a double reference; an inferior one to David, and a higher one to the Messiah. We proceed now to an examination of the individual Psalms of this class.

PSALM II.

The name of the author of this Psalm is not given in the superscription. But tradition ascertained, by its being classed among the Psalms of David, the fact that events of his time form the ground work of its representations, comp. Pareau Instit. interpr. V. T. p. 511, and its resemblance of his acknowledged Psalms, especially to the cx., and the testimony of the New Testament, Acts iv. 25, all combine to prove it to have been composed by David. Its contents are as follows. The holy Psalmist in Prophetic vision beholds a multitude of nations with their kings in mad rebellion against God and his anointed, their rightful sovereign, v. 1-3; while v. 4, 5. he raises his eyes from the wild tumult on earth to God enthroned in the exalted rest of heaven, and declares that he will easily quell the powerless rebellion; he hears, v. 6, the voice of Jehovah proclaiming that he had established his anointed as king, and consequently, all resistance to his authority being likewise directed against himself the Omnipotent, must be fruitless. Immediately after, the Psalmist, v. 7-9, hears another voice, that of the anointed, declaring that Jehovah has given to him as His Son, whom he demonstrates to be such by powerful proofs, the people of the whole earth for his possession, with the right and the power to inflict the severe punishment upon all who should resist his lawful dominion. now, v. 10-12, addresses the kings as if they were actually present, and exhorts them, ere the fearful vengeance threatened against the despisers of the Son should burst upon their heads, to seek forgiveness by humble submission to their king, the Son of

He

God, who is no less merciful to his friends than terrible to his enemies.

This Psalm, according to the view we have taken of its contents, possesses, like many of the predictions of the prophets, a dramatic character. Different persons one after another, as the author himself, the rebellious kings, Jehovah, his Son and anointed, make their appearance and speak or act without the change of person being expressly mentioned.

The question now arises, who is meant by the anointed and son of God? That the Messiah is intended appears from all those arguments in general by which he can be shown to be the subject of any passage of the Old Testament.

1. The testimony of tradition. It is an undoubted fact, and unanimously admitted even by the recent opposers of its reference to him, that the Psalm was universally regarded by the ancient Jews as foretelling the Messiah, Matt. xxvi. 63, the high priest asks Jesus whether he were the Christ, the Son of God, and thus borrows from it two appellations of the expected Redeemer, and also in John i. 49, Nathanael says, with reference to this Psalm, to Christ, "Thou art the Son of God: thou art the king of Israel." In the older Jewish writings, also, as the Sohar, the Talmud, etc., there is a variety of passages in which the Messianic interpretation is given to this Psalm. See the collections by Raym. Martini, Pug. Fid. ed. Carpzov, in several places, and by Schöttgen, de Messiah, p. 227, seq. Even Kimchi and Jarchi confess that it was the prevailing one among their forefathers, and the latter very honestly gives his reason for departing from it, when he says he preferred to explain it of David for the refutation of the Heretics, nawn'

, that is, in order to destroy the force of the arguments drawn from it by the Christians. The words" for the refutation of the Heretics" are indeed omitted in many Jewish and Christian editions, probably from fear of the censors of the press, and because this confession was found to be too candid.

But Pococke in his Notes miscel. ad Portam Mosis, p. 308, seq. ed. Lips. has restored them from a manuscript, and they are found also in an Erfurt MS. The Christians sought to prove his eternal generation from the Father. To deprive them of this proof, the more modern Jews thought best to refer it to another subject.

2. Here if any where, plain references of the New Testament speak in favour of the Messianic interpretation. Acts iv. 25, 26, the whole company of the Apostles quote the first verses of this Psalm, and refer it to Christ. It is true that after Eckermann (Beit. i. 2, 133, seq.), Ammon (Christol. p. 38) has asserted that they made use of these verses, merely that they might offer their prayers to God in a more emphatic language, by adopting the words of the Old Testament; but the incorrectness of this opinion is easily shown. The form of the quotation itself, i dià óróματος Δαβὶδ τοῦ παιδός σου εἰπών, proves that the Apostles believed the Psalm to contain a direct prediction of Christ. It is usual on other occasions, when a Messianic prediction is quoted from the Psalms, to refer to a Divine revelation as to its source: Matt. xxii. 43. Acts ii. 30, 31. To this we may add, that the Apostles found the Messianic interpretation handed down by tradition, and confirmed it, as appears from other passages also, by their own authority. Acts xiii. 33, Paul quotes v. 7, of this Psalm, and explains it of the resurrection of Christ. That this is not a mere allusion, as Eckermann (1. c. p. 174, seq.) and Ammon assert, is evident from the fact that the Apostle advances this, and other passages as a proof that the promise made to the fathers, was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ. Heb. i. 5; v. 7, is quoted as evidence of the exaltation of Christ above all angels, and Heb. v. 5, it is said that God spake the words of this verse to Him.

3. A no less striking proof in favour of this interpretation is afforded by the Psalm itself. It plainly pos

sesses features which correspond to no earthly king and can belong to the Messiah alone. In the first place the king anointed appears as a being of nature more than human. We here first appeal to v. 7: “ Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee." We concede to the modern critics, that from the appellation, son of God, abstractedly considered, no conclusion can be drawn. It is not unfrequently given to the earthly leaders of the Theocracy. But then, in such instances, the appellation results from the idea not of generation, but of representation and subordination; it is not the natural, but the moral relation of father and son, which is transferred to the relation between God and his earthly representative. The name son of God, in such cases, is entirely synonymous with that of servant of God. But that here the name of son of God must be taken in a different sense, and indicate a proper sonship, is shown by the other member of the parellelism, this day have I begotten thee. It has often been thought that the eternal generation of the Son from the Father is asserted in these words. The word 'n day, has been taken as the designation of eternity, in which there is neither past nor future, and which may therefore most fitly be expressed by the image of the present. So among the Church fathers, Athanasius and Augustine, who says: "In aeternitate nec praeteritum quidquam est, quasi esse desierit; nec futurum, quasi nondum sit, sed praesens tantum, quia quidquid aeternum est, semper est." Notwithstanding this interpretation was opposed by Theodoret in ancient, and Calvin in modern times, it became very generally prevalent; and among recent writers, it has been defended by Muntinghe, who nevertheless speaks doubtfully, and Ringeltaube in his remarks on the passage, and Michael Weber (Progr. generatio filii dei aeterna, nova 1. Ps. ii. 7, explicatione illustr. Witt. 1786). It is however untenable, since writers of the Psalms never represent eternity by the present, although this is often done

But

by the later theologians and philosophers.1 equally unfounded is the explanation of many modern interpreters, who, in order to give the verse an earthly subject, translate either to adopt or to make son in the sense of subordination and representation. The first of these translations, which is especially defended by Ilgen (de notione tituli filii dei, Jena 1794, copied in Paulus Memorabilien St. 7, s. 162), is liable to this objection, that not a single instance can be found where ¬ occurs in the sense

supposed. This De Wette himself confesses, Comm. p. 111. We cannot say, he remarks, with Ilgen, here means to adopt, nor has it this mean

יָלַד that

ing, Ps. lxxxvii. 4-6, to which he appeals for proof. Equally unsustained is the other interpretation. We give to the verb

here the declarative meaning

sufficiently established and correct.

See the examples in Glassius Philol. s. 3. No. 15.3 It is not

1

Compare upon B. Philo de Profug. p. 458, ed. Francof. : σήμερον ἐστὶν ὁ ἀπέρατος καὶ ἀδιεξίτητος αἰών μηνῶν γὰρ καὶ ἐνιαυτῶν, καὶ συνόλως χρόνων περίοδοι δόγματα ἀνθρώπων ἐισὶν, ἀριθμὸν ἐκτετιμηκότων, τὸ δὲ ἀψευδές ὄνομα αἰῶνος, ἡ σήμερον.

In this sense Paul also understood the expression, Acts xiii. 33, where he explains the verse of the resurrection as the fact whereby Christ was eminently declared to be the Son of God. The declaration of Jehovah must be regarded as being made at the time when, by clear proofs, He had made known his son as such: then may preserve its suitable inter

pretation.

3 Comp. Calvin on this passage: Non genitus dicitur nisi quatenus pater filium suum esse testatus est-non ut filius dei esse quoad se inciperet, sed ut talis patefieret mundo. Haec genitura non de mutuo patris et filii respectu intelligi debet, sed tantum significat ab initio absconditum in arcano patris sinu obscure deinde sub lege adumbratum, ex quo prodiit cum claris insignibus cognitum fuisse dei filium.