1. While the general meaning of this clause is clear, it is the source of a great deal of scholarly discussion, and has gained a name for itself, "the crux interpretum of Psam 2" and is also the source of the differences in the translation in the various modern English versions (e.g., "kiss his feet"). The main point of contention is that the word 'son' here is Aramaic bar rather than the Hebrew ben, as it is the case in v7. It is impossible—and probably not meaningful in a work for lay-preachers—to even merely summarize the various solutions (with their merits and weaknesses) that have been offered. We make do here by quoting Peter Craigie's observation:
The dissatisfaction created by the multitude of solutions prompts a reexamination of the initial (supposed) problems, which gave rise to the identification of the crux in the first place. First is [bar] "son," admittedly an Aramaic loan-word, necessarily a major problem in a psalm dated provisionally at some point in the Hebrew monarchy? It need not be; Aramaic is known to have been used widely in Syria-Palestine from at least the nineth century B.C., and the current absence of earlier epigraphic evidence does not mean that it could not have been used earlier (though it should be recalled that no precise date is known for Ps 2). Furthermore, the context of vv 11-12 should be noted. The words are addressed (in the mouth of the poet) to foreign nations and kings (Aramaic speaking?), whereas [ben, "son," in v 7, is used by God in speaking to his king. It is possible that the poet deliberately uses a foreign word (loan-word) to dramatize his poetic intent at this point. Finally, as Delitzsch noted (Biblical Commentary on the Psalms, I, 128), the use of [br] bar here avoids the dissonance [bn pn] ben pen.
Psalms 1-50 (Word Biblical Commentary, 19; Waco, TX: Word Publishing, 1983), 64, n.12a. Also see note immediately below.
The ben pen dissonance noted by Craigie above has to do with the opening words of v12 in the Massoretic Text: nashshequ-bar pen-ye'anap, 'kiss the son lest he be angry.' If the Aramaic word bar is instead replaced by the Hebrew word for 'son,' the sentence would read nashshequ-ben pen-ye'anap, producing a dissonant reading.