In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

COMMENTARY ON PSALM 2 No title in the Hebrew aving concluded the first psalm with a reference to the ungodly, he opened the second in turn with this same reference so as to teach us that the aforementioned end of the ungodly lies in wait for both kings and rulers, Jews and Gentiles, who rage against the Savior. You see, in the second psalm he foretells both the human sufferings and the kingship of Christ the Lord;1 of course, he also emphasizes the calling of the nations and deplores the Jews’ failure to believe. I mean, those words, For what purpose did nations rage? (v. 1), come from someone deploring and censuring folly. There is no need, however, for a lengthy commentary on our part, as the divinely inspired Peter, chief of the apostles, gave a commentary in the Acts, naming Herod, Pontius Pilate, the chief priests, and scribes kings and rulers.2 One, you recall, had been sent by the Roman emperor to exercise his command, the other was ruler of the Jews at that time; one had Jewish subjects, the other gentile soldiers. But despite their conspiring together and hatching a tawdry plot for the murder of the Lord, [876] their schemes all came to nothing, as they were unable to consign to oblivion the one crucified by them: on the third day he rose again and took possession of the world. (2) Very suitably and quite appropriately did he associate the 52 1. Theodoret finds New Testament support for giving this psalm a Christological interpretation. Absence of a title (cf. Ps 3) gives him freedom to forsake a historical reading. 2. He has Acts 4.24–30 in mind, but (once again) he is somewhat astray on details: it is the community to whom Peter and John report that quote vv. 1–2 of this psalm, and in fact they make no mention of chief priests and scribes. The brief reference by them hardly constitutes an adequate “commentary ” on the verses. words, did they form empty plots, with the people’s role: it was the Jews who made this wicked plot against the Savior. Testimony to this comes from the remark of the sacred evangelists that teaches that “the Pharisees went out and formed a plot to dispose of him”3 and Caiaphas’s exclamation, “It is fitting that one person should die and that the whole nation should not perish.”4 Now, that word raged Aquila rendered “were troubled” and Symmachus , “stirs up.”5 It bears on the role of the nations, however, and suggests we understand that when the Jews brought Jesus before Pilate like any despot and repeatedly claimed he should be done away with, he reluctantly passed the death sentence on him for fear that in all likelihood some charge would be fabricated against him if he released him. As blessed Luke said, remember , they spoke accusingly of him, “We found this man perverting the nation and forbidding paying tribute to Caesar and he said he was Christ the King.”6 (3) For what purpose did nations rage, and peoples form empty plots? The kings of the earth took their stand, and the rulers came together in concert against the Lord and against his Christ (vv. 1–2). It does not say “the nations” with the article so that you think all are included,7 but nations, suggesting the sense of something particular. You see, since the Jews took him into custody and handed him over to the nations, accordingly he says, “What was such an important reason and what the cause for the peoples to be stirred up against him and deliver him into the hands of the nations?” The word raged is equivalent to “made a pretense.” (4) Let us break their bonds and thrust away from us their yoke (v. 3). The person who does not honor the Son, Scripture says, COMMENTARY ON PSALM 2 53 3. Mark 3.6. 4. John 11.50. 5. Dahood, Psalms I, 7, in fact, suggests that both the LXX and modern translators have missed this verb’s true sense, “forgather.” Theodoret betrays some unease about the traditional rendering (arising from Syriac etymology , Dahood informs us), and continues to worry the point. 6. Luke 23.2. 7. Antiochene precision again, noting details of the text like absence of an article (hardly consistently employed in the overall text, in fact) and then rationalizing from this unreliable detail to a condemnation of Jewish skullduggery in...

Share