Ps 2:1-2

Ps. 2:1-2

Diagrammed:

Why do:            nations              /  congregate  /  in commotion
                        The warriors       /  murmur       / murderously
                        Earthly kings     /  take their stand
                        Princes             /  join together as one

Against

                                    The Lord; and
                                    His anointed

One thing I did not mention in regard to Ps. 1 was that it was often read as the first half of a single Psalm, the second half being Ps. 2. There are several indications of this reading, most prominently being in Acts 13:33 where Luke quotes Ps. 2.7 as coming from the first Psalm. As we will see, there are other very interesting reasons why these can be read as one Psalm.

"Why": an interesting word to begin the Psalm and, with it, the reader is immediatly set off at a great distance from these men. It strikes a disonant note, as if a symphony was in full stride and all of the sudden a very jarring and off-key note was struck. To the Psalmist these men are simply "out of place". They are a confusion to him. These men "do not fit" and it is as if they are not in focus to the Psalmist. Their rebellion have made them into a question without an answer--this sense of things will later become the source of God's laughter. They are an absurdity.

The continuous refrain and listing of these men (nations/warriers/kings/princes) only serves to deaded the reader to them. They feel insubstantial and petty; like vain chess pieces or a commotion of ants. The fact that they represent the pinnacle of power only adds to this growing sense of the futility of their actions. One is reminded of the tower of Babel and how God "looked down" on them. What to them was the height of achievment became, through the writing of the author, something incredibly petty and almost comical.

The Psalm would feel entirely different and the comedy would be lost had he started off with the Lord's anointed.

"earthly kings": just as Hezekiah's death (I believe) initiates the vision of Isaiah only to be immediatly followed by Isaiah's vision of the "Heavenly king", so too does this Psalm insert this small, but profound, qualifier ("earthly"); none of these other parties is qualified. It's presence must be intentionally placed in order to begin this process of alienation within the reader from this party in particular so as to align them, later, with the true/heavenly king. Likewise, they will be the only one's later addressed directly by God (v. 10). Although God's anointed will certainly be a mortal just like all of these kings, he will not be an 'earthly' king because he will grounded upon the 'Heavenly' king's anointing. He will stand within the sphere of God's divine power and wield that power over "the earth".

______

As with Psalm 1 we have here at the beginning those who are not aligned with God. However, whereas Psalm 1 focused on those the blessed man avoided, here the parties introduced are actively in rebellion against both the Lord and his anointed. No longer can blessedness be marked out by simple avoidance and devotion to Torah. This Psalm opens with war and one does not, therefore, have the ability to simply ignore its effects. In Psalm 1, the blessed man avoids the wicked and takes delight in the Torah. Here, by contrast, the final verse ends with “Blessed are all who seek refuge in him (the anointed king).” There are then, two sources of blessedness: Torah and God’s anointed. We will return to the implications of this at the proper time but it deserved to be noted at the outset.

One does not here have “Scripture alone” (or, “text alone”). Rather, as the Torah bears the voice of God, so does the king bear the anointing of God just as fully (and, perhaps we should say the king bears it more fully). Both of them are grounded in the providence of God and yet that does not mean that God can’t truly anoint a person as his representative and as the revelation of his kingship over Israel. Note that the rebellion of these men is not aimed simply at “the Lord” but “the Lord and his anointed.” To attack (or rebel) against God’s anointed is to rebel against the Lord himself. This reality must be grasped in order to fully appreciate the drama at the heart of the Scriptures and at the heart of God’s revealing of himself. If one sees God’s revealing as grounded only in a text, it is likely one does so because the text “doesn’t move” and (it seems) isn’t subject to human whims. The text, then, seems as stable as God himself. This, as Psalm 1 makes clear, is true (although, this “stability” is only grasped in an ever moving “meditation”). However, what is also true and must be recognized is that God also commits himself, in probably an even more profound way than he does to the Scriptures, to his anointed. A covenant can only be made with people. And God’s covenant was made with David, not with a text. Likewise, God’s covenants, stretching from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Israel were all made with men, long before the Torah was even given. The foundation for any writing was the anointed man, and the community he represented. God did not say, “Blessed are the Scriptures, and whoever believes in them will be blessed and whoever does not believe in them I will curse.” He said, “Blessed are you Abraham, and whoever blesses you, I will bless, and whoever curses you, I will curse.”

We will not see this Psalm properly until we realize that war involves living, historical parties and that it is in that arena that God is always providing for an “anointed” one. The Scriptures bear witness to this reality but they are not, themselves, this reality. To highlight this point we might say: this Psalm is not saying that to attack God’s anointed is like attacking God. These men are waging war against God and his anointed. God always provides a visible and real vessel of his anointing (like, the Davidic king and the Temple) as an expression of his oneness and unity. As the OT makes clear, when these visible markings are removed (as in Babylonian exile) something has gone profoundly wrong. And God’s promises, in these contexts, are always of a restoration of these visible vessels (whether in the form of a messiah or in a rebuilt Temple, or the Church).