Section 1
The author. This psalm, like the one preceding, is without any title prefixed to it, and, like that, is without anything in the psalm itself to indicate its authorship. Its authorship must be learned, therefore, elsewhere, if it can be ascertained at all. There is, however, every reason to suppose that David was the author; and by those who admit the authority of the New Testament this will not be doubted. The reasons for supposing that its authorship is to be traced to David are the following:
(a) It is expressly ascribed to him in Acts 4:25-26 : “Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?” etc. There can be no doubt that this psalm is here referred to, and the quotation in this manner proves that this was the common understanding among the Jews. It may be presumed that in a matter of this kind the general tradition would be likely to be correct; and to those who admit the inspiration of the apostles as bearing on points like this, the fact of its being quoted as the production of David is decisive.
(b) This is the common opinion respecting its origin among Hebrew writers. Kimchi and Aben Ezra expressly ascribe it to David, and they are supposed in this to express the prevailing opinion of the Hebrew people.
(c) Its place among the Psalms of David may, perhaps, be regarded as a circumstance indicating the same thing. Thus, to the seventy-second psalm there are none which are ascribed expressly to any other author than David (except the Psalms 50, which is ascribed to Asaph, or ‘for Asaph,’ as it is in the margin), though there are several whose authors are not mentioned; and the common impression has been that this portion of the Book of Psalms was arranged in this manner because they were understood by the collector of the Psalms to have been composed by him.
(d) The character of the composition accords well with this supposition. It is true, indeed, that nothing can be certainly inferred from this consideration respecting its authorship; and that it must be admitted that there are no such peculiarities in the style as to prove that David is the author. But the remark now made is, that there is nothing inconsistent with this supposition, and that there is nothing in the sentiment, the style, or the allusions, which might not have flowed from his pen, or which would not be appropriate on the supposition that he was the author. The only objection that could be urged to this would be derived from Psalms 2:6, “I have set my King upon my holy hill of Zion.” But this will be considered in another place.
Section 2
The time when written. As we cannot with absolute certainty determine who was the author, it is, of course, not possible to ascertain the exact time when it was composed; nor, if it be admitted that David was the author, can we now ascertain what was the occasion on which it was written. There are no names of the kings and people who are represented as conspiring against the Anointed One who is the chief subject of the psalm; and there is no local allusion whatever except in the single phrase the “hill of Zion,” in Psalms 2:6. The probability would seem to be that the psalm was not designed to refer to anything which had occurred in the time of the author himself, but, as will be seen in another part of these introductory remarks (Section 4), that the writer intended to refer mainly to the Messiah, who was to come in a distant age, although this may have been suggested by something which took place in the time of the writer.
The opposition made to David himself by surrounding nations, their attempts to overwhelm the Hebrew people and himself as their king, the fact that God gave him the victory over his foes, and established him as the king of his people, and the prosperity and triumph which he had experienced, may have given rise to the ideas and imagery of the psalm, and may have led him to compose it with reference to the Messiah, between whose treatment and his own there would be so strong a resemblance, that the one might suggest the other. If conjecture may be allowed where it is impossible to be certain, it may be supposed that the psalm was composed by David after the termination of the wars in which he had been engaged with surrounding nations, and in which he had struggled for the establishment of his throne and kingdom; and after he had been peacefully and triumphantly established as ruler over the people of God. Then it would be natural to compare his own fortunes with those of the Son of God, the future Messiah, who was to be, in his human nature, his descendant; against whom the rulers of the earth would also “rage,” as they had against himself; whom it was the purpose of God to establish on a permanent throne in spite of all opposition, as he had established him on his throne; and who was to sway a scepter over the nations of the earth, of which the scepter that he swayed might be regarded as an emblem.
Thus understood, it had, in its original composition, no particular reference to David himself, or to Solomon, as Paulus supposed, or to any other of the kings of Israel; but it is to be regarded as having sole reference to the Messiah, in language suggested by events which had occurred in the history of David, the author. It is made up of the peaceful and happy reflections of one who had been engaged, in the face of much opposition, in establishing his own throne, now looking forward to the similar scenes of conflict and of triumph through which the Anointed One would pass.
Section 3
The structure and contents of the psalm. The psalm is exceedingly regular in its composition, and has in its structure much of a dramatic character. It naturally falls into four parts, of three verses each.
I. In the first Psalms 2:1-3 the conduct and purposes of the raging nations are described. They are in the deepest agitation, forming plans against Yahweh and His Anointed One, and uniting their counsels to break their bands asunder, and to cast off their authority, that is, as Psalms 2:6 shows, to prevent the establishment of the Anointed One as King on the holy hill of Zion. The opening of the psalm is bold and abrupt. The psalmist looks out suddenly on the nations, and sees them in violent commotion.
II. In the second part Psalms 2:4-6 the feelings and purposes of God are described. It is implied that he had formed the purpose, by a fixed decree (compare Psalms 2:7), to establish his Anointed One as king, and he now calmly sits in the heavens and looks with derision on the vain designs of those who are opposed to it. He smiles upon their impotent rage, and goes steadily forward to the accomplishment of his plan. He solemnly declares that he had established his King on his holy hill of Zion, and consequently, that all their efforts must be vain.
III. In the third part Psalms 2:7-9 the King himself, the Anointed One, speaks, and states the decree which had been formed in reference to himself, and the promise which had been made to him. That decree was, that he should be declared to be the Son of Yahweh himself; the promise was that he should, at his own request, have the nations of the earth for a possession, and rule over them with an absolute scepter.
IV. In the fourth part Psalms 2:10-12 the psalmist exhorts the rulers of the nations to yield to the claims of the Anointed One, threatening divine wrath on those who should reject him, and promising a blessing on those who should put their trust in him.
The psalm is, therefore, regularly constructed, and the main thought is pursued through the whole of it - the exalted claims and ultimate triumph of him who is here called “the Anointed;” the vanity of opposition to his decrees; and the duty and advantage of yielding to his authority. “The several sentences are also very regular in form, exhibiting parallelisms of great uniformity.” - Prof. Alexander. The psalm, in its construction, is one of the most perfect in the Book of Psalms, according to the special ideal of Hebrew poetry.
Section 4. The question to whom the psalm refers. There can be but three opinions as to the question to whom the psalm was designed to refer:
(a) That in which it is supposed that it refers exclusively to David, or to some other one of the anointed kings of Israel;
(b) that in which it is supposed that it had this original reference, but has also a secondary reference to the Messiah; and
(c) that in which it is supposed that it has exclusive and sole reference to the Messiah.
There are few who maintain the first of these opinions. Even Grotius, in respect to whom it was said, in comparison with Cocceius, that “Cocceius found Christ everywhere, and Grotius nowhere,” admits that while, in his view, the psalm had a primary reference to David, and to the Philistines, Moabites, Ammonites, Idumeans, etc., as his enemies, yet, in a more “mystical and abstruse sense, it pertained to the Messiah.” The reasons why the psalm should not be regarded as referring exclusively to any Hebrew king are conclusive. They are summed up in this one: that the expressions in the psalm are such as cannot be applied exclusively to any Hebrew monarch. This will appear in the exposition of this psalm. For like reasons, the psalm cannot be regarded as designed to refer primarily to David, and in a secondary and higher sense to the Messiah. There are no indications in the psalm of any such double sense; and if it cannot be applied exclusively to David, cannot be applied to him at all.
The psalm, I suppose, like Isaiah 53:1-12, had an original and exclusive reference to the Messiah. This may be shown by the following considerations:
(1) It is so applied in the New Testament, and is referred to in no other way. Thus, in Acts 4:24-27, the whole company of the apostles is represented as quoting the first verses of the psalm, and referring them to Christ: “They lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God ... who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things. The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ. For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together.” If the authority of the apostles, therefore, is to be admitted in the case, there can be no doubt that the psalm was intended to refer to the Messiah. This statement of the apostles may also be adduced as proof that this was, probably, the prevailing mode of interpretation in their age.
Again, the psalm is quoted by Paul Acts 13:32-33 as applicable to Christ, and with reference to the fact that it was a doctrine of the Old Testament that the Messiah was to rise from the dead: “And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And again, in Hebrews 1:5, the same passage is quoted by Paul to establish the exalted rank of the Messiah as being above the angels: “For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” These quotations prove that in the estimation of the writers of the New Testament the psalm had an original reference to the Messiah; and the manner in which they make the quotation proves that this was the current belief of the Jews in their day, as they appear to have been under no apprehension that the propriety of the application which they made would be called in question.
(2) But, besides this, there is other evidence that such was the prevailing interpretation among the ancient Hebrews: “In the older Jewish writings, as the Sohar, the Talmud, etc., there is a variety of passages in which the Messianic interpretation is given to the psalm. See the collections by Raym. Martini, Pug. Fid. ed. Carpzov., in several places, and by Schottgen, de Messia, pp. 227ff. Even Kimchi and Jarchi confess that it was the prevailing interpretation among their forefathers; and the latter very honestly gives his reasons for departing from it, when he says he prefers to explain it of David, for the refutation of the heretics; that is, in order to destroy the force of the arguments drawn from it by the Christians.” (Hengstenberg, Christ., i. 77.)
(3) That it refers to the Messiah is manifest from the psalm itself. This will be apparent from a few subordinate considerations.
(a) It cannot be applied to David, or to any other earthly king; that is, there are expressions in it which cannot be applied with any degree of propriety to any earthly monarch whatever. This remark is founded particularly on the remarkable use of the word “Son” in the psalm, and the promise that “the uttermost parts of the earth” should be placed under the control of him to whom that word is applied. The word “son” is, indeed, of large signification, and is, in a certain sense, applied to the righteous in the plural number, as being the sons or the children of God by adoption; but it is not so applied in the singular number, and there is a peculiarity in its use here which shows that it was not intended to be applied to an earthly monarch, or to any pious man considered as a child of God. That appellation - the Son of God - properly denotes a nearer relation to God than can be applied to a mere mortal of any rank (compare the notes at John 5:18), and was so understood by the Jews themselves. It is not used in the Old Testament, as applied to an earthly monarch, in the manner in which it is employed here. The remark here made is entirely irrespective of the doctrine which is sometimes supposed to be taught in this passage, of “the eternal generation” of the Son of God, since what is here said is equally true, whether that doctrine is well-founded or not.
(b) There is an extent of dominion and a perpetuity of empire promised here which could not be applied to David or to any other monarch, but which is entirely applicable to the Messiah (see Psalms 2:8, Psalms 2:10).
(c) Such, too, is the nature of the promise to those who put their trust in him, and the threatening on those who do not obey him Psalms 2:12. This is language which will be seen at once to be entirely applicable to the Messiah, but which cannot be so regarded in respect of any earthly monarch.
(d) There is a strong probability that the psalm is designed to refer to the Messiah, from the fact that they who deny this have not been able to propose any other plausible interpretation, or to show with any degree of probability to whom it does refer. There were no Israelite kings or princes to whom it could be regarded with any show of probability as applicable, unless it were David or Solomon; and yet there are no recorded circumstances in their lives to which it can be regarded as adapted, and there is no substantial agreement among those who maintain that it does refer to either of them. It is maintained by both Rosenmuller and DeWette that it cannot relate to David or Solomon. Some of the modern Jews maintain that it was composed by David respecting himself when the Philistines came up against him 2 Samuel 5:17; but this is manifestly an erroneous opinion, for not only was there nothing in the occurrence there to correspond with the language of the psalm, but there was at that time no particular consecration of the hill of Zion Psalms 2:6, nor was that mount regarded as holy or sacred until after the tabernacle was erected on it, which was after the Philistine war. The same remark may be made substantially of the supposition that it refers to the rebellion of Absalom, or to any of the circumstances in which David was placed. And there is still less reason for supposing that it refers to Solomon, for there is no mention of any rebellion against him; of any general attempt to throw off his yoke; of any solemn consecration of him as king in consequence of, or in spite of such an attempt.
(e) The psalm agrees with the account of the Messiah, or is in its general structure and details applicable to him. This will be shown in the exposition, and indeed is manifest on the face of it. The only plausible objection to this view is, as stated by DeWette, “According to the doctrine of Christianity, the Messiah is no conqueror of nations, bearing an iron scepter; his kingdom is not of this world.” But to this it may be replied, that all that is meant in Psalms 2:9 may be, that he will set up a kingdom over the nations of the earth; that all his enemies will be subdued under him; and that the scepter which he will sway will be firm and irresistible. See, for the applicability of this to the Messiah, the notes at Psalms 2:9.
(4) It may be added that the psalm is such as one might expect to find in the poetic writings of the Hebrews, with the views which they entertained of the Messiah. The promised Messiah was the object of deepest interest to their minds. All their hopes centered in him. To him they looked forward as the Great Deliverer; and all their anticipations of what the people of God were to be clustered around him. He was to be a Prince, a Conqueror, a Deliverer, a Saviour. To him the eyes of the nation were directed; he was shadowed forth by their pompous religious rites, and their sacred bards sang his advent. That we should find an entire psalm composed with reference to him, designed to set forth his character and the glory of his reign, is no more than what we should expect to find among a people where poetry is cultivated at all, and where these high hopes were cherished in reference to his advent; and especially if to this view of their national poetry, in itself considered, there be added the idea that the sacred bards wrote under the influence of inspiration, nothing is more natural than that we should expect to find a poetic composition having such a sole and exclusive reference. Nothing would have been more unnatural than that, with these prevailing views and hopes, and with the fact before us that so much of the Old Testament is sacred poetry, we should have found no such production as the second psalm, on the supposition that it had an original and exclusive reference to the Messiah.