This is the last of the "Psalm 2" "prophecies" claimed by the listmaker for Jesus. This is a very interesting one, because normally missionaries will claim this verse is about Jesus based on a mistranslation in line 12 which they translate as "kiss the son."
The NIV, 21st Century King James, Authorized King James, American Standard all have "kiss the son." The New Authorized Standard has "Do homage to the son." None of those are correct.
The list maker does not address the "kiss the son" missionary claim. I will address both the usual missionary claim of "kiss the son" and the claim of the list maker that T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 says that "life comes through faith in Him."
Both are wrong. The psalm does not say "kiss the son." It also does not say that life comes through faith in Jesus (or the messiah).
So let us begin.
T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 says "Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him."
The line missionaries and most Christian translators have as "kiss the son." should be translated as "arm yourself with purity" or "yearn for purity." I will discuss why we know for certain that the Christian translations are wrong later in this post.
But for now let's focus on the list maker's claim. Do you see anything about "life comes through faith in Him"?
If you recall from the six earlier posts regarding T'hillim / Psalm 2, this psalm was written by King David about himself on his coronation day as king. He (David) is speaking about the kings who are his enemies and seek to destroy him. Earlier in the psalm David wrote (line 2) that the kings who are against him are also against G-d, because David is G-d's messiah (anointed one). In line 12 David is again speaking about the kings who are against him.
David is telling the kings to foresake their idolatry and become pure -- praying only to G-d. He warns the kings that if they do not turn to the one true G-d He will become angry and those kings will surely perish
Don't believe me?
Go back two lines and read the psalm from line 10 through line 12: "And now, [you] kings, be wise; be admonished, [you] judges of the earth. Serve the L-rd with fear, and rejoice with quaking. Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him."
Believe me now? This has nothing to do with "life through faith in Jesus" -- it is King David warning his enemies, the kings of those foreign nations, to "be wise" and "serve the L-rd." They should "arm themselves with purity" to avoid G-d's wrath for their idolatrous ways. . .
So, sorry "list maker", but T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 is not about Jesus and it has nothing to do with life coming through faith in Jesus.
Having addressed the false claim of the list maker -- let us turn our attention to the mistranslation in the Christian English translations. Why do the Christian translations have "kiss the son" (or "do homage to the son") when the word "son" does not appear in this psalm? Why do Jewish translations have "arm yourself with purity" or "yearn for purity"? It has to do with two languages: Hebrew and Aramaic.
The Hebrew word for "son of" is בן (ben). בן (ben) is the noun and its smichut case is בן.
In Aramaic the word for a son is בְּרָא (b'ra) which is the noun and its smichut case is בר (bar).
The Christians translate the word בַר in T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 as if it were the Aramaic noun for "a son." One problem with this translation choice is that not one word if Aramaic is found in any of the psalms.
The T'nach (Jewish bible) is primarily written in Hebrew, but there are a few parts where it is written in Aramaic. The first few words of Daniel 2 are in Hebrew, but with the middle of line four it shifts to Aramaic and continues in Aramaic until the end of chapter seven when it reverts to Hebrew for the rest of the book of Daniel.
There are also two Aramaic passages in the book known as Ezra-N'ḥemyah (Ezra 4:8-6:18 and 7:12-26), as well as one isolated verse in Yirm'yahu / Jeremiah (10:11) and the two idolated words יְגַר שָׂהֲדוּתָא y'gar sahaduta (“evidentiary cairn”) in B'réshіt / Genesis 31:47, which is a direct translation into Aramaic of the Hebrew word גַּלְעֵד gal'éd.
For the sake of argument, let's "assume" that for one word, and one word only, the psalms use the Aramaic in T'hillim / Psalm 2:12. Wouldn't the Christian translators be correct then in using "kiss the son" (or "do homage to the son")? No.
The Christian translation is grammatically incorrect for Aramaic. There is no way it can be properly translated as "kiss the son" (or "do homage to the son") because the Aramaic for "the" is not in the text!
The phrase in question is נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר.
If the word in T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 is in Aramaic then we would translate בַר as "a son" (not "the" son). If it were "THE son" it would have to be בְּרָא (b'ra)-- and the word בַר in T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 does not have an א (alef) at the end, thus giving us the definitive article "the."
Just as in Hebrew the definitive article (meaning "the") is הַ (heh), in Aramaic the definitive article (meaning "the") is א (alef).
And T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 is בַר (bar) not בְּרָא (b'ra).
So IF this word (the ONLY one in the entire 150 psalms) was Aramaic it would not be "the son" it would simply be "a son" -- "kiss a son." That doesn't do much for the idea that this "fits" Jesus and thus the translators deceitfully translate it as "kiss THE son."
“Kiss the son” (again, remembering it would have to be Aramaic, not Hebrew) would have be either the phrase נַשְּׁקוּ אֶת הַבַּר or, using the Aramaic grammatical structure, נַשְּׁקוּ יַת בְּרָא.
But we know for a fact that even "kiss a son" is wrong because there are no Aramaic words at all in T'hillim / Psalms. Rashi explains the phrase נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר as follows: "Strengthen yourselves with purity, alternatively nashku var is garnishmont [equipping] in French; and M'naḥem explains it as a term meaning desire, like t'shukatech (your desire) in B'reshіt 3:16."
Targum Yonathan (an early Aramaic paraphrasing of the psalm) translated נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר as קַבִּֽילוּ אוּלְפָנָא which translates to: "accept instruction."
Another important point grammatically is to note that the word בַּר is connected to the verb נַשְּׁקוּ by a hyphen so בַּר can't possibly be the object of נַשְּׁקוּ and has to be some kind of adverb. The makaf (hyphen) makes "arm [yourselves] with purity" less accurate a translation than the Artscroll Stone Eition "yearn for purity" (which is more literal). We do need to remember that psalms are poems, so literal is not always preferred. . .
So בַר in the psalm cannot be "the son" and since there is no Aramaic in any oft he 150 psalms the Christian translations of "kiss the son" or "do homage to the son" are not possible translations.
Does the text say "kiss" or "kissing"?
Possibly, but highly unlikely.
The verb used, נשׁק can mean "to kiss", but it has another meaning -- and that is "to arm" (meaning to equip with weapons). The Stone Artscroll Edition T'nach translates the passage נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר in T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 as “Yearn for purity” while the Judaica Press has “Arm yourselves with purity”. The verb נַשְּׁקוּ is the masculine plural imperative inflection in the pi'él paradigm of the root נשׁק. It can mean either “kiss” or “arm” (as in bearing arms / weapons). . . But does kiss purity make any sense?
Nope -- but "arm yourself with purity" or "yearn for purity" does make sense.
In context of the psalm "kiss a son" makes no sense (because King David is speaking about the kings who come against him to defeat him). To arm oneself with purity DOES make sense given the context of the Psalm. The verb נשׁק appears as "to arm" as יִשַּׁק yishak in B'réshιt / Genesis 41:40 (“will be provided for”), נוֹשְׁקֵי noshkei (“armed”) in T'hillim / Psalm 78:9, Divrei Hayamim Alef / 1 Chronicles 12:2 and Divrei Hayamim Beit / Chronicles 2 17:17.
However, the list maker does not even mention what is actually a pretty major missionary "proof text" (the "kiss the son" usage). The passage does not in any way relate to the list maker claim that one has life through faith in Jesus based on the passage in T'hillim / Psalm 2. John 20:31 (the supposed fulfillment "proof" in the Christian bible) does say "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." Yet, T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 does not support this claim in any way. The Christian bible may claim that Jesus was the messiah (he wasn't -- see this post) and that by believing in Jesus you "have life in his name" -- but the bible rejects that concept as well).
Muslims believe Mohammad was a prophet -- and Christians reject this. Mormons think Joseph Smith was a prophet -- but mainstream Christians reject this claim. Just because someone makes a claim does not make that claim "true."
Whoever wrote the book of John said that people have "life in his name", but just making this claim does not make it so. Are we to believe whatever anyone tells us? Or must people PROVE what they claim? To date Christians live and die like non-Christians ergo this claim has no foundation.
Does T'hillim / Psalm 2:12 support John 20:31? Nope. Read it again. "And now, [you] kings, be wise; be admonished, [you] judges of the earth. Serve the L-rd with fear, and rejoice with quaking. Arm yourselves with purity lest He become angry and you perish in the way, for in a moment His wrath will be kindled; the praises of all who take refuge in Him." T'hillim / Psalm 2:10-12.