Universal Dominion in Psalm 2?
Published in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, Volume 2 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 701-707Why do commentators, almost without exception, think that Psalm 2 envisages a situation of world rule on the part of the Israelite king? 'The king claims world dominion', says E.S. Gerstenberger./1/ A.A. Anderson writes, 'The son's inheritance consists of all peoples and their lands'./2/ And A. Weiser: 'claims implying dominion over the whole world are here voiced'./3/
I
The Þrst reason is probably the inþuence of the modern translations. Biblical scholars are supposed to work from the Hebrew text, but since most of them came to know the psalm long before they began the study of Hebrew, it is perhaps not surprising that they read in the Hebrew what is familiar to them from the versions. In the tradition of the English versions, for example, the Authorized Version (kjv) had 'the heathen' and 'the people' in v. 1, 'the kings of the earth' in v. 2, and 'the heathen' and 'the uttermost parts of the earth' in v. 8-as if all the nations of the earth and all its lands were in view. So too the rv, rsv, with a slight change to 'the nations' and 'the peoples' in v. 1 and 'the nations' in v. 8. And most translations follow suit, down to the niv./4/ neb, indeed, has the deity promising, 'I will give you nations as your inheritance'-as if it were only some nations; in that context, 'the ends of the earth as your possession' might simply mean 'remote places'-and not the world in its entirety. The reb, nevertheless, revises the neb's phrase 'the ends of the earth' to 'the earth to its farthest end'-which brings us back to world dominion./5/
The Hebrew of course is µywg, 'nations', µymal, 'peoples', raAyklm 'kings of earth', µywg 'nations', raAyspa 'ends of earth'. There is no article with any of these terms. No one, however, as far as I know, comments on the absence of the article-except Duhm, who thinks it debatable whether it is omitted on the ground of meaning or simply on poetical grounds. He at any rate is clear that in v. 1 it cannot be all nations that are meant, since according to v. 9 it will not be all nations that are broken like a pot by the king./6/
In general, commentators do not ask the questions whether the psalm envisages all the nations of the earth being in revolt against the Jerusalem king (which would imply that all the nations were previously subject to him), or whether in being given nations as his inheritance the king is being given dominion only over the rebellious nations or over others as well.
What the king would like, we can imagine, is that the nations in rebellion against him should quieten down and become subject to him again, so we would expect that to be the import of the promise that he will receive nations as his inheritance. Perhaps Yhwh means that far from merely regaining dominion over the formerly subject nations the king will extend his rule over all the nations to the very ends of the earth, but such a promise does not seem entirely apropos. For the nations that he will take control of are those he will break with an iron rod and smash like a potter's vessel-which is the language of conquest and quelling a rebellion rather than of inheritance./7/ So it is more likely that what is envisaged is the king's regaining control of rebellious nations, even nations quite remote, at the 'ends of the earth', rather than his acquiring new peoples to rule.
I suggest that if we read the Hebrew text, and the Hebrew text only, we are not led to think of a world-wide dominion of the Jerusalem king but of his effective restoration of power over certain erstwhile submissive subjects.
II
A second reason why commentators Þnd in this psalm the universal rule of the king is because they understand ra as 'earth', rather than 'land'. I happen to think that this understanding is probably correct, in view of the phrase, 'the ends of ra', which I think never refers to the ends of the land (of Israel or of Canaan). But it is not entirely certain that this is the case-which makes it all the stranger that the translation of the term is almost never commented on. T.K. Cheyne is the only commentator I know of who considers the question, and he decides the term in v. 8 means 'the ends of the land'; for him, it is Moabites and Edomites who are envisaged as the rebellious peoples./8/
III
The third ground for seeing here a world-wide dominion is the expression 'the ends of the earth', which is interpreted (apparently) as a meronymy for 'all the earth'./9/
But when we review the uses of the phrase 'the end(s) of the earth',/10/ we Þnd (I believe) that it is never used in that sense. Usually 'the ends of the earth' means remote regions of the earth, to which or from which people or things go or come. In Deut. 33.17 all the peoples are pushed to the ends of the earth, in Ps. 48.10 (Eng. 9) wars are made to cease to the end of the earth, in Ps. 49.11 (10) God's praise reaches to the ends of the earth, and in Jer. 25.31 clamour resounds to the end of the earth. Similarly also in Job 28.24; Ps. 46.9; 59.14 (13); 72.8; Isa. 48.20; 49.6; 62.11; Mic. 5.3 (4); Zech. 9.10 (cf. Dan. 4.22; Acts 1.8). In Isa. 5.26 a distant nation will come from the ends of the earth, in 43.6 God's sons and daughters will be brought from the ends of the earth, and in Jer. 51.16 the mist rises from the ends of the earth. Similarly also in Deut. 28.49; Ps. 61.3 (2); Isa. 41.9, 42.10; Jer. 10.13; 16.19 (cf. Mt. 12.42; Mk 13.27; Lk. 11.31). The clouds rise 'at' the end of the earth (Ps. 135.7), and the fool's eyes are 'on' the ends of the earth (Prov. 17.24). Sometimes the phrase 'from one end of the earth to the other' occurs (Deut. 13.8 [8]; 28.64; Jer. 25.33). In all of these places, the ends of the earth are envisaged as a location, and the term does not mean the whole earth as enclosed by its boundaries.
There remain ten places, in which 'the ends of the earth' is not preceded by a preposition, and in which the phrase could perhaps mean 'all the earth'. I will argue that such is not the case, however.
In Ps. 65.6 (5), God is called 'the hope of all the ends of the earth and of the furthest coastlands'./11/ Now 'the furthest coastlands' can hardly be a meronymy for 'all the coastlands', so it is unlikely that 'the ends of the earth' is a meronymy either. Of course, if God is the hope of remote regions of the earth, he is no doubt the hope also of those closer to home; but that is a logical or theological inference to be drawn from the language, and not the signiÞcance of the phrase itself. Likewise in Ps. 67.8 (7), 'God will bless us, and all the ends of the earth will fear him', the 'ends of the earth' are the distant peoples; what implications readers draw from this statement about those who live in the lands between 'us' and 'the ends of the earth' are their affair, but the phrase itself does not include neighbouring nations. It is the same when all the ends of the earth see the salvation of God (Ps. 98.3; Isa. 52.10) or tremble at the divine judgment (Isa. 41.5) or remember the divine act of salvation (Ps. 22.28 [27]) or are urged to turn to God and be saved (Isa. 45.22). It is the same when Yhwh judges the ends of the earth (1 Sam. 2.10), and, presumably, when Yhwh establishes the ends of the earth (Prov. 30.4). The ends of the earth are in these texts the peoples who live in the remotest regions.
What of Isa. 40.28, where Yhwh is the creator of the ends of the earth? Surely Yhwh is the creator of the whole earth? How can he have created the ends of the earth if he did not create the whole earth? Consider then Isa. 43.15, where Yhwh is the creator of Israel. That does not mean that he is not the creator of the whole earth, but no one is going to argue that 'Israel' means 'the whole earth'. Similarly, while the creator of 'the ends of the earth' is no doubt the creator of the whole world, the meaning of the sentence is that Yhwh is the one who has created the distant regions of the earth.
In short, the phrase 'the ends of the earth' means remote regions, distant peoples, and not the whole earth, all humanity. If Psalm 2 speaks of the king having as his possession 'ends of the earth', it may imply that he rules everyone on earth, but it does not say that. Rather, what is envisaged in the psalm is that the king will regain, through his might, dominion over subject peoples who have latterly rebelled against him, and will hold that dominion in perpetuity, without risk of further rebellions. No matter how near or how far they are from Jerusalem, if they are his subjects he is guaranteed that his defeat of their rebellion will be total: he will smash them like a pot.
IV
The fourth reason why commentators Þnd here a universal rule by the Israelite king is that they believe that Yhwh is thought to own and rule all the nations and that he is therefore making his anointed king heir to all his property rights. We read in the commentaries, for example, of 'Yhwh, whose property remains the earth (cf. Ps. 24.1, etc.)',/12/ and we are told that '[T]he psalmist proposes as a foregone conclusion that Yahweh is indeed Lord over all the earth',/13/ and that behind the psalm lies 'the Israelite belief that Yahweh . . . is the Lord of the whole world and all its history'./14/
This view seems to be a misunderstanding of the outlook of this psalm, however. For nothing is said here of any universal dominion by Yhwh. His promise to 'give' nations to the king does not mean that he, Yhwh, already 'owns' them or 'rules' them in some sense. It is as the spoils of war that he is promising them to the king. That is why the king must Þrst 'ask' for them. If they were the king's right by way of patrimony, he would not need to 'ask' for them-not unless he was proposing to be a prodigal son and take his patrimony in advance. What is envisaged in the psalm is that the king will 'ask' Yhwh's assent to and assistance in foreign wars he will undertake, and that thereupon Yhwh will deliver his enemies into his hand. Likewise, when Yhwh speaks of the king shattering them like a pot, he does not have in mind the peaceful transfer of property from his own title to that of the king. As I have noted above, this is the language of an act of war, not of mere dominion or masterfulness./15/
I conclude that since the psalm does not view Yhwh as already the
possessor of all the nations of the earth, there is no reason to suppose that it envisages the king as being promised universal dominion./16//