Ps 2:7

Ps. 2.7

Diagrammed:

I will tell  /  of the Lord’s decree

He said to me:
You are my son
Today   /   I have begotten you


Words of intimacy: We now move inside, to a dialogue between the Enthorned One and his enthroned (anointed). The shift in tone and mode are immediate. The words addressed to the arrogant men are directly spoken by the Lord to those gathered against Him and his anointed. They are the only words in the Psalm that originate from his mouth alone. And they are words of terror and mockery. Emerging from a disdainful laughter, we saw how the Psalm had prepared us, the reader, to stand on the ‘far side’ of these men, with the Lord, and yet we were not fully prepared for what happened. A gathering storm of laughter (or a lightning burst of laughter) followed by a booming declaration that admitted of no compromise. It was a sheer assertion of authority. If one wanted to understand what God’s ‘sovereignty’ meant one can actually sense this in the contrast deployed by this Psalm between the arrogant men’s words and the Lord’s. It seems to me it is the impact of these words that is one of the better explanations of God’s power.
But here, there is (another) radical change. These are not words spoken to a group of people. They are words spoken to one man. These are not words that we hear emerging directly from God’s mouth. They are words we hear from the anointed. These are not words that words of utter authority, but words addressed to a son. The effect of this is immediate. The anointed, like a prophet, is now going to deliver God’s words to the nations and to Israel. These are words that are portrayed as being spoken in private. They were heard only by the anointed, which is why only the anointed can share them. Some implications to the contrasting words:
The words spoken to the nations are 10; the words spoken to the anointed are (in English) 45.
The words spoken to the nations were not words of ‘conversation’ but assertion of authoritarian fact. They were not conditional in any way (unlike the arrogant men’s words). There was no sense at all that God’s words were moveable. Here, the words spoken to the anointed are full of desire and give-and-take. They are actually a dialogue. “Just ask me, and I will…”. They admit of all the distance that the words to the nations did not allow. One could say the words to the nations were the words of a Master, whereas the words to the anointed are the words of a Father.
The words spoken to the nations (and this sounds repetitive) gave no room to the nations. They would play no part in the speech. The anointed, on the other hand, is made into a mediator. He will become and embody a dynamic relationship between the Lord and his people (and the nations). God’s sovereignty over the nations as shown in the words addressed to the nations are actually seen to rest, here, in the request/supplication made by the anointed. This is an incredibly important point: God’s action displaying his sovereignty is rooted in the request made by his anointed that that sovereignty be given over to him, the anointed. I don’t want to dwell too much on this but it deserves a brief reflection. I would argue that for many God’s ‘sovereignty’ is one that resides only in the words addressed to the nations by which I mean: God’s sovereignty is something only enacted by Himself. It is something that is purely ‘heavenly’ and is not at all something ‘earthly’ or ‘natural’. However, what we see in this Psalm is in fact the opposite. The words addressed the anointed are much longer and they reveal that God’s sovereignty is in fact rooted in His empowering his anointed to enact that sovereignty. To truly understand God’s sovereignty then one must look to those he has anointed to carry it out. These men do not “get in the way” of seeing God’s face. In fact, even God’s words themselves, addressed to the nations, do not say, “I will enact my judgment against you”. Rather, they center down completely and utterly on his anointed. He yells to the nations not to “look at Yhwh” but “Look at my anointed!” 
One gets the sense here that God’s sovereignty over the nations would/could actually be “pent up” or withheld if his anointed refused to ask that it be released through him. In this sense, history “moves” when it is asked to be moved forward. So, when the reader of the Psalm would be looking at the anointed one, he would be looking at the one in whom resided the power to dispense with God’s justice. It is certainly not something everyone would have the power to do. Like many of the prophets (stretching from Abraham to Moses to Ezekiel and Jeremiah), this anointed is engaged in a dialogue with God, and the outcome of that dialogue is the outcome of “history”.
“You are my son”: It has already been noted, but nothing stands in starker contrast to verses 1-6 than these words. Until now everything has been either utter confusion (“Why….”) or utter authority (“I have installed my king…”). There have been no hints that anything like a familial dynamic would be heard in this Psalm. And yet, just as we have already been shocked in this Psalm, so are we again so surprised by these words. “You are my son…”
It is as if, at the end of verse 6, the reader is looking around for words that are not so ‘absolute’ in their terror. Remember, even the reader of the Psalm is frightened by the words of verse 6. Here, we seek what the people of Israel found in Moses when they heard the words on the mountain. They were so terrified that they sent him up alone so that they could listen to Yhwh through Moses rather than hearing the Lord’s words directly. When the Israelites hear the words again they want to know that these words emerge from a conversation. They want to know that they have been tempered in some way. Moses becomes the one they send ahead to accomplish the goal. Here, something similar is at work. In verse 6 we had the “voice of Yhwh” in its utter starkness. Here, we see the words addressed to his mediator. It is a conversation, a softening, in some way. And, amazingly, it is “his son” he is speaking to. One could ask for no one better to “hear God’s words” and be the conversation partner than “his son.” And, just as the Israelites would be waiting with “baited breath” for Moses to return, to know what the Lord had spoken, so too, when we look at the anointed we wait patiently to know the outcome, hoping the anointed has not enkindled the anger of the Lord further but coaxed Him to stand on our side.
Here, though, we begin with the assurance that this has already occurred. The statement, “You are my son, Today I have begotten you” stands in the past because the anointed is informing us of something the Lord has already said.
“Today I have begotten you”: Chronologically, and logically, this statement at first appears odd. One is always a son, one is not “made a son”. Likewise, one is ‘begotten’ once, not twice. Being a son is a relational term that has no meaning apart from the dynamic between parent and child. However, there is one way in which a person is “made a son” and that is through adoption. However this occurred in ancient times, it was often understood that a king was an (adopted) son of the god. Understanding this purely along the lines of adoption though limits the force of the statement. “I have begotten you” points to a real ‘generation’ from the Lord, of the anointed. The anointed is, in this sense, being “born again for the first time”. But this time he is “born into kingly authority”. His very being, his very generation from the Lord, is one of being “born a king”. Therefore, just a child is entirely constituted by how that child is born, so too is this anointed entirely constituted as king. It is as if he was being born into a king’s flesh, through the womb of the anointing. His establishment is total and complete. He will now become the source of God’s justice (he will mediate God’s authority/justice to the world). And he will do so from the intimacy and totality of his being “a son” who was actually “begotten” in his anointing.