Quote:
Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas
Let's talk about how best to present Psalm 2 that will cause an average LC member to pause and think.
|
I think that people like a story; they like narrative structure. So how to present Psalm 2 within a larger narrative structure? I felt that WL had Psalm 2 within a rather disjointed and unsatisfactory structure. According to his narrative, Psalm 1 had been merely an expose of the vanity of the "natural" psalm-writer, and Psalm 2 by contrast showed us the Son. And so on, back and forth-- typically either WL would see the vain psalmist or the NT believer "enjoying Christ", and occasionally there would be a revelation of Christ Himself. Usually this revelation of Christ that WL acknowledged in the Psalms was, not coincidentally, because there was already an existing NT citation. How could he call the NT vain (though he did, with Peter's reference)?
I believe the Psalms do have at least somewhat of a narrative structure, at least at the ends. The first psalm seems deliberately chosen, showing two paths, the path of the righteous and the path of the wicked. Then at the end, there are 5 "celebratory psalms" which clearly (to me) are meant to be a capstone on the whole affair. So what lies in between the introductory word of Psalm 1 and the praises of Psalm 146-150? Did the compilers of this book intend anything by their arrangement?
I think maybe so. Psalm 2 has the "heathens raging" against God and His king. So "kiss the Son" in this context is for them to come under the subjection of God's anointed. Although David had conquered, the real story of peaceful subjection seems to be with Solomon. David was a man of bloodshed, while Solomon was a man of peaceful rule: momentarily, the heathens stopped raging. Solomon pictured the true Son of the King who ruled wisely, and to kiss the son in this context is to bow the knee and render obedience. I notice that many translations have "submit" or "do homage". Certainly that is in line with the narrative.
Then Psalm 3 has the rebellious son, Absalom, and the nobles who deserted David and joined the new faction. David, according to the superscription, wrote this while hiding in a cave. Interestingly, here he wrote that he had the power to lay his life down (and sleep), and the power to raise it up again (to wake up).
Now, I haven't really gone beyond that, but it seems to me that the mass of NT citations of the Psalms are of the incarnated, suffering Jesus. There are some referencing resurrection, ascension, and enthronement, but a good deal of it is the Jesus that the disciples saw daily for 3+ years. "Then his disciples remembered where it was written, 'Zeal of Your house has eaten Me up'", etc.
And this is what really interested me: that there may be a 'recursive' element to the Psalms. There are multiple layers of meaning within certain passages, which may touch on multiple points in the NT narrative of Jesus. Psalm 8 says "You have made him lower than the angels, You have crowned him with glory and honor." We would probably say that the first section is the incarnation of the man Jesus, and the second section is the post-crucifixion Jesus who has been raised and has ascended to the Father.
But in actuality, from a 'recursive' perspective, He was the reigning king all along! God furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead and giving Him glory, but all along He was the King. Yes, He was temporarily "lower than the angels" in his human flesh, but what did the Roman Centurion say to Jesus? "I also am a man under authority, and I have servants under me, and I say to this one, 'go'..." How do you think Jesus healed the Centurion's servant by just speaking a word? Now, Jesus was "under" God in Psalm 1; He was obedient. In Psalm 2 this is contrasted to the raging Gentiles who don't know God or His Anointed. The King is their hope, to be connected back to the Father. Come and recognize the Son, and be subject to Him, and live. The curse of Adam and Cain will be lifted. This is your path home to the Father. The Roman Centurion recognized the real, heavenly "Caesar", or king. It was Jesus the Nazarene.
The whole "romance" thing, in this place, seems quite misplaced. It's rather about being saved. Yes we love Him and want to be with Him forever. But Psalm 2, as part of the narrative, is not about romance.
Then, as I said, Psalm 3 has a rebellion. The True King, now rejected and in exile, lies Himself down in a cave, to sleep, and to rise again. Very interesting. I mean, don't you think this is an interesting narrative? I find it fascinating.