Psalm 2 plays a key role, first as a pillar of the doorway to the Psalter as Israel’s Hymnal and second, in direct prediction of the Coming King (Messiah) and his role among the nations. Nonetheless, Christians today, particularly in North America, debate the fulfillment of these direct predictions. Let us briefly consider the psalm itself and then look at how the Apostles interpreted the fulfillment of its direct predictions. The interpretation of the Apostles—who adopted their hermeneutic from Jesus—ought to guide us as to how the promises of this Psalm will be fulfilled.
Hymnic Structure
The poetic structure divides the psalm neatly into four stanzas of roughly equal length as follows:[1]
1. For this literary structure, see The Psalms: Layer by Layer — Scriptura: Accessed 19 September, 2024.
Rebellion: Earthly Kings Plot Rebellion Ps. 2.1–3
Response: The Heavenly King Laughs Ps. 2.4–6
Decree: King on Mt. Zion Recounts Yahweh’s Covenant Ps. 2.7–9
Ultimatum: Earthly Kings Called to Submit to Zion’s King Ps. 2.10–12
In four scenes the psalmist, plunging immediately into his theme, gives the reader a picture of God’s shattering of his enemies through his royal Son. Like a TV camera shifting from one scene to the next, the psalm turns first to the raging nations (Ps. 2:1–3), expressing astonishment at the foolish rebellion against the Lord and his Messiah (i.e. Anointed King; Acts 4:25–28). Then the camera shifts to heaven, where in contrast to the wild, rebellious anarchy on earth, the Lord sits in calm contempt (Ps. 2:4–6). The divine derision is masterful. It is as if God were saying, “You kings of the earth may revolt, if you foolishly will, but I (the I is emphatic in Hebrew) have determined that my King shall reign from Zion, and I will have the last word!” Next the camera shifts to the Son, who claims that He is no usurper, but holds His office by divine decree (Ps. 2:7–9). This divine decree is the covenant God made with David and the promises to his heir in 2 Samuel 7. Shortly, we will see how the authors of the New Testament interpreted the fulfillment of these promises. Finally, the camera shifts back to the earth, and the mutinous nations are offered their only hope: total submission to the Davidic Son, the only way to escape God’s wrath.[2]
2. Adapted from S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., The Old Testament in the New: An Argument for Biblical Inspiration (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 15–16.
The four sections / scenes form an artistic composition. The two inner scenes describe the special relationship between YHWH and “his” King. The two outer scenes, moving in opposite directions, describe behavior in the world of peoples, on the one hand the attempt to tear oneself away from the rule of God, and on the other hand the call to submit to the rule of God. In addition, the four sections are so interwoven that the first and third (key word: peoples, kings / ends of the earth) and the second and fourth (key word: YHWH’s wrath) sound together.[3]
3. See Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Die Psalmen I: Psalm 1–50 (Die Neue Echter Bibel [Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1993]), 49.
God’s Promises to David and David’s Heirs
At the heart of the appeal to the nations to find hope and safety from destruction is the covenant made by God with David and his heirs in 2 Samuel 7 (with parallel in 1 Chron. 17). Psalm 2 is an exposition of these promises made to David. God promised him an eternal kingdom, an eternal throne, and a son who would sit on that throne. These three promises are found in both Psalm 2:12–13 and 2 Samuel 7:16, standing like supporting pillars on both sides of the covenant described as a father-son relationship.
To understand this father-son relationship, we must grasp the use of the word “son” in Hebrew, the cultural context of kingship in Canaan and in the ancient Near East, the use of family language in treaties, and the canonical context of the passage.[4]
4. For a detailed exposition and evidence, see Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, Rev. Ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 447–459.
First, the term for “son” in Hebrew has a broader field of meaning than “son” in English. In an agrarian, preindustrial economy and society, trades were normally transmitted within a family setting. In this way, sons customarily did what their fathers did, and they displayed common characteristics passed on from family setting, genetics, and upbringing. Thus, the term “son” can be used to mean “possessing the characteristics” of something (cf. “son of fatness” = “characterised by fertility” in Isaiah 5:1).
The ancient Near Eastern and Canaanite cultural context is significant. In Egypt, from at least 1650 B.C. onwards, people perceived the king as the image of god because he was perceived as the son of god. The emphasis was not on physical appearance. For example, a male king could be the image of a female goddess. What is stressed is that the behaviour of the king reflects the behaviour of the god. The king as the image of god reflects the characteristics and essential notions of the god.[5] This idea fits well with Psalm 2:6, which is commonly translated “I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.” The rendering “set” is based on the Septuagint, but is almost impossible to substantiate. The word in Hebrew is nāsak, which normally means to pour out or to cast a molten image. Nowhere in the Old Testament is pouring out a libation used to consecrate a king, so the best interpretation is that Yahweh has cast his image on Mount Zion. This connects the Davidic king to the image of God.
5. See P. E. Dion, “Ressemblance et image du Dieu,” Suppléments aux Dictionnaire de la Bible X, ed. H. Cazelles and A. Feuillet, 55:365–403.
From Ugarit we have the story of King Keret, who is described as the son of El or God.[6] The Old Testament records an Aramean king of Damascus known as Ben-Hadad.[7] Hadad is another name for Baal, the rain god. By his name, he is the son (“ben”) of his god. The difference between Ben-Hadad and David is this: Baal or Hadad was a local, tribal deity. But Yahweh is the Creator of the whole world. So obviously, David as son of God in Psalm 2 is far more powerful and significant than Ben-Hadad as son of god. Other kings need to pay attention to the one on the throne of David (Ps. 2:10–12).
6. See Gregorio del Olmo Lete and Joaquín Sanmartín, A Dictionary of the Ugaritic Language in the Alphabetic Tradition, trans. W. G. E. Watson, 2 vols. (Handbook of Oriental Studies I: The Near and Middle East 67; Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2003), 226. Also noteworthy: K. A. Kitchen, “The King List of Ugarit,” Ugarit Forschungen 9 (1977): 131–142; T. Kleven, “Kingship in Ugarit (KTU 1.16 I 1–23),” in Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, ed. L. Eslinger and G. Taylor, JSOTSup 67 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988), 29–53.
7. 1 Kings 15:18, 20; 2 Chronicles 16:2, 4. See M. Cogan, 1 Kings, Anchor Bible 10 (New York: Doubleday, 2000), 399–400.
Also, in the ancient Near East, those bound by suzerain-vassal treaties may refer to each other as father and son.[8] Second Samuel 7:14–15 clearly emphasise the need for obedience on the part of the son, yet the literary structure shows that this is undergirded primarily by the promises of the father.[9]
8. For Mesopotamia, see, e.g., W. Heimpel, Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation, with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), p. 48, and note texts such as 26:347 (p. 311) and 26:372 (p. 326), where “father” is used to refer to the suzerain. For Egypt and Canaan, “father” and “son” are terms used in the Amarna Letters (EA) of parties in suzerain-vassal treaties, e.g., EA 44, 73, 82 in William L. Moran, ed. and trans., The Amarna Letters (Baltimore/London: John Hopkins University Press, 1987, 1992, 2002). Similar language comes from Phoenicia, as in the Kilamuwa and Karatepe inscriptions; see J. C. L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions: Phoenician Inscriptions, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1982), 3:47–48, 130–131. I am indebted to Gregory Smith and Jim Harriman for helping me locate these texts.
9. Note in particular the connection between servant and sonship in the context of covenant in 2 Kings 16:7; and see Stephen G. Dempster, “The Servant of the Lord,” in Central Themes in Biblical Theology: Mapping Unity in Diversity, ed. Scott J. Hafemann and Paul R. House (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 136f.
The Davidic covenant in 2 Samuel 7 must also be read according to the context of the whole Old Testament. A canonical reading indicates that the Davidic king is inheriting the role of both Adam as son of God and Israel as son of God according to the instructions of Deuteronomy 17. This can be briefly summarised.
First to be considered is the fact that humans are created as the divine image, according to Genesis 1:26–28. The divine image defines human ontology in terms of a covenant relationship with the creator God on the one hand and with the creation on the other hand. The former may be captured by the term “sonship” and is implied by Genesis 5:1–3. The latter relationship, i.e., between humans and the creation, may be reflected in the terms kingship and servanthood.
Second, Israel inherited this Adamic role.[10] Yahweh refers to the nation as his son in Exodus 4:22–23. The divine purpose in the covenant established between God and Israel at Sinai is unfolded in Exodus 19:3–6. As a kingdom of priests, they will function to make the ways of God known to the nations and also to bring the nations into a right relationship to God. Since Israel is located geographically on the one and only communications link between the great superpowers of the ancient world, in this position she will show the nations how to have a right relationship to God, how to treat each other in a truly human way, and how to be faithful stewards of the earth’s resources. This is the meaning of Israel’s sonship.
10. Exodus 15:17 shows that Canaan becomes for Israel what the garden sanctuary was for Adam.
Third, Deuteronomy 17 intimates that the king will be the leader in this role. Deuteronomy 17:16–20 describe the manner in which the future king is to exercise his responsibilities. After three negative commands in Deuteronomy 17:16–17, Deuteronomy 17:18–20 specifies three positive commands, all relating to Torah: (1) the king shall copy the Torah; (2) the king shall have the Torah with him; and (3) the king shall read the Torah. In other words, the only positive requirement is that the king embodies Torah as a model citizen.[11] This is exactly the point of the father-son relationship set out in 2 Samuel 7.
11. See Daniel I. Block, “The Burden of Leadership: The Mosaic Paradigm of Kingship (Deuteronomy 17:14–20),” in How I Love Your Torah, O Lord! Studies in the Book of Deuteronomy (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 118–139 (originally published in Bibliotheca Sacra 162 [2005]: 259–278).
Fourth, the author avoids using the word “king” (melek) in 2 Samuel 7 and instead employs the word nāgîd, i.e. leader (2 Sam. 5:2; 6:21; 7:8). This is to counteract the notion of kingship in the culture surrounding Israel and to portray a kingship in Israel based not on autonomous power but one that represents the kingship of Yahweh.[12] In addition, twice in 2 Samuel 7, Yahweh refers to David as “my servant.”[13] This is hugely significant. This is the highest title a human can receive in the Old Testament. The term “servant” connects with nāgîd to emphasise a servant kingship and clearly marks David in an Adamic role.
12. Donald F. Murray, Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics, and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence about David (2 Samuel 5.17–7.29), JSOTSup 264 (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 299.
13. See 2 Samuel 7:5, 8. Note how Psalm 89, the psalm on the Davidic Covenant par excellence, picks up on this and also twice speaks of “my servant David” (Psalm 89:3, 20).
The response of David to this revelation through the prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 17:18–29 reveals David’s own understanding of the covenant. Verse 19 is critical. David declares that the covenant relationship is “the instruction of Yahweh for all humanity.” And Psalm 2 is explaining and unfolding the meaning of v. 19 in detail.
The Use of Psalm 2 in the New Testament
When will the promises of God to David be fulfilled? Certainly, there will be fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth. But the question is still when?
Although Psalm 2 predicts the Coming King, the New Testament indicates that there is an already and not yet to the fulfillment of this promise. It may apply to the first coming of the Messiah or it may apply to the second coming of the Messiah. Let us see how this works.
First there is a fulfillment in the First Coming of the Messiah according to Romans 1:4 and Acts 13:33.
Romans 1:4
4 Christ Jesus . . . was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God [Ps. 2:7] with power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead (ESV).
Acts 13:32–33
32 We bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you [Ps. 2:7].’
The connection with Psalm 2 is absolutely clear in Acts 13, but both texts show that when Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended to heaven, God installed him as his King over the nations.
The Apostle Peter applies Psalm 2 in Acts 4 to the First Coming of Christ. Here the Apostles were imprisoned “for proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection from the dead” (Acts 4:2). Peter speaks first before the Jewish leaders and High Priestly Family. He affirms that the formerly lame man was healed by Jesus Christ of Nazareth—“whom you crucified, whom God raised from the God” (Acts 4:10). Then Peter says in Acts 4:11,
11 This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone [an allusion to Ps. 118:2]. 12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.
Peter’s citation from Psalm 118 indicates that Jesus is the cornerstone of the true temple and Peter declares Jesus’s universal authority. The focus of Jesus’s authority makes possible the proclamation of salvation in his name.[14] Later, when the Apostles report to the church in Acts 4:24–30, they cite Psalm 2:
14. See Alan J. Thompson, The Acts of the Risen Lord Jesus: Luke’s Account of God’s Unfolding Plan (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2011), 160–61.
24 And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said, “Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, 25 who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit,
“‘Why did the Gentiles rage,
and the peoples plot in vain?
26 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers were gathered together,
against the Lord and against his Anointed’—27 for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. 29 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, 30 while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”
The early church rightly interprets the nations rebelling against Yahweh in Psalm 2 to mean Herod, Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leaders gathered against Jesus. They pray to continue preaching the good news, but they do not interpret the Psalm in terms of God shattering the nations or bringing them under political control.
Three clear allusions to Psalm 2:9 are found in the book of Revelation. The verb in the Hebrew Text of Psalm 2:9 is strong: to shatter. The king will break his enemies like broken pottery. The Greek verb used in both the Septuagint and the book Revelation is poimainō which normally means to shepherd. Yet it is clear that Revelation uses this word in two different senses. In the context of Revelation 19:15 poimainō is parallel with “to strike” and in Revelation 2:27 it is parallel with “broken.” This alternative meaning “to devastate or lay waste” is sufficiently attested.[15]
15. Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, trans. and rev. by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, 2nd ed. rev. by F. W. Gingrich and F. W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), s.v.
Rev 2:27
27 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father (ESV).
This is Jesus’ message to the church in Thyatira and clearly the promise is to be fulfilled in the future — “the one who keeps my works until the end.”
Rev 12:5
5 She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne (ESV).
In the symbolic vision of Revelation 12 the male child represents the Messiah as the allusion to Psalm 2:9 shows. When the child is caught up to God this must refer to Jesus’ ascension. It isn’t clear from this symbolic vision whether the rule of the coming king begins at the ascension or is future to that.
Rev 19:15
15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty (ESV).
Nearly all interpreters recognize that Revelation 19 describes the Final Battle when Jesus conquers the nations and this is followed by the New Creation. Regardless of one’s view of the millennium, the fulfillment of Psalm 2:9 occurs at the Second Coming of Christ.[16]
16. Douglas Wilson is perhaps the lone exception to this near universal interpretation, a fact he himself acknowledges. Wilson’s idiosyncratic interpretation of Rev 19:15 will be addressed in the next section. Douglas Wilson, When the Man Comes Around: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Moscow ID: Canon, 2019), 223.
Theological Reflection
Psalm 2 teaches that God has placed His son on Mount Zion as king over all the nations (Ps. 2:7). This king will utterly destroy all those who are in rebellion against God and against himself (Ps. 2:8–9): that is, all who do not totally submit to his rule (Ps. 2:10–12). The New Testament not only identifies Jesus Christ, the ultimate Davidic Son, as the broad fulfillment of this Psalm, but also connects specific events in Jesus’s life with specific verses of the Psalm. For instance, the New Testament clearly identifies Jesus’s resurrection/ascension as the fulfillment of Ps. 2:7 (Rom. 1:4, Acts 13:32–33). At the resurrection and ascension, then, Jesus is enthroned over all the nations, receiving them as his inheritance (Ps. 2:8). However, when it comes to Christ’s crushing of the nations over which he rules (Ps. 2:9), the New Testament presents a future fulfillment (or perhaps an already-not-yet fulfillment). Of the three references to Ps. 2:9 in Revelation, two are clearly in the future (Rev. 2:26–27, Rev 19:15) while the timing of the third (Rev. 12:5) is unclear. Theologically, this means that Christ’s shattering of his enemies will primarily occur at the second coming—not the age of the church. The kingdom of God then, while inaugurated at the resurrection of Christ (Ps. 2:7) awaits its culmination at his return. The enemies of the Davidic Son will continue to rage (Ps. 2:1–3) until the day Christ returns to break them with a rod of iron (Ps. 2:9) and slay them with the sword of his mouth (Rev. 19:15). Between the resurrection and that future day, Christ continues to rule victoriously in the church, saving his people out of the midst of the raging nations despite all their efforts to overthrow him. Nonetheless, it is only when he returns that those who take refuge in him (Ps. 2:12) experience their full salvation.
One theological view pushes back against this future-oriented understanding of Christ’s kingdom. Postmillennialism affirms that “the prophecies of universal righteousness, worship, and shalom will reach fulfillment before Jesus returns.”[17] To support this view, advocates of postmillennialism often argue that texts displaying “the worldwide destruction of God-haters (e.g., Ps. 2:1–9; 110:1–2, 5–6; Isa. 11:4; 25:10–12; 63:1–6; 1 Cor. 15:24–25, 27–28; Rev. 19:11–21) [are] predictions of the Christianization of the nations.”[18] Advocates of postmillennialism frequently appeal to Psalm 2 as a prooftext for their position, while at the same time acknowledging that the use of Psalm 2:9 in Revelation 19:15 is difficult to reconcile with their view. I will briefly interact with both postmillennial appeals to Psalm 2 and their creative exegesis of Revelation 19 in order to demonstrate that postmillennialism’s view of the kingdom of God fails to provide a compelling alternative to the picture outlined above (at least as regards Psalm 2).
17. Jeremy Sexton, “Postmillennialism: A Biblical Critique,” Themelios (48.3), December 5, 2023,. Much of the critique of postmillennialism that follows is drawn from Sexton’s excellent article. For a fuller exploration of this discussion, readers can refer to Sexton’s article above, Doug Wilson’s seven point rejoinder, and Sexton’s final reply. Douglas Wilson, “A Seven-fold Rejoinder to Jeremy Sexton,” Blog & Mablog (blog), March 11, 2024; Sexton, “Postmillennialism: A Reply to Doug Wilson,” The Aquilla Report (blog), April 23, 2024.
18. See Sexton, “Postmillennialism: A Biblical Critique.”
Psalm 2 functions as a significant prooftext for those who advocate a postmillennial eschatology. For example, Kenneth Gentry argues that since Ps. 2:7 is fulfilled at the resurrection (cf. Acts 13:33–34) the expansion of Christ’s kingdom and the submission of the nations to his rule (Ps. 2:8–9) begins at the resurrection. Christ takes ownership of the world geographically and politically—beginning at Jerusalem (where the resurrection occurred and the gospel was first preached) and extending to the end of the earth.[19] Doug Wilson likewise notes argues since believers are Christ’s inheritance (Acts 4:25) and Ps. 2:8 promises Christ an inheritance of nations, the two ought to be read together such that Christ’s inheritance is understood as believing nations rather than believers from all nations.[20] Wilson then reasons that because Rev 2:26–29 shows that Christ exercises his rule over the “nations through his saints,”[21] it is by the expanding sociopolitical influence of the saints that over the nations that the nations will be Christianized and the kingdom of God will spread until it covers the whole earth.
19. Kenneth Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion: An Eschatology of Victory, 196–197.
20. Wilson, “A Seven-fold Rejoinder to Jeremy Sexton.”
21. Wilson, “A Seven-fold Rejoinder to Jeremy Sexton.”
Revelation 19:15, however, is extremely difficult to reconcile with this view. This verse appears to show Christ destroying the nations at his second coming—not returning to a world in which the kingdom of God has already come over the whole earth. There are two postmillennial responses: David Chilton takes Rev 19:15 as referring to the conversion of the nations, not their destruction,[22] whereas Wilson argues that this destruction of the nations will not occur at the second coming, but already happened at the destruction of the temple in AD 70.[23] Neither of these views are tenable, however. Chilton fails to do justice to the violent language of the text, in which the nations are not only shattered but slain such that birds feast on their carcasses (Rev 19:17–18, Rev 19:21). For his part, Wilson “overlooks the universal scope of the battle, in which the returning Jesus will smite ‘the nations’ (Rev 19:15, cf. Ps. 2:9)”[24] instead claiming that the text refers to the destruction of a single city—Jerusalem. It is difficult to see how Wilson can maintain that the use of “nations” in Psalm 2:8 (and Matt. 28:19) requires that nations as such are redeemed (rather than simply individuals from all nations) and that “all nations” in Revelation 19:15 can refer to a single city. Revelation 19:15 then clearly teaches that at Christ’s second coming he will destroy the nations of the world arrayed in rebellion against him in fulfillment of Psalm 2:9. Only then will the rulers of the earth see the depth of their folly in opposing his rule (Ps. 2:10) and those who take refuge in him (Ps. 2:12) be vindicated.
22. David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Horn Lake, MS: Dominion Press, 2006) 481–82.; c.f. Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Horn Lake, MS: Dominion Press, 2007), 67, 192.
23. Wilson, When the Man Comes Around, 224.
24. Sexton, “Postmillennialism: A Biblical Critique.”
Conclusion
Psalm 2 is a critical text for understanding the reign of the Davidic king, who is ultimately Jesus Christ. Christians can take courage that although the nations in which they live rage against God and his Messiah, Christ has been set on the throne. God laughs at those who resist him, and Christ will continue to rule in serenity exalted far above all earthly powers. And although the climax of this Psalm may be slow in coming, as some count slowness, God is not unfaithful (2 Pet. 3:9). Christ will one day return to shatter the nations who opposed him with a rod of iron and bless his people who have taken refuge in him.
