Torah expert rabbi Tovia Singer with some much needed teaching to help clear up the confusion around the Bible verse Psalm 2:12. Does it mention the son (as in Jesus)? Or is it speaking about embracing purity? As demonstrated in this video, the idea that this passage refers to Jesus as the “son” is widespread amongst Christian apologists (James R White in this case) and even Christians as Hyde Park Speakers Corner are making such appeals. Hopefully this production will help Muslims and Christians learn what rabbi Tovia is teaching his Jewish students on this verse and missionary claims. Tovia Singer’s website: https://outreachjudaism.org/
Psalm 2:12King James Version (KJV)
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
Categories: Bible, Judaism, Missionaries, Speakers Corner
Non-sequitur. Why do you think the Son needs to be in the old testament?
If you watch the video you’ll notice Christians feel the Son should be in the OT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reading Psalm 2:12 as not referring to a son is quite ancient, as the Septuagint goes that route, interestingly agreeing with Targum Yonatan in treating the text as referring to the acquiring of instruction.
Having conceded that, I have major misgivings about rabbi Singer, as it seems to me that, although he identifies as an Orthodox Jew, he works within a very Protestant paradigm (which is the norm in most circles), conveniently ignoring or neglecting the complexity and nuance of the Rabbinic spectrum on various questions (I have noticed this about him for over decade, since he appeared on Faith Under Fire, with William Lane Craig). Relevant to this question, while there are lots of Jewish exegetes who do not treat the verse as referring to a son, it is still not unheard of within normative Judaism. If one browses the commentaries on the verse in Miqra’ot Gedolot, one will see that no less an authority than Ibn `Ezra wrote the following:
הנה עבדו את ה’ כנגד על ה’ ונשקו בר כנגד על משיחו והנה פירוש בר כמו מה ברי ומה בר בטני וכן כתוב בני אתה
Translation: behold, “serve the LORD” [in verse 11] is in contrast to “upon [or against] the LORD” [in verse 2], and “nashqu bar” [in verse 12] is in contrast to “upon [or against] his anointed/Messiah” [in verse 2], and behold, the meaning of bar is like “what my son, what son of my womb” [in Prov 31:2], and indeed, it is written [in verse 7] “you are my son”.
In short the view popular among Christians is not exclusively Christians, nor is it absurd within the Rabbinic paradigm (in contrast to rabbi Singer acting as though only people ignorant of the language would think the text could be referring to a son).
What do the main stream of scholars say about the translation? Is it correct or not?