KISSING THE SON
by Jeremy Chance Springfield
9/3/18
Psalms 2 is a distinctly Messianic psalm. The entire content is centered on acknowledging the Messiah as the worthy King of Israel, chosen by the Holy One Himself for leading His people, and ultimately the world, in righteousness. In twelve relatively brief statements, we discover that the Creator and His Messiah are united in a purpose the Gentiles seek to disrupt – a purpose that cannot be derailed, and we learn that the inheritance offered to the Messiah is the world entire, with the promise of not only victory, but a final fealty to His rule, all with the sobering admonition that we pay homage to His chosen status by sincerely declaring Messiah to be the only viable option for world leadership.
While it is distinctly Messianic, and is important for that reason, it also has in it a brief phrase that is contested by some translators as not being legitimately translated in certain translations. This study seeks to present that passage and to show that the ancient understanding is indeed one that aligns with the rest of the Messianic tone of the psalm, and displays how important understanding a simple phrase is to rightly viewing vital prophetic events in history.
The phrase in question comes at the end, in Psalm 2:12, and is translated usually something like what I have rendered straight from the Hebrew Text:
While it is distinctly Messianic, and is important for that reason, it also has in it a brief phrase that is contested by some translators as not being legitimately translated in certain translations. This study seeks to present that passage and to show that the ancient understanding is indeed one that aligns with the rest of the Messianic tone of the psalm, and displays how important understanding a simple phrase is to rightly viewing vital prophetic events in history.
The phrase in question comes at the end, in Psalm 2:12, and is translated usually something like what I have rendered straight from the Hebrew Text:
Kiss [the] son, lest he be angry, and you shall be lost [in the] way when his wrath is kindled but a little. Happy are all whose refuge is in him.
In this personal translation, I have rendered the Hebrew in such a way that the reading supports the Messianic understanding of the entire psalm by translating the phrase NASHQU BAR as “kiss the son.” This is an ancient translation opinion, as will be discussed further, as well as the majority choice of modern translators, although there are some degrees of freedom that certain English versions have taken with the rendering that are not quite what is found in the actual text. The phrase as I have given it shows that we are called to treat the chosen King of Israel with unparalleled respect and honor. However, although “kiss the son” is the majority opinion when it comes to English translations, not everyone is of that opinion, and so we have the alternative translation of that above phrase into something like what is represented in the Jewish Publication Society’s 1917 rendering of the passage:
Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. Happy are all they that take refuge in Him.
In this translation, the phrase NASHQU BAR is viewed differently, essentially understanding the term BAR as the infinitive form of the word BARAR “to be pure / to cleanse,” rather than the idea of “son.” The JPS translation transitions the homage we are to give from the Messiah who has been spoken of throughout the psalm into a manner of how we are to give homage in the first place.
In this translation, the phrase NASHQU BAR is viewed differently, essentially understanding the term BAR as the infinitive form of the word BARAR “to be pure / to cleanse,” rather than the idea of “son.” The JPS translation transitions the homage we are to give from the Messiah who has been spoken of throughout the psalm into a manner of how we are to give homage in the first place.
Now, why would the translators not view the text as intending “the son,” and thus referencing the Messiah of which most of the psalm is clearly devoted to addressing? The reason is largely because the term BAR in the text, if assumed to have originally been intended to mean “son,” is not a Hebrew word! The Hebrew word for “son” is BEN, and occurs elsewhere in this very psalm, in 2:7, where it is in the possessive form of BENEE “My son.” The term BAR is actually the Aramaic word for “son,” (think “bar mitzvah” / “son of the commandment”, etc.) which is why some prefer to read it instead as an infinitive form of the Hebrew word BARAR “pure.” It is viewed by such as odd to read an Aramaic word right in the middle of a Hebrew sentence. Additionally, they will offer the suggestion that since BAR does not have the letter Heh as the definite article attached to it (to read HABAR), that it should not be interpreted as “the son,” but as the non-specific “a son.”
The reason behind some Jewish interpreters reading BAR as being from the infinitive of BARAR “pure” is also one that is bolstered by the ancient translation of the Latin Vulgate, surprisingly enough. That Christian text supports the “do homage in purity” idea by translating the Hebrew phrase as ADORATE PURE “worship purely.” Without a doubt, the concept of BAR was viewed by Jerome, the Vulgate’s translator, in context of the Hebrew BARAR root rather than the Aramaic BAR “son” route.
Why, then, should BAR as “son” be preferred in trying to capture the original author’s intent? The reasons are that, while uncommon, we do find BAR as “son” could be and was used by ancient Hebrew writers in the middle of an otherwise Hebrew statement. For instance, a prime example is from Proverbs 31:2, where we read BAR with the uncontested meaning of “son” a total of three times in one statement, surrounded by otherwise Hebrew terms.
What, my son? And what, son of my womb? And what, son of my vows?
Additionally, since Aramaic was the language of most of the surrounding peoples in ancient Judaism at the time of the writing of Psalm 2, it would make sense for the writer to switch terms to emphasize the scope of the declarations made: BEN “son” in Hebrew is used when the Holy One is recorded as speaking to a Hebrew in 2:7, and Bar “son” in Aramaic is used when the nations are being addressed in a more familiar tongue, and told to pay homage to the king who would inevitably rule them all.
Furthermore, if it is indeed taken to mean BAR as “son” in the Aramaic language, then the Hebrew definite article of Heh would not be placed on the Aramaic term, as that is not how Aramaic works. Indeed, even Hebrew often drops the definite article in the Scripture’s poetic works, where it would otherwise be used if writing in prose, erasing any real reason to oppose the interpretation of BAR as “son.” Another interesting grammatical point to consider is that the term BAR, when read as “son,” could be viewed legitimately as the construct state of the Aramaic term taking the place of an emphatic (emphatic expression often was produced in ancient Aramaic with the Alef attached to the end of a noun – in this case to yield BARA “the son,” but if in construct form acting as emphatic, would legitimately be BAR “[the] son,” a detail encountered at times in the ancient Aramaic Targums, such as Onqelos, etc.). While the Aramaic term BAR “son” is encountered about a dozen times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures mixed in with both distinctly Hebrew and distinctly Aramaic passages, the infinitive form of the Hebrew BARAR, being again BAR “purely,” finds no other usage anywhere in the text, other than its proposed use in this psalm.
Whereas the Latin Vulgate supported the choice of “purely,” as shown above, a text of greater antiquity, still – the Aramaic Peshitta – has an interesting variant reading in its translation from the Hebrew in Psalms 2:12. In it, we find the phrase that is essentially cognate to the Hebrew, but with a detail that decisively shows the idea of reading BAR as “the son” was a viable and employed choice by ancient scribes.
Furthermore, if it is indeed taken to mean BAR as “son” in the Aramaic language, then the Hebrew definite article of Heh would not be placed on the Aramaic term, as that is not how Aramaic works. Indeed, even Hebrew often drops the definite article in the Scripture’s poetic works, where it would otherwise be used if writing in prose, erasing any real reason to oppose the interpretation of BAR as “son.” Another interesting grammatical point to consider is that the term BAR, when read as “son,” could be viewed legitimately as the construct state of the Aramaic term taking the place of an emphatic (emphatic expression often was produced in ancient Aramaic with the Alef attached to the end of a noun – in this case to yield BARA “the son,” but if in construct form acting as emphatic, would legitimately be BAR “[the] son,” a detail encountered at times in the ancient Aramaic Targums, such as Onqelos, etc.). While the Aramaic term BAR “son” is encountered about a dozen times throughout the Hebrew Scriptures mixed in with both distinctly Hebrew and distinctly Aramaic passages, the infinitive form of the Hebrew BARAR, being again BAR “purely,” finds no other usage anywhere in the text, other than its proposed use in this psalm.
Whereas the Latin Vulgate supported the choice of “purely,” as shown above, a text of greater antiquity, still – the Aramaic Peshitta – has an interesting variant reading in its translation from the Hebrew in Psalms 2:12. In it, we find the phrase that is essentially cognate to the Hebrew, but with a detail that decisively shows the idea of reading BAR as “the son” was a viable and employed choice by ancient scribes.
The fact that an earlier witness than the Vulgate, and a Jewish / Aramaic one, at that, felt like the Hebrew text was best rendered by viewing the term BAR as “the son” is significant. The Peshitta’s ancient rendering speaks volumes to the way the content was to be understood by the laypeople of the day, to whom Hebrew was not as widely used as the Aramaic, and especially due to the fact that the term in question would have seriously been in question to those who heard it read aloud who were themselves Aramaic speakers – were they supposed to understand the Aramaic-sounding term in the midst of a Hebrew text as an Aramaic word indeed, or something else? The Peshitta’s rendering decided for them in the affirmative: the text should be taken as a rare instance of Aramaic in the middle of Hebrew – a not-unknown occurrence in the Scriptures – one example of which was previously shown in this study. Even the ancient mystical Jewish text called the Zohar references Psalm 2 and its usage of BAR as being understood as “son” in reference to the Messiah.
A final thought in favor of the reading of “son” is that it finds precedence within Hebrew Scriptures themselves. In 1st Samuel 10:1, the text tells us that the prophet Samuel “kissed” Saul at his ordination as king, and proceeds to speak of his “anointing” (literally: “your Messiahship”). Psalm 2 is all about the choosing and ordination of the King Messiah and appears to include in those details an entirely Hebrew thought process of kissing in that scenario to convey acceptance of such a role. Since it fits in all respects to the topic and the information presented throughout the psalm, there is no viable excuse to render it as anything other than “son.”
A final thought in favor of the reading of “son” is that it finds precedence within Hebrew Scriptures themselves. In 1st Samuel 10:1, the text tells us that the prophet Samuel “kissed” Saul at his ordination as king, and proceeds to speak of his “anointing” (literally: “your Messiahship”). Psalm 2 is all about the choosing and ordination of the King Messiah and appears to include in those details an entirely Hebrew thought process of kissing in that scenario to convey acceptance of such a role. Since it fits in all respects to the topic and the information presented throughout the psalm, there is no viable excuse to render it as anything other than “son.”
Appreciating the likeliest original intent of the author of the psalm allows us to move forward and ask an important question: if the Text tells us to “kiss the son,” and the context is directed at the Messiah, how does that relate to the ministry of Yeshua in that chosen role? This is where it gets interesting! It is, indeed, intricately connected to Yeshua and His status as the chosen “son” and King of Israel. Twice in the Messianic Texts do we find that Yeshua was kissed by others. Looking at these will show us a context that places those two incidents in the light of the greater content of Psalm 2, revealing that He is the King promised to Israel and ultimately, to the entire world.
The first instance found of someone kissing Yeshua is in the record of the woman who anoints Him and washes His feet with her tears. She also proceeds to kiss His feet in honor of what she saw in Him. This passage is preserved in Luke 7:36-39, and 44-45.
The first instance found of someone kissing Yeshua is in the record of the woman who anoints Him and washes His feet with her tears. She also proceeds to kiss His feet in honor of what she saw in Him. This passage is preserved in Luke 7:36-39, and 44-45.
36 Yet, there came requesting from Him one from the Preeshe’, that He should eat with him. And He entered unto the house of the Preesha, and He reclined.
37 And a woman – a sinner, was in that city, and when she knew that in the house of the Preesha He reclined, she took a tapered container of fragrance,
38 and she stood behind Him, against His feet, and was weeping, and began with her tears to wet His feet, and with the hair of her head to wipe them, and she was kissing His feet, and anointing [with] fragrance.
39 But when the Preesha who had called Him saw, he reckoned in his soul, and said, “This [one], if he was a prophet, he would know who she is, and what is her nature, that a sinner is the woman who has touched him!”
…
44 And He turned to that woman, and said to Shemun, “You see this woman? To your house I entered. Waters for My feet you did not give, yet, this [one] with her tears she wet My feet, and with her hair she wiped them!
45 You did not kiss Me, yet, this [one] – see! from her entering she has not ceased to kiss My feet!”
This beautiful event showcases how someone who knows the worth of Messiah felt He deserved to be treated. This sinful woman knew the value of the Messiah who was to come and knew that Yeshua’s fulfillment of that role meant everything to her. She feared no reaction of men but announced her loyalty with as debasing an action as she could muster. The weight of what she is recorded as doing becomes clearer with a bit of help from understanding the cultural norms of Judaism of that time. Kissing on the lips or cheek was typically reserved for spouses / immediate family. Close family members were kissed on the back of the hands, and in the rarest of instances when someone chose to show the greatest honor to an individual they held in unnaturally high esteem, they would bow down to the ground and kiss the foot of the person. Such an instance is preserved in the Talmud Bavli, Ketuvot 63a, where we see the wife of Rabbi Akiva prostrating her face to the ground and kissing him on his feet upon seeing him after an absence of many years, where he had gone from being a lowly shepherd to the venerated leader of twenty-four thousand disciples.
The wife of Akiva mimicked the actions of the sinful woman recorded here in Luke 7, for she knew the worth he possessed as a rabbi who had sacrificed much to learn the Torah and to teach it to others, thus validating her original insistence that he make such drastic effort to obtain his religious education so many years before. In the same way, this sinful woman in Yeshua’s presence tossed all propriety to the wind at the opportunity to give away her decency to show that she viewed Yeshua as worth more than everyone. This type of action was not normal at all and was typically reserved for the worship of the Holy One in the Temple itself, as we see in the Talmud Bavli, Sukkah 53a, where it speaks of the actions of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in the Holy House.
The practice of Shimon ben Gamaliel is startling in the context: he would bow down upon his face and kiss the stones of the pavement at the Temple. This offers a parallel to the situation of this woman who was announcing to all that she recognized Yeshua as the chosen one of the Most High by similarly bowing down and kissing His feet. She viewed His purpose as related to the Temple – a chosen vessel to bring forgiveness and the reign of the Holy One to Israel. To say that her method of doing so was scandalous is an understatement. But understanding the context and the cultural aspects behind it puts it all in a different light: to do such declared to all that He was as holy to her as the Temple itself! This link to the Temple and the atonement there is further validated in His reaction given to her in Luke 7:48, where He declares to her that her sins are forgiven! His Messianic role called for her to fulfill the command given in Psalm 2:12 to “kiss the son” in a beautiful way that would be recorded for all who would read of His life and ministry. She affirmed His position as the King of Israel in her anointing and astonishing adoration.
The second instance found of someone kissing Yeshua is in the record of the betrayal by Judas Iscariot. The account is probably all-too-familiar to many, made memorable as a key turning point in the passion story of the Messiah. This event is recorded in the Messianic Texts, and while full of emotion and controversy as to the intent behind the actions of Judas, it is as equally-startling a fulfillment of the command of Psalm 2:12 as were the kisses placed upon Yeshua’s feet by the sinful woman. Matthew 26:48-49 gives a concise presentation of the event for us, as translated from the Aramaic of the Eastern Peshitta text.
48 And he had given to them a sign – Yihuda the betrayer – and said, “To whom that I kiss is he. You must seize him.”
49 And immediately he drew near unto Yeshua, and said, “Peace, rabbi!” and kissed Him.
48 And he had given to them a sign – Yihuda the betrayer – and said, “To whom that I kiss is he. You must seize him.”
49 And immediately he drew near unto Yeshua, and said, “Peace, rabbi!” and kissed Him.
The “sign” given by Judas of a kiss was a traditional form of greeting in ancient Judaism. In fact, the Talmud Bavli, in Berachot 27b, reveals that the greeting spoken by Judas of “Peace, rabbi!” is the exact greeting that was customary for a disciple to give to his rabbi upon meeting with him! In this we see that the ancient witness of the Aramaic Text of the Peshitta preserves the Semitic cultural nuance of the day, corroborated by the later text of the Talmud. His greeting of a kiss is also something done in the culture of Judaism, and is a detail preserved in other such places, where we read of a “holy kiss of peace” that is to be given to fellow believers as a greeting. In the Aramaic of the Peshitta, we find that the phrase occurs in Romans 16:16; 1st Corinthians 16:20; 2nd Corinthians 13:12; 1st Thessalonians 5:26; and 1st Peter 5:14, where it is preserved in the tongue of Yeshua and His original followers with the phrase SHALAW BASHLAMA KHAD D’KHAD B’NUSHAQTA QADISHTA “do ask of the peace of one another with a holy kiss.”
Although it is popular in art and in modern reenactments to show this event as Judas kissing Yeshua upon the cheek, Jewish tradition was actually to kiss another who is not family or intimately related, but who was held in high regard, upon the forehead (See Talmud Bavli, tractate Sotah 13a; Rosh Hashanah 25a; Nedarim 9b; Chagigah 14b, among others). It would have been deemed socially improper for one who held the status of a disciple to kiss his rabbi anywhere else than upon the forehead in such a greeting event as we find recorded in the accounts. This inference of Judas’ action allows us to see another connection, originally made by the sinful woman who kissed Yeshua’s feet like Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel would kiss the pavement of the Temple: the ancient Jewish text known as Shir Hashirim Rabbah 7:5 connects the forehead area to the Temple itself.
By kissing Yeshua upon the forehead, we see another link to the Temple and the adoration given there. Although Judas was acting in betrayal, the placement of his kiss linked Yeshua to the Temple – a connection Yeshua Himself had formerly made to His disciples (See John 2:19)! In both instances of people kissing the Son there is the link to the chosen nature of Yeshua and the homage that is due to Him, just as is done in the Temple of the Holy One! Understanding the context of kissing and the placement of those kisses in the accounts of Yeshua brings to light the significance of what was happening in a deeper manner than can otherwise be appreciated.
In a final observation, we see that the response of Yeshua to this kiss is to question in astonishment the choice of the sign of Judas’ betrayal, as recorded in the Aramaic of Luke 22:46 (48 in the Greek-based translations):
In a final observation, we see that the response of Yeshua to this kiss is to question in astonishment the choice of the sign of Judas’ betrayal, as recorded in the Aramaic of Luke 22:46 (48 in the Greek-based translations):
46 Yeshua said to Yihuda, “By the kiss you betray the Son of Man?”
The way Yeshua phrased the question is significant. The grammar of the Peshitta preserves a hint of what He really meant in using the term B’NUSHAQTA, meaning literally “by the kiss.” The fact that Yeshua used such grammar was intended as a reference to the Messianic command found in Psalm 2:12, which declares: “kiss the son.” The Aramaic spoken by Yeshua is in the emphatic: the kiss. As in, a specific kiss mentioned somewhere. Psalm 2:12 speaks of the only Messianically-significant kiss commanded in the Word, so that the grammar of Yeshua’s question would have been referencing that very topic. In contrast, the Greek does not provide for such a translation in its grammatical construction, leaving it only as the non-specific but popular phrase “with a kiss.” It is the Aramaic of the Peshitta that frames the event as a fulfillment of prophetic merit: By THE KISS [spoken of in Psalm 2:12] did Judas betray the Messiah! What was supposed to be an act of adoration and acceptance of His role as the Messiah ended up being the very act that brought Him to the cross. It was tragic in all respects, but it was the necessary homage needed to deliver Yeshua to the next phase of His eventual ascension to the throne as the chosen King of Israel, as Psalm 2 declares shall happen.
The irony in the act of Judas and the reply from Yeshua is that Judas greets Him with the phrase SHLAM, RABBI “Peace, rabbi!” in the Aramaic recorded in Matthew 26:49, and the response given to him by Yeshua in Luke 22:46 (48) is B’NUSHAQTA MASHLEM “by the kiss you betray…” The significance of this action and reply is that in seven different places in the Messianic Texts, Judas is called the “betrayer” (See Matthew 26:25, 47, 48; 27:3; Luke 6:16; and John 18:2, 5), where we find the word MASHLMANA “one who delivers up / betrays,” and is based on the same root of SHLAM / SHLAMA “peace.” The result is that the Aramaic of the Peshitta distinctly shows the “betrayer” enacting his “betrayal” with a kiss of “peace,” thus, with one simple root word, linking the intent of Judas, the method of Judas, and what the action resulted in making Judas! The Aramaic is the only ancient text whose language preserves this fascinating and explanatory connection, such that his kiss does not hold any weight other than an identification action in the Greek, thereby missing entirely the significance of that prophetic kiss. This is why it is so important to read the accounts in their original languages so that deeper appreciation can be made of what was happening.
The true importance of the kisses given to Yeshua are admittedly lost outside of rightly understanding and using the Aramaic words of Scripture. However, upon knowing that the wording in Psalm 2:12 was originally intended to be understood as an Aramaic word, such a command given there links across the centuries to the Aramaic text of the Peshitta and the accounts of kissing the Son that we find in them. Although entirely different in nature, both events were prophetically necessary to push Yeshua along the road to taking His seat as the divinely-ordained King of Zion.
All study contents Copyright Jeremy Chance Springfield, except for graphics and images, which are Copyright their respective creators.