information if you desire.

Psalm 2 is one of the most quoted Psalms in the New Testament supporting the Messiahship of Jesus. The first century Jewish believers were taught by the rabbi’s that Psalm 2 spoke of the Messiah. They were convinced that it applied to Jesus and they proclaimed that message at the risk of their lives.

The point I want to make is the fact that the Messianic nature of the Psalm and its application to Jesus does not rest upon verse 12 in any way. Verse 12 can be translated in various ways and it will not affect the impact of Psalm 2. The controversy about “nash-ku bar” is well known. Translators have struggled with the unusual construction and have come up with various renderings:

• Kiss the son, lest he be angry, and ye perish in the way, For his wrath will soon be kindled. Blessed are all they that take refuge in him. (ASV)

• 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. (KJV)

• Do homage to the Son, that He not become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (NASB)

• Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (NIV)

• Kiss his feet, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way; for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him. (RSV)

• Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, When suddenly His wrath is kindled. (JPS)

Unusual in the verse is the apparent use of bar, an Aramaic word for son. Therefore the versions translate it differently. Jerome rendered it, “Give pure (bar is a Heb. word for pure) worship,” or “Worship in purity,” rather than translating the word as “son.” (The Bible Knowledge Commentary)

“Son” is a defendable translation, just as “purity,” “pure” and “feet” are, but it is not a necessary translation. The point of the thought is submission to the Jewish Messianic King. There is no “tampering” here. The translators are all trying to get that thought across. This is an example of the normal struggle that goes on during the translation process—especially when the construction is unusual.

None of the references to Psalm 2 in the New Testament demand that “Son” be the required translation in verse 12. It would be nice, as well as providing more support to the Messiahship of Jesus, but it is not a rendering necessary to the Messianic nature or message of Psalm 2.

Jacob, with all due respect, your objection entirely misses the point of the Psalm by unduly focusing on a technicality of translation regarding one phrase. The phrase that does not even alter the message of the psalm, no matter what rendering is chosen. This is a psalm that is well attested, by the rabbis, as Messianic. The first century Jewish believers simply agreed and applied the Psalm to Jesus.