A Mormon's interpretation of Psalm 2

Is psalm 2 directed only to kings and rulers? Not necessarily, the counsel given against the worldly applies to all.
I have been trying to make the case that those who judge is inclusive of anyone who passes judgment. The phrase "kings of the earth" would seem to me to apply to those who make themselves kings. As opposed to those who God sets as kings.

I concur. He is talking about all who fight against Zion.
who are the Lord's anointed?
?
Bottom line: Israel is commanded and prophesied to be a nation of priests and kings. (Exodus 19:6; Rev 5:9-10)
Also, good.
3 Who shall ascend into the hill of the Lord? or who shall stand in his holy place?
4 He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart;
?
This is speaking of the coronation day of God's elect. When are we begotten of Christ? The day we receive "the might change of heart" via the Holy Ghost, and covenant to follow Him:
Like Ps 110
The remaining verses give a warning in of fearing and serving the Lord. Thinking we can break God's commandments, and cast away God's judgement, by somehow silencing God's servants, is vain and foolish indeed. Attempting to do so, we only break ourselves.
Very good analysis.
 
I have been trying to make the case that those who judge is inclusive of anyone who passes judgment. The phrase "kings of the earth" would seem to me to apply to those who make themselves kings. As opposed to those who God sets as kings.

I concur. He is talking about all who fight against Zion.

?

Also, good.

?

Like Ps 110

Very good analysis.
 
The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the LORD and against His Anointed (King of Kings), saying,
That's a little narrow. First, how have the kings of the earth counseled against a God they have never seen nor that they know anything about? According to u, His anointed was only here for 33 years. How many kings do u think were involved in that council? Two? Can u name them? Except for Herod (and it's debatable that he was actually a king) almost no other kings even knew of the anointed and the one ruler that was involved washed his hands of the brutality of the Jews.
Yet I have set My King (Jesus is the King of Kings - The true King of Israel) On My holy hill of Zion."
So, where is that "holy hill"? I see your interpretation but is the Son the king of Yahweh? Is Jesus the Father's King? Are there any others who might also be anointed? Are there any others who God may have made kings (and priests)?
"I will declare the decree: The LORD (Yahweh - God The Father) has said to Me, 'You are My Son (Jesus), Today I have begotten You.
I don't know what version of the scripture you use, but I don't think there's any capitalization in the original. You, as far as I can tell, have decided to deify "Me" in order to force the scriptures to fit your theology. And how did you decide to do that? Was Jesus writing this Psalm? Is there some indication that the Psalmist was talking for Jesus? Nope. That's your interpretation, but the scope of this Psalm far exceeds one short period in time. Sure, it applies to Jesus, but it also applies to all God's anointed.

This is actually David, or the psalmist, speaking: "I will declare the decree: Yahweh (Christ) has said to me (David or any of God's anointed) - "You are my Son. Today, I have begotten you".
Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance, And the ends of the earth for Your possession.
This is the same promise that God gave to Abraham.
Revelation 11:15 expounds upon verse 8
15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!"
Not really. What of the other kings? Isn't the Lord, King of kings? So, where are they? Will these kingdoms not be the kingdoms of kings? Again, who are the anointed? (Question from the OP)
 
Acts 4:25-26
This was a prayer, not a realization of an event. This process is ongoing and will not be complete until the 7th Trump shall sound.
"this he has fulfilled to us" - This day, they are begotten sons of God.

According to Ps 2, where would this have happened? "my holy hill". Do you have any idea where that might be?
Heb 1:5 - Heb 5:5
Hmmmm.... now we're beginning to see what God has in store for those who follow Him.

Likewise, those who are "joint-heirs" with Christ... Same same.

I know you don't believe all that, but that's what the Bible teaches. You have been lead down a path into darkness. The light shines in that darkness and the darkness can't comprehend it.

Sad indeed.
whereby the anointed of "Jehovah" is Jesus
false conclusion. The anointed is whomever God anoints, Jesus being one of them.
 
This was a prayer, not a realization of an event. This process is ongoing and will not be complete until the 7th Trump shall sound.
I would highly recommend you start reading things in context... at least if you wish to ascertain what the authors of the texts under discussion intended to convey. In this case, the author flat out tells us what he thinks the psalm is referring to immediately after citing it:

When they heard it, they raised their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and everything in them, it is you who said by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant: 'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers have gathered together against the Lord and against his Messiah.' For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:24-28)

Luke draws one-to-one correspondences between each element of Psalm 2:1-2 and recent history he narrated in his gospel and here summarizes. Herod represents the kings of the earth and Pontius Pilate the rulers, the Gentiles and peoples carry over directly, Jesus is the Messiah, described as being anointed by the one addressed in prayer, namely the Sovereign Lord, and all are linked together through the verb 'to gather' either as the agents or the one against whom they are collected. To claim that we do not have here the "realization of an event" is to ignore what the author himself writes...

"this he has fulfilled to us" - This day, they are begotten sons of God.
Again, just reading this in context refutes your interpretation:

And we bring you the good news that what God promised to our ancestors, he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you.' As to his raising him from the dead, no more to return to corruption... (Acts 13:32-34a)

The promise is a savior from the house of David (13:23) and the message of this salvation has been sent to the speaker's contemporaries (13:26)... it has been fulfilled for them, not by them, in the person of Jesus --- the second person of the citation is singular, referring to Jesus, rather than the plural of the audience. Jesus' resurrection from the dead is what makes salvation, defined in terms of the forgiveness of sins, possible (13:37-38) and it is this event --- connected chronologically in the gospel with his exaltation (Jesus rises from the dead and ascends to heaven on the same day in Luke 24) --- that fulfills this part of the psalm for Luke. To appropriate this for believers generally is again to ignore what the author writes...

According to Ps 2, where would this have happened? "my holy hill". Do you have any idea where that might be?
Jerusalem, the city where Luke situates Jesus' arrival as king, his crucifixion, resurrection from the dead and ascension... while the author of Acts does not cite this portion of the psalm, he does draw attention in the earlier citation to events taking place "in this city", which in that context was Jerusalem. For the record, the citation in chapter 13 is placed in the mouth of Paul in a synagogue in Antioch in Pisidia (13:14), which also speaks against your interpretation.

Hmmmm.... now we're beginning to see what God has in store for those who follow Him.
This was in response to the two citations from Hebrews, the first of which in contexts reads as follows:

Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. He is the reflection of God's glory and the exact imprint of God's very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you"? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son"? (Heb 1:1-5)

The questions are rhetorical, demanding the answer "none" --- the deity does not speak this way to angels, only to his son (that is, Jesus). Your appropriation of this for believers generally violates the author's rhetoric and trips all over itself since it would imply the exact opposite answer to the author's intention since some angels are, according to LDS theology, resurrected saints (Moroni, for example).

As for the other citation in Hebrews, it reads as follows:

So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming a high priest, but was appointed by the one who said to him, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you" (Heb 5:5)

Again, the author sees fulfillment in Jesus and says nothing of others.

I know you don't believe all that, but that's what the Bible teaches. You have been lead down a path into darkness. The light shines in that darkness and the darkness can't comprehend it.

Sad indeed.
I have no interest in your sermons and evaluations of whatever spiritual life you think I may or may not have... kindly confine your comments to the exegesis of the pertinent texts.

false conclusion. The anointed is whomever God anoints, Jesus being one of them.
No, in all four places where portions of Psalm 2 are cited in the New Testament, the anointed one is Jesus... your attempt to appropriate these for yourself and other like-minded exegetes speaks both to an inability or unwillingness to read in context as demonstrated above and a shocking elevation of your status to that of a god --- in religious terminology one might call it blasphemous. From a secular standpoint, I just consider it silly, but you are free to believe whatever nonsense you wish.

Your engagements with my posts are hit and miss so if you do bother responding, I won't pick it up until next weekend as I am only posting a couple of days a week...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
I would highly recommend you start reading things in context
I am. I would highly recommend you start reading things in context.
at least if you wish to ascertain what the authors of the texts under discussion intended to convey.
I know what they intended to convey. I explained it.
In this case, the author flat out tells us what he thinks the psalm is referring to immediately after citing it:
I know. It was a prayer, it was not an event. I believe that's what I said.

Let me help you out...
When they heard it, they raised their voices together to God and said, "Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth, the sea, and everything in them, it is you who said by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant: 'Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples imagine vain things? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers have gathered together against the Lord and against his Messiah.' For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (Acts 4:24-28)
"they raised their voices together to God", That's called praying.

The latter is simply a description of one of the many events where kings and rulers have counseled and raged against God's anointed ones (they are still raging and counseling against them today). What didn't happen then and isn't happening now (well, it is, but for the most part unseen) is the making of the nations of the earth a heritage and a possession. Did Jesus or any of the apostles or your church "break" the kings of the earth and rulers "in pieces like a potter's vessel"? Nope.

It is clear to me, and apparently not to you, that they were asking God that in light of the things which had happened, for boldness in preaching the word. Note in verse 31, "and when they had prayed"... I suggest that it is you who needs to read it in context.

The fulfillment of Ps 2 is not to be seen until the last days when the gospel would be restored to the earth. Check Daniel's vision of the statue in his dream. Note the words "break in pieces". Note the feet were made of clay and bits of iron. See the potter's clay? Do you see the connection? That is yet to happen. It was not done for the anointed. It was not done for those who offered this prayer. Herod and Pontius Pilate are hardly the kings of the earth. In fact, neither of them were kings. Again, just as I pointed out.

To be sure, I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't anointed. I'm saying that He isn't the only one who was and will be anointed. Ps 2 covers all the sons of God.
Jerusalem,
Really? Jerusalem is God's holy hill? Only those with clean hands and pure hearts can ascend that hill and yet they murdered Jesus there. Really, you need to think through your answers. It's clear that you have all of them. Maybe you just need to get them better organized so you can actually make a point instead of just telling us what is.

the "holy hill" is clearly a reference to the temple.
 
It was a prayer, it was not an event. I believe that's what I said...

"they raised their voices together to God", That's called praying.

The latter is simply a description of one of the many events where kings and rulers have counseled and raged against God's anointed ones (they are still raging and counseling against them today)...

It is clear to me, and apparently not to you, that they were asking God that in light of the things which had happened, for boldness in preaching the word. Note in verse 31, "and when they had prayed"... I suggest that it is you who needs to read it in context.
That a portion of Psalm 2 was cited within the context of a prayer (something I nowhere denied so why you keep harping on the term as if I had or missed it altogether is anyone's guess) does not alter the fact that it is applied therein to an event in recent history, which you concede within your own framework of interpretation by claiming it was "one of {} many events" --- now that we've cleared that up, we can turn to your attempt to broaden the specified referent (Jesus) to others (the supplicants and beyond). I would have no objection if all you were arguing was that the author styled his narrative about Jesus' early followers in terms of strategic imitations (ie. they experience what their master did) --- this seems obvious enough from the transition at the beginning of verse 29, but you go a whole lot further to claim an entire host of anointed ones is envisioned (more on that below).

What didn't happen then and isn't happening now (well, it is, but for the most part unseen) is the making of the nations of the earth a heritage and a possession. Did Jesus or any of the apostles or your church "break" the kings of the earth and rulers "in pieces like a potter's vessel"? Nope.
My church? :unsure: You really need to keep your interlocutors straight. In any case, appealing to portions of the psalm that Luke himself does not quote in the context of a discussion of how this author understands what he cites hardly advances your case or impugns mine --- anyhow, one can safely conjecture that Luke views these elements will be fulfilled with Jesus' coming in power at the conclusion of the age of the Gentiles.

Herod and Pontius Pilate are hardly the kings of the earth. In fact, neither of them were kings. Again, just as I pointed out.
Where did I say either Herod or Pontius Pilate were kings? Luke correctly identifies the Herod here in question (Antipas) as a tetrarch (Luke 3:1) and I wrote (italicized emphasis added so you don't miss it this time) "Herod represents the kings of the earth and Pontius Pilate the rulers." That you are rejecting the obvious connection Luke is here making between Herod/Pilate and kings/rulers borders on self-refutation since you above acknowledge the plot of these two individuals against Jesus as one such event ostensibly foretold by the psalmist.

To be sure, I'm not saying that Jesus wasn't anointed. I'm saying that He isn't the only one who was and will be anointed. Ps 2 covers all the sons of God.
You seem to be fallaciously equating Luke's interpretation of the psalm with what you style the interpretation of the psalm... I have only been addressing the former --- the latter is an entirely different discussion. In order to prove your point, you need to move beyond assertion and demonstrate that Luke understands Jesus' followers as anointed ones. He doesn't --- he uses the verb 'to anoint' (Greek: chrio) three times in his two-volume work, all in reference to Jesus. The first occurrence is in his gospel in the context of another citation from Israel's sacred writings:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor. (Luke 4:18-19)

Jesus is the orator here, referring to being anointed by the Lord. That this is a reference to the Holy Spirit descending upon him in bodily form like a dove (3:22) is confirmed by the third occurrence of the verb, part of a speech attributed to Peter:

That message spread throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John announced: how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power; how he went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him. (Acts 10:37-38)

The second occurrence of the verb immediately follows the citation from Psalm 2 under discussion and again refers explicitly to Jesus:

For in this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:27-28)

Lest you be tempted to suggest anyone filled by the Holy Spirit is implied to be anointed (ie. the supplicants according to 4:31), note that Luke nowhere claims such a thing and that John, said to have been indwelt with the Spirit from conception (Luke 1:15), cannot lay claim to the status of being the anointed one...

As the people were filled with expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Messiah, John answered all of them by saying, "I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire." (Luke 3:15-16)

...any more than the supplicants in Acts 4 can lay claim to being so --- the Lord's anointed is a unique individual: Jesus. That is Luke's expressed position, consistent throughout his two-volume work.

Really? Jerusalem is God's holy hill? Only those with clean hands and pure hearts can ascend that hill and yet they murdered Jesus there. Really, you need to think through your answers...

the "holy hill" is clearly a reference to the temple.
Why do you assume I didn't think through my answer before posting it and why do you feel the need to run off to Psalm 24:3-4 to make a point about Psalm 2:6? The "holy hill" of the psalm we were actually discussing is explicitly identified as Zion:

I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.

Zion proper refers to a stronghold dubbed the 'City of David' and around which the biblical Jerusalem developed... it was situated on a mountain spur adjacent to the Temple Mount and was sanctified due to this proximity in the view of those writers who used Zion as a metonymy for the city of Jerusalem. You would do well to research a bit further before adopting so narrow an understanding of the phrase in question... and even if you were correct (which you're not), surely you wouldn't seriously argue the temple has been kept free from unclean hands and impure hearts --- Luke sure doesn't (cf. Luke 19:45-47).

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 
Just and observation here. The problem with discussing the Bible with a mormon, like you, is everything you believe about the Bible is based on the belief the BoM, D&C and PoGP are superior to the Bible. Ergo, you cannot discuss the Bible without this bias and consequently what you claim the Bible says and what a Christian says God says in the Bible are generally two different things. Your's based on the primacy of your books and that the Bible is inferior and ours based on the Bible alone.

Cite, please. Where are you arriving at that conclusion? The Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, and POGP are are canonized scripture in the LDS church.

While you are at it--why don't you relate to us what you find in the Biblical NT--which isn't found in the LDS church, as far as salvational doctrines go?

Revelation 22:14---King James Version
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
 
Back
Top