Hebrews 1:5

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(5) For unto which of the angels . . . . “God has spoken of the Messiah as His Son, a title which no angel ever receives from Him.” That the appellation “sons of God” may be used in an inferior sense, and that thus angels may be so designated (Job 1:6; Job 38:7), does not affect this argument; for every reader must perceive that in these quotations “Son” is used of One, and in a sense that is unique The two quotations are taken from Psalm 2:7 and 2Samuel 7:14. It seems probable that the second Psalm was written by David during the troublous times of 2 Samuel 8-10, in the fresh recollection of the promises of which we read in 2 Samuel 7. In the midst of the rebellious conspiracies of kings and nations is heard Jehovah’s word, “Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion” (Psalm 2:6). In Hebrews 1:7 the Anointed King declares the divine decree, “The Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee;” and the following verses describe the kingly dominion of the Son. The clearest comments on Hebrews 1:7 are supplied by 2Samuel 7:12-14, and especially by Psalm 89:27 of the last-named Psalm, “I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth,” shows plainly that in their first meaning—that which relates to the royal rule of David or David’s son—the words “I have this day begotten thee” signify “I have this day established thee as my chosen king, and thus constituted thee my son;” for to the firstborn belongs natural, though derived, rule over the kingdom of his father. At what period the people in general, guided by prophetic teaching and the discipline of history (see below), learnt in how secondary a sense such words could be used of any human king, we do not know; but we have clear evidence, both from the New Testament (Hebrews 5:5; Acts 4:25-27; Acts 13:33; Revelation 2:27) and from Jewish tradition, that the second Psalm was understood to be a distinct prophecy of the Messiah; indeed, this very name “Messiah” and the appellation “Son of God” (see John 1:34; John 1:49) may be traced to this Psalm. The declarations of Hebrews 1:6-7, are typical of the enthronement of the Messiah. St. Paul (Acts 13:33) refers the words here quoted to the period of the Resurrection. With this the language used above (Hebrews 1:4) perfectly agrees. As, however, in that verse the exaltation of the Christ is declared to correspond to that essential dignity which lay in the name Son, a name which in this very context bears its highest sense (Hebrews 1:1-3), we are constrained to regard the “day” of the Resurrection as itself typical, and to believe that “this day” also pointed to the “eternal Now”—to what Origen (on John 1:1) speaks of as “the day which is co-extensive with the unbegotten and everlasting life of God.”

The second passage, which seems to have been the basis of the words we have just considered, occurs in the course of the divine promise that David’s seed shall be established in his kingdom, and that David’s throne shall be established for ever: the seed of David shall be received as God’s Son. With the words here quoted are closely joined others which plainly prove that Hebrews 1:14 is not a simple and direct prophecy of Christ, but in the first instance belonged to an earthly ruler. Through the teaching of successive disappointments, each “son of David” failing to realise the hopes excited by the promise, the nation was led to look to the future King, and at once to remove from the prophecy the purely earthly limitations and to discern a higher meaning in the promise of divine sonship.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

1:4-14 Many Jews had a superstitious or idolatrous respect for angels, because they had received the law and other tidings of the Divine will by their ministry. They looked upon them as mediators between God and men, and some went so far as to pay them a kind of religious homage or worship. Thus it was necessary that the apostle should insist, not only on Christ's being the Creator of all things, and therefore of angels themselves, but as being the risen and exalted Messiah in human nature, to whom angels, authorities, and powers are made subject. To prove this, several passages are brought from the Old Testament. On comparing what God there says of the angels, with what he says to Christ, the inferiority of the angels to Christ plainly appears. Here is the office of the angels; they are God's ministers or servants, to do his pleasure. But, how much greater things are said of Christ by the Father! And let us own and honour him as God; for if he had not been God, he had never done the Mediator's work, and had never worn the Mediator's crown. It is declared how Christ was qualified for the office of Mediator, and how he was confirmed in it: he has the name Messiah from his being anointed. Only as Man he has his fellows, and as anointed with the Holy Spirit; but he is above all prophets, priests, and kings, that ever were employed in the service of God on earth. Another passage of Scripture, Ps 102:25-27, is recited, in which the Almighty power of the Lord Jesus Christ is declared, both in creating the world and in changing it. Christ will fold up this world as a garment, not to be abused any longer, not to be used as it has been. As a sovereign, when his garments of state are folded and put away, is a sovereign still, so our Lord, when he has laid aside the earth and heavens like a vesture, shall be still the same. Let us not then set our hearts upon that which is not what we take it to be, and will not be what it now is. Sin has made a great change in the world for the worse, and Christ will make a great change in it for the better. Let the thoughts of this make us watchful, diligent, and desirous of that better world. The Saviour has done much to make all men his friends, yet he has enemies. But they shall be made his footstool, by humble submission, or by utter destruction. Christ shall go on conquering and to conquer. The most exalted angels are but ministering spirits, mere servants of Christ, to execute his commands. The saints, at present, are heirs, not yet come into possession. The angels minister to them in opposing the malice and power of evil spirits, in protecting and keeping their bodies, instructing and comforting their souls, under Christ and the Holy Ghost. Angels shall gather all the saints together at the last day, when all whose hearts and hopes are set upon perishing treasures and fading glories, will be driven from Christ's presence into everlasting misery.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

For unto which of the angels ... - The object of this is, to prove that the Son of God, who has spoken to people in these last days, is superior to the angels. As the apostle was writing to those who had been trained in the Jewish religion, and who admitted the authority of the Old Testament, of course he made his appeal to that, and undoubtedly referred for proof to those places which were generally admitted to relate to the Messiah. Abarbanel says, that it was the common opinion of the Jewish doctors that the Messiah would be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the angels - Stuart. There is a difficulty, as we shall see, in applying the passages which follow to the Messiah - a difficulty which we may find it not easy to explain. Some remarks will be made on the particular passages as we go along. In general it may be observed here:

(1) That it is to be presumed that those passages were in the time of Paul applied to the Messiah. He seems to argue from them as though this was commonly understood, and is at no pains to prove it.

(2) it is to be presumed that those to whom he wrote would at once admit this to be so. If this were not so, we cannot suppose that he would regard this mode of reasoning as at all efficacious, or adapted to convince those to whom he wrote.

(3) he did not apprehend that the application which he made of these texts would be called in question by the countrymen of those to whom he wrote. It is to be presumed, therefore, that the application was made in accordance with the received opinions, and the common interpretation.

(4) Paul had been instructed in early life in the doctrines of the Jewish religion, and made fully acquainted with all their principles of interpretation. It is to be presumed, therefore, that he made these quotations in accordance with the prevalent belief, and with principles which were well understood and admitted.

(5) every age and people have their own modes of reasoning. They may differ from others, and others may regard them as unsound, and yet to that age and people they are satisfactory and conclusive. The ancient philosophers employed modes of reasoning which would not strike us as the most forcible, and which perhaps we should not regard as tenable. So it is with the Chinese, the Hindus, the Muslims now. So it was with the writers of the dark ages who lived under the influence of the scholastic philosophy. They argue from admitted principles in their country and time - just as we do in ours. Their reasoning was as satisfactory to them as ours is to us.

(6) in a writer of any particular age we are to expect to find the prevailing mode of reasoning, and appeals to the usual arguments on any subject. We are not to look for methods of argument founded on the inductive philosophy in the writings of the schoolmen, or in the writings of the Chinese or the Hindus. It would be unreasonable to expect it. We are to expect that they will be found to reason in accordance with the customs of their time; to appeal to such arguments as were commonly alleged; and if they are reasoning with an adversary, "to make use of the points which he concedes," and to urge them as suited to convince "him." And this is not wrong. It may strike him with more force than it does us; it may be that we can see that is not the most solid mode of reasoning, but still it may not be in itself an improper method. That the writers of the New Testament should have used that mode of reasoning sometimes, is no more surprising than that we find writers in China reasoning from acknowledged principles, and in the usual manner there, or than that people in our own land reason on the principles of the inductive philosophy. These remarks may not explain all the difficulties in regard to the proof-texts adduced by Paul in this chapter, but they may remove some of them, and may so prepare the way that we may be able to dispose of them all as we advance. In the passage which is quoted in this verse, there is not much difficulty in regard to the propriety of its being thus used. The difficulty lies in the subsequent quotations in the chapter.

Said he at any time - He never used language respecting the angels like what he employs respecting his Son. He never applied to any one of them the name Son. "Thou art my Son." The name "sons of God," is applied in the Scriptures to saints, and may have been given to the angels. But the argument here is, that the name, my "Son" has never been given to any one of them particularly and by eminence. In a large general sense, they are the sons of God, or the children of God, but the name is given to the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, in a special sense, implying a unique relation to him, and a special dominion over all things. This passage is quoted from Psalm 2:1-12; - a Psalm that is usually believed to pertain particularly to the Messiah, and one of the few Psalms that have undisputed reference to him; see notes on Acts 4:25; Acts 13:33.

This day - see notes on Acts 13:33, where this passage is applied to the resurrection of Christ from the dead: proving that the phrase "this day" does not refer to the doctrine of eternal generation, but to the resurrection of the Redeemer - "the first-begotten of the dead:" Revelation 1:5. Thus, Theodoret says of the phrase "this day," "it does not express his eternal generation, but what is connected with time." The argument of the apostle here does not turn on the time when this was said, but on the fact that this was said to him and not to any one of the angels, and this argument will have equal force whether the phrase be understood as referring to the fact of his resurrection, or to his previous existence. The structure and scope of the second Psalm refers to his exaltation after the kings of the earth set themselves against him, and endeavored to cast off His government from them. In spite of that, and subsequent to that, he would set his king, which they had rejected, on his holy hill of Zion; see Psalm 2:2-6.

Have I begotten thee - See this place explained in the notes on Acts 13:33. It must, from the necessity of the case, be understood figuratively; and must mean, substantially, "I have constituted, or appointed thee." If it refers to his resurrection, it means that that resurrection was a kind of "begetting" to life, or, a beginning of life; see Revelation 1:5.

And yet though Paul Acts 13:33 has applied it to the resurrection of the Redeemer, and though the name "Son of God" is applied to him on account of his resurrection (see notes on Romans 1:4), yet I confess this does not seem to me to come up to "all" that the writer here intended. The phrase," The Son of God," I suppose, properly denotes that the Lord Jesus sustained a relation to God, designated by that name, corresponding to the relations which he sustained to man, designated by the name "the Son of man." The one implied that he had a special relation to God, as the other implied that he had a special relation to man. This is indisputable. But on what particular account the name was given him, or how he was manifested to be the Son of God, has been the great question. Whether the name refers to the mode of his existence before the incarnation, and to his "being begotten from eternity," or to the incarnation and the resurrection, has long been a point on which people have been divided in opinion.

The natural idea conveyed by the title "the Son of God" is, that he sustained a relation to God which implied more than was human or angelic; and this is certainly the drift of the argument of the apostle here. I do not see, however, that he refers to the doctrine of "eternal generation," or that he means to teach that. His point is, that God had declared and treated him as "a Son" - as superior to the angels and to human beings, and that this was shown in what had been said of him in the Old Testament. This would be equally clear, whether there is reference to the doctrine of eternal generation or not. The sense is, "he is more than human." He is more than angelic. He has been addressed and treated as a Son - which none of the angels have. They are regarded simply as ministering spirits. They sustain subordinate stations, and are treated accordingly. He, on the contrary, is the brightness of the divine glory.

He is treated and addressed as a Son. In his original existence this was so. In his incarnation this was so. When on earth this was so; and in his resurrection, ascension, and session at the right hand of God, he was treated in all respects "as a Son" - as superior to all servants, and to all ministering spirits." The exact reference, then, of the phrase "this day have I begotten thee," in the Psalm, is to the act of "constituting" him in a public manner the Son of God - and refers to God's setting him as king on the "holy hill of Zion" - or making him king over the church and the world as Messiah; and this was done, eminently, as Paul shows Acts 13, by the resurrection. It was based, however, on what was fit and proper. It was not arbitrary. There was a reason why he should thus be exalted rather than a man or an angel; and this was, that he was the God incarnate, and had a nature that qualified him for universal empire, and he was thus "appropriately" called "the Son of God."

(No doctrine is advanced, by pressing into its service, such texts as sound criticism declares not strictly to belong to it. Yet, without doubt, many advocates of the eternal Sonship have done violence to this passage, with the design of upholding their views. That doctrine, however, happily is not dependent on a single text; and ample ground will remain for its friends, even if we admit, as in candor we must, that our author has fully made out his case against this text as a proof one. It seems clear, that neither σήμερον sēmeron nor its corresponding היום haayowm can denote eternity; of such signification there is no example. The sense is uniformly confined to limited duration, Psalm 95:7; Hebrews 4:7. The order of the second Psalm, too, certainly does prove that the "begetting" took place after the opposition which the kings and rulers made to Christ, and not prior to it. Accordingly, the text is quoted elsewhere in reference to the resurrection of Christ, Romans 1:4; Acts 13:33. Besides, the chief design of the apostle in the place is not so much to show why Christ is called the Son of God, as simply to direct attention to the fact that he has this name, on the possession of which the whole argument is founded. He inherits a name which is never given to angels, and that of itself is proof of his superiority to them, whether we suppose the ground of the title to lie in his previous existence, or, with our author, in his incarnate Deity. But on this question, it must be admitted, that the passage determines nothing.

continued...

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

5. For—substantiating His having "obtained a more excellent name than the angels."

unto which—A frequent argument in this Epistle is derived from the silence of Scripture (Heb 1:13; Heb 2:16; 7:3, 14) [Bengel].

this day have I begotten thee—(Ps 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Ac 13:33; Ro 1:4). Christ has a fourfold right to the title "Son of God"; (1) By generation, as begotten of God; (2) By commission, as sent by God; (3) By resurrection, as "the first-begotten of the dead" (compare Lu 20:36; Ro 1:4; Re 1:5); (4) By actual possession, as heir of all [Bishop Pearson]. The Psalm here quoted applied primarily in a less full sense to Solomon, of whom God promised by Nathan to David. "I will be his father and he shall be my son." But as the whole theocracy was of Messianic import, the triumph of David over Hadadezer and neighboring kings (2Sa 8:1-18; Ps 2:2, 3, 9-12) is a type of God's ultimately subduing all enemies under His Son, whom He sets (Hebrew, "anointed," Ps 2:6) on His "holy hill of Zion," as King of the Jews and of the whole earth. the antitype to Solomon, son of David. The "I" in Greek is emphatic; I the Everlasting Father have begotten Thee this day, that is, on this day, the day of Thy being manifested as My Son, "the first-begotten of the dead" (Col 1:18; Re 1:5). when Thou hast ransomed and opened heaven to Thy people. He had been always Son, but now first was manifested as such in His once humbled, now exalted manhood united to His Godhead. Alford refers "this day" to the eternal generation of the Son: the day in which the Son was begotten by the Father is an everlasting to-day: there never was a yesterday or past time to Him, nor a to-morrow or future time: "Nothing there is to come, and nothing past, but an eternal NOW doth ever last" (Pr 30:4; Joh 10:30, 38; 16:28; 17:8). The communication of the divine essence in its fulness, involves eternal generation; for the divine essence has no beginning. But the context refers to a definite point of time, namely, that of His having entered on the inheritance (Heb 1:4). The "bringing the first-begotten into the world" (Heb 1:6), is not subsequent, as Alford thinks, to Heb 1:5, but anterior to it (compare Ac 2:30-35).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

The apostle here proves that Christ hath a more excellent name, and pre-eminency over angels, by Scripture texts owned by these Hebrews. He had the name of Son of God, and so had not angels; for God the Father, who hath absolute power to give and state all excellency, never said to any angel, so as to constitute him his only Son by an ordinance or word of power.

Sons he may style them, as Job 2:1 Psalm 89:6; as he doth members of his church, Genesis 6:2, and princes and magistrates, Psalm 82:1,6; but always in the plural number, as he doth the angels, Job 38:7, noting out their power, place, and ministry. But Son is singular to Christ, and incommunicable to any other.

Thou art my Son: this is quoted out of Psalm 2:7.

Thou God-man, thou thyself, thou, and thou alone, (that this was spoken of Christ truly, and of David only as a type of him, the Spirit asserts, Acts 13:33), art my own Son, my ever-being Son, my Son by nature, Romans 8:32. Singularity sets out his eminency above all, and his propriety by nature in him.

This day have I begotten thee: at the day of his incarnation, Isaiah 9:6 Luke 1:31,32,35, but eminently at the day of his resurrection, was he declared and published to be his only begotten Son with power, Romans 1:4; and at his ascension inangurated the supreme, universal King and Priest in heaven and earth, Hebrews 5:5, possessed of a better name, place, and power than angels, Ephesians 1:20,21. What men enjoy in this kind attributed to them, is with a vast disproportion to this; born, or begotten, they are said to be, in respect of God’s operation on them, infusing Divine qualities into their souls, but this Son by a generation proper to a substantial person.

And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son: in another Scripture, as 2 Samuel 7:14 1 Chronicles 17:13 22:10, it is declared, I his natural Father, and he my natural Son; so as they are not related to any other as they are to each other. This in the type was spoken of Solomon, but fulfilled in Christ, who was universal King and Priest over his church for ever; so David understood it, Psalm 110:1; compare Psalm 89:19,26-29. He was the first-born Son, born a King; the Son of the universal and supreme King, the Heir and Lord of all.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

For unto which of the angels said he at any time,.... That is, he never said to any of the angels what he has said to Christ; namely, what follows,

thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee for though angels are called the sons of God, Job 1:6 yet are never said to be begotten by him; or, with this clause annexed to it, "this day have I begotten thee"; nor are they ever so called in a proper sense, or in such sense as Christ is: this is said to Christ, and of him, in Psalm 2:7 and that agreeably to the sense of the Jewish church at this time, or the apostle would never have produced it to the Hebrews in such a manner; and not only the whole psalm in general, but this verse in particular, is owned by Jewish writers (t), both ancient and modern, to belong to the Messiah. Christ is the Son of God, not by Creation, nor by adoption, nor by office, but by nature; he is the true, proper, natural, and eternal Son of God; and as such is owned and declared by Jehovah the Father, in these words; the foundation of which relation lies in the begetting of him; which refers not to his nature, either divine or human: not to his divine nature, which is common with the Father and Spirit; wherefore if his was begotten, theirs must be also, being the same undivided nature, common to all three; much less to his human nature, in which he is never said to be begotten, but always to be made, and with respect to which he is without Father; nor to his office, as Mediator, in which he is not a Son, but a servant; besides, he was a Son, previous to his being a prophet, priest, and King; and his office is not the foundation of his sonship, but his sonship is the foundation of his office; or by which that is supported, and which fits him for the performance of it: but it has respect to his divine person; for as, in human generation, person begets person, and like begets like, so it is in divine generation; though care must be taken to remove all imperfection from it, as divisibility and multiplication of essence, priority and posteriority, dependence, and the like; nor can the modus, or manner of it, be conceived, or explained by us: the date of it, today, designs eternity, as in Isaiah 43:13, which is one continued day, an everlasting now; and this may be applied to any time and case, in which Christ is declared to be the Son of God; as at his incarnation, his baptism, his transfiguration on the Mount, and his resurrection from the dead, as in Acts 13:33 and at his ascension to heaven, when he was made Lord and Christ, and his divine sonship more manifestly appeared; which seems to be the time, and case, more especially referred to here. And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a Son: which words are taken from 2 Samuel 7:14 and the sense is, not that he should be his son by adoption; or that he would be instead of a father to him; or that he should be as dear to him as a son is to a father; but that he was really and properly so; and he would make it manifest, and own him as such, as he did at Jordan's river, upon the Mount, and at his resurrection and ascension; though the words are spoken of Solomon, as a type of Christ, they properly belong to the antitype, who is greater than Solomon.

(t) Zohar in Numb. fol. 82. 2. Maimon. in Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 11. 1. & Abarbinel, Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 37. 4. & 38. 1.

Geneva Study Bible

{5} For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, {k} this day have I begotten thee? {6} And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

(5) He proves and confirms the dignity of Christ revealed in the flesh, by these six evident testimonies by which it appears that he far surpasses all angels, so much so that he is called both Son, and God in Heb 1:5,6,7,8,10,13.

(k) The Father begat the Son from everlasting, but that everlasting generation was revealed and represented to the world in his time, and therefore he added this word Today

(6) He proves and confirms the dignity of Christ revealed in the flesh, by these six evident testimonies by which it appears that he far surpasses all angels, so much so that he is called both Son, and God in Heb 1:5,6,7,8,10,13.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Meyer's NT Commentary

Hebrews 1:5. Τίνι γὰρ εἶπέν ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων] For to which of the angels has He ever said, i.e. to none of the angels has He ever said.

The position of the words serves to put a strong accentuation at the same time upon τίνι and upon τῶν ἀγγέλων.

The subject in εἶπεν is ὁ θεός, as is evident alike from the passage itself which is cited, and from our context; inasmuch as both in that which precedes (Hebrews 1:1-4) ὁ θεός was expressly mentioned as the subject of the main proposition, and in that which follows (Hebrews 1:6) the subject of εἰσαγάγῃ τὸν πρωτότοκον can only be God.

ποτέ] is particle of time, at any time, unquam. Wrongly taken by Ch. F. Schmid, Kuinoel, and others as a mere strengthening particle, in the sense of the German doch or the Latin tandem. For then ποτέ must have been placed immediately after τίνι.

The citation υἱὸς … σε is from Psalm 2:7, in verbal accordance with the LXX. In its historic sense the psalm relates to an Israelite king (probably Solomon), who, just now solemnly anointed in Zion as theocratic king, in the lofty feeling of his unity with Jehovah, warns the subjugated nations, who are meditating revolt and defection, of the fruitlessness of their undertaking. The author, however, sees Christ in the person addressed, even as a referring of this psalm to the Messiah was quite usual among the Jews of that period, and in the N. T. the Messianic interpretation thereof is further met with, besides Hebrews 1:5, in Acts 13:33.

υἱός μου] my Son, i.e. in the sense of the psalm, the king of my theocracy, my representative, the object of my fatherly love and protection The author, on the other hand, takes υἱός in the sense unfolded, Hebrews 1:2-3.

ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε] I have this day begotten thee, i.e. in the historic sense of the original: I have, by the anointing accomplished this day, installed thee as the theocratic prince. In the sense of the author, γεγέννηκα denotes the fact of having become the Son. The question is now, how he conceived of the σήμερον. It is referred either to the moment in which Christ was manifested to be the Son of God, i.e. to the moment of the Resurrection or the Ascension (Hilary, in Psalmum; Ambrose, de Sacram. 3. 1; Calvin, Cameron, Grotius, Schlichting, Limborch, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Calmet, Peirce, Storr, Bloomfield, Bisping, Maier; comp. Delitzsch, who would have the words interpreted of “the entrance of the Son into the kingly life of supra-terrestrial glory in God, of which the resurrection is the initial point”), or to the moment of the Incarnation (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Eusebius, in Psalmum, alii; Piscator, Böhme, Kuinoel, Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 123 f. of the 2d ed.; Woerner), or, finally, to the period before the creation of the world, thus to eternity (Origen in Joh., t. i. c. 32; Athanasius, de decret. Nicen. Synod. § 13; Basil, contra Eunom. 2. 24; Augustine, in Psalmum [Arnobius of Gaul, in Psalmum]; Primasius, Theophylact, Thomas Aquinas, Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, Calov, Wittich, Braun, Carpzov, Bleek [but with wavering; more decidedly in the lectures edited by Windrath[34]], Stein, Alford, Kurtz, and the majority). That the author, as Bleek I., de Wette, and Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 287 f.) deem possible, attached no definite notion to the σήμερον, as being without significance for his demonstration, is an unexegetical supposition. Exclusively correct, because alone in harmony with the context, is the referring of the σήμερον to eternity; since, according to Hebrews 1:2, God created the world by Christ as the Son, thus Christ must already have existed as Son before the foundation of the world. With Philo, too, occurs the same interpretation of σήμερον, as signifying eternity. Comp. De Profugis, p. 458 E (with Mangey, I. p. 554): σήμερον δʼ ἐστὶν ὁ ἀπέρατος καὶ ἀδιεξίτητος αἰών· μηνῶν γὰρ καὶ ἐνιαυτῶν καὶ συνόλως χρόνων περίοδοι δόγματα ἀνθρώπων εἰσὶν ἀριθμὸν ἐκτετιμηκότων, τὸ δʼ ἀψευδὲς ὄνομα αἰῶνος ἡ σήμερον.

καὶ πάλιν] and further, serves, as frequently (e.g. Hebrews 2:13, Hebrews 10:30; Romans 15:11-12; 1 Corinthians 3:20; Philo, ed. Mangey, I. p. 88, 490, al.), for the introduction of a new passage of Scripture. The καὶ πάλιν κ.τ.λ. is not, however, to be taken as an assertory declaration, so that merely εἶπεν would have to be supplied (in accordance with which Lachmann punctuates); but the question is continued in such wise that the proposition is to be completed by καὶ (τίνι εἶπέν ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων) πάλιν.

This second citation is derived from 2 Samuel 7:14, in verbal accordance with the LXX. Comp. also 1 Chronicles 17(18):13. αὐτῷ and αὐτός refer in the historic sense to Solomon. To David, who designs building a temple to Jehovah, the divine direction comes by Nathan to desist from his purpose. Not David, but his seed, who shall ascend the throne after him, is to build a temple to Jehovah; to him will Jehovah for ever establish the throne of his kingdom; to him will Jehovah be a father, and he shall be to Him a son, and, if he transgress, Jehovah will chasten him with the rod of men and with the stripes of the children of men. Even this latter addition (which, for the rest, is not found in the parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 17:13 (1 Chronicles 18:13) makes it impossible to refer the words to the Messiah, as, moreover, the reference to Solomon is rendered certain even from the O. T. itself by the following passages: 1 Kings 5:19 (5), 1 Kings 8:17 ff.; 2 Chronicles 6:9-10; as also 1 Chronicles 22:9 (1 Chronicles 23:9 ff)., 1 Chronicles 28:2 (1 Chronicles 29:2) ff.

εἶναι εἰς] Formed after the Hebrew הָיָה לְ Comp. Hebrews 8:10, al.

[34] Der Hebräerbr., erklärt von Dr. Fr. Bleek, Elberf. 1868.

Hebrews 1:5-14 follow the scriptural proof for Hebrews 1:4, and that in such form that in the first place, Hebrews 1:5, the διαφορώτερον παρʼ αὐτοὺς κεκληρονόμηκεν ὄνομα is confirmed, and then, Hebrews 1:6-14, the κρείττων γενόμενος τῶν ἀγγέλων.

Expositor's Greek Testament

Hebrews 1:5. τίνι γὰρ εἶπέν ποτε τῶν ἀγγέλων … “For to which of the angels did he ever say My Son art Thou, I this day have begotten Thee?” τίνι to what individual; ποτε in the whole course of history. The angels as a class are called “Sons of Elohim” in the O.T. (Genesis 6:2; Psalm 29:1; Psalm 89:7; Job 1:6). But this was not used in its strict sense but merely as expressive of indefinite greatness, nor was it addressed to any individual. εἶπεν, the subject unexpressed, as is common in citing Scripture (2 Corinthians 6:2; Galatians 3:16; Ephesians 4:8, etc.). Winer and Blass supply ὁ θεός, others ἡ γραφή. Warfield, who gives the fullest treatment of the subjectless use of λέγει, φησί, and sucb words (Presb. and Ref. Rev., July, 1899) holds that either subject may be supplied, because “under the force of their conception of Scripture as an oracular book it was all one to the N.T. writers whether they said ‘God says’ or ‘Scripture says’.” Here, however, the connection involves that the subject is ὁ θεός. The words cited are from Psalm 2:7 and are in verbal agreement with the LXX, which again accurately represents the Hebrew. The psalm was written to celebrate the accession of a King, Solomon or some other; but the writer, seeing in his mind’s eye the ideal King, clothes the new monarch in his robes. The King was called God’s Son on the basis of the promise made to David (2 Samuel 7:14) and quoted in the following clauses: The words ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε do not seem to add much to the foregoing words, except by emphasising them, according to the ordinary method of Hebrew poetry. σήμερον is evidently intended to mark a special occasion or crisis and cannot allude to the eternal generation of the Son. In its original reference it meant “I have begotten Thee to the kingly dignity”. It is not the beginning of life, but the entrance on office that is indicated by γεγέννηκα, and it is as King the person addressed is God’s Son. Thus Paul, in his address to the Pisidians (Acts 13:33), applies it to the Resurrection of Christ; cf. Romans 1:4. The words, then, find their fulfilment in Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension and sitting down at God’s right hand as Messiah. He was thus proclaimed King, begotten to the royal dignity, and in this sense certainly no angel was ever called God’s Son.

This is more fully illustrated by another passage introduced by the usual καὶ πάλιν (see Hebrews 10:30, and Longinus, De Subl., chap, iv, etc.). Ἐγὼ ἔσομαι αὐτῷ εἰς πατέρα …, words spoken in God’s name by Nathan in reference to David’s seed, and conveying to him the assurance that the kings of his dynasty should ever enjoy the favour and protection and inspiration enabling them to rule as God’s representatives. This promise is prior in history to the previous quotation, and is its source; see 2 Samuel 7:14. ἔσομαι εἰς is Hellenistic after a Hebrew model. See Blass, Gram., p. 85.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

5–14. Illustrations from Scripture of the superiority of Christ to Angels

5. For] The following paragraphs prove “the more excellent name.” By His work on earth the God-man Christ Jesus obtained that superiority of place in the order and hierarchy of salvation which made Him better than the Angels, not only in intrinsic dignity but in relation to the redemption of man. In other words the universal heirship of Christ is here set forth “not as a metaphysical but as a dispensational prerogative.” That it should be necessary for the writer to enter upon a proof of this may well seem strange to us; but that it was necessary is proved by the earnestness with which he devotes himself to the task. To us the difficulty lies in the mode of proof, not in the result arrived at; but his readers were unconvinced of the result, while they would have freely admitted the validity of this method of reasoning. The line of proof has been thoroughly studied by Dr W. Robertson Smith, in some papers published in the Expositor for 1881, to which I am indebted for several suggestions. “There is nothing added,” he says, “to the intrinsic superiority of Christ’s being, but He occupies towards us a position higher than the angels ever held. The whole argument turns, not on personal dignity, but on dignity of function in the administration of the economy of salvation.” It may be due to this Epistle that we find in later Jewish books (like the Jalkut Shimeoni) such sentences as “The King Messiah shall be exalted above Abraham, Moses, and the Ministering Angels” (see Schöttgen, p. 905).

For unto which of the angels said he at any time] The “He” is God. This indirect mode of reference to God is common in the Rabbinic writings. The argument here is from the silence of Scripture, as in Hebrews 1:13, Hebrews 2:16, Hebrews 7:13-14.

Thou art my Son …] The quotation is from Psalm 2:7 (comp. Psalm 89:20; Psalm 89:26-27). The author does not need to pause in order to prove that this, and the other passages which he quotes, apply to the Christ; still less to prove that Christ is the Son of God. All Christians held the second point; the first point would have been at once conceded by every Jewish reader. Many of the Jews adopted the common view of the Rabbis that everything in the Old Testament prophecies might be applied to the Messiah. St Peter, in Acts 13:33, also applies this verse to Christ, and the great Rabbis, Kimchi and Rashi, admit that the Psalm was accepted in a Messianic sense in ancient days. The Divinity of Christ was a truth which the writer might assume in addressing Christians.

It must therefore be observed that these passages are not advanced as proofs that Jesus was the Son of God—which, as Christians, the readers in no wise disputed—but as arguments ad hominem and ex concessis. In other words they were arguments to those whom the writer had immediately in view, and who had no doubt as to the premisses on which he based his reasoning. He had to confirm a vacillating and unprogressive faith (Hebrews 6:12, Hebrews 12:25), not to convince those who disputed the central truths of Christianity.

Our own conviction on these subjects rests primarily upon historical and spiritual grounds, and only depends in a very subordinate degree on indirect Scriptural applications. Yet even as regards these we cannot but see that, while the more sober-minded interpreters have always admitted that there was a primary historic meaning in the passages quoted, and that they were addressed in the first instance to David, Solomon, &c., yet (1) there is a “pre-established harmony” between the language used and its fulfilment in Christ; (2) the language is often so far beyond the scope of its immediate application that it points to an ideal and distant fulfilment; (3) it was interpreted for many centuries before Christ in a Messianic sense; (4) that Messianic sense has been amply justified by the slow progress of history. There is surely some medium between regarding these passages as soothsaying vaticinations, definitely and consciously recognised as such by their writers, and setting them aside as though they contained no prophetic element at all. In point of fact the Jews themselves rightly looked on them as mingling the present and the future, the kingly-theocratic and the Messianic. No one will enter into their real meaning who does not see that all the best Jewish literature was in the highest sense prophetic. It centred in that magnificent Messianic hope which arose immediately from the connexion of the Jews with their covenant God, and which elevated them above all other nations. The divine character of this confident hope was justified, and more than justified, by the grandeur of its fulfilment. Genuine, simple, historical exegesis still leaves room in the Old Testament for a glorious and demonstrable Christology. Although the old aphorism—Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet—has often been extravagantly abused by allegoric interpreters, every instructed Christian will admit its fundamental truth. The germ of a highly-developed Messianic prophecy was involved from the first in the very idea of a theocracy and a separated people.

this day have I begotten thee] St Paul says (Romans 1:4) that Jesus was “determined” or “constituted” (ὁρισθέντος) Son of God, with power, by resurrection from the dead. The aorist in that passage points to a definite time—the Resurrection (comp. Acts 13:33). In other senses the expression “to-day” might be applied to the Incarnation (Luke 1:31), or to the Ascension, or to the Eternal Generation. The latter explanation however,—which explains “to-day” of “God’s eternal now” the nunc stans of eternity—though adopted by Origen (who finely says that in God’s “to-day” there is neither morning nor evening) and by St Augustine—is probably one of the “afterthoughts of theology.” Calvin stigmatises it as a “frivola Augustini argutia,” but the strongest argument in its favour is that Philo has a somewhat similar conception. The words, however, originally applied to the day of David’s complete inauguration as king upon Mount Sion. No one time can apply to the Eternal Generation, and the adoption of Philo’s notion that “to-day” means “for ever,” and that “all Eternity” is God’s to-day would here be out of place. Possibly the “to-day” is only, so to speak, an accidental part of the quotation: in other words it may belong rather to the literal and primary prophecy than to its Messianic application. The Church shews that she understood the word “to-day” to apply to the Resurrection by appointing the second psalm as one of the special psalms for Easter-day.

I will be to him a Father] 2 Samuel 7:14 (LXX.). The words were primarily applicable to Solomon, but the quotation would not, without further argument, have helped forward the writer’s end if he had not been able to assume with confidence that none of his readers would dispute his typological method of exegesis. It is probable that the promise to David here quoted is directly connected with the passage just adduced from Psalms 2.

he shall be to me a Son] The quotation (comp. Philo De Leg. Allegor. iii. 8) though primarily applied to Solomon, has the wider sense of prophesying the advent of some perfect theocratic king. The “Angels” it might be objected are called “Sons of God” in Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7; Daniel 3:25. In these passages, however, the Alexandrian manuscript of the LXX. which this author seems to have used (whereas St Paul seems to quote from another type of manuscript—the Vatican), has “angels” and not “sons.” If it be further urged that in Psalm 29:1; Psalm 89:7, even the Alexandrian MS. also has “sons” we must suppose either that the writer means to distinguish (1) between the higher and lower senses of the word “son;” or (2) between “Sons of Elohim” and “Sons of Jehovah,” since Elohim is so much lower and vaguer a name for God than Jehovah, that not only Angels but even human beings are called Elohim; or (3) that he did not regard the name “sons” as in any way characteristic of angels. He shews so intimate a knowledge of the Psalms that—on this ground alone, not to dwell on others—the supposition that he forgot or overlooked these passages is hardly admissible.

Bengel's Gnomen

Hebrews 1:5. Τίνι γὰρ, for to which [whom]) A frequent argument in this epistle is derived from the silence of Scripture: Hebrews 1:13, ch. Hebrews 2:16, Hebrews 7:3; Hebrews 7:14.—τῶν ἀγγέλων, of the angels) For none of them took [was capable of taking] this glory.—Υἱὸς, the Son) Acts 13:33.—ἐγὼ—Υἱὸν) So the LXX., 2 Samuel 7:14. That promise, I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son, had regard to Solomon, but much more, considering how august the promise is, to the Messiah; otherwise Solomon also would be greater than the angels. The seed of David, or the Song of Solomon of David, is one name, under which, according to the nature (relation) of the predicate, sometimes Solomon, sometimes Christ—sometimes Solomon, and at the same time, in a higher sense, Christ—is intended; an ambiguity well suited to the times of expectation, Psalm 89:27-28. The apostles are the true interpreters of the Divine words, even though we should not have arrived at such an idea (such a mode of interpretation) as this without them [had it not been for their interpreting Scripture so].

Pulpit Commentary

Verse 5 - Hebrews 3:1. - THE SON SUPERIOR TO THE ANGELS. Here the argumentation of the Epistle begins, the thesis of the first section of the argument having been given, as aforesaid, in the preceding verse, that "the SON is superior to the angels." The second section begins at Hebrews 3:1, the thesis being that "the SON is superior to Moses." Through angels and Moses the Law was given: "Ordained through angels in the hand of a mediator" (Galatians 3:19), the "mediator" being Moses. To show that the Son, in the Old Testament itself, is represented as above both, is to show, what it is the main purpose of the whole Epistle to establish, that the gospel, given through the SON, is above the Law, and intended to supersede it. The conclusion is that the gospel stands in the same relation to the Law as does the Son to angels, who are but "ministering spirits," and to Moses, who was but a "servant." With regard to the agency of angels in the giving of the Law, we do not find it so evident in the Old Testament as might have been expected from the references to it in the New. The "angel of Lord," who appeared to Moses (Exodus 3:2) and went before the people (Exodus 14:19; Exodus 23:20, etc.), seems in the earlier books of the Bible to signify a certain presence and manifestation of the Lord himself, rather than a created minister of his will (see Genesis 16:7, 13; Genesis 22:15, 16; Exodus 3:2, 4; Exodus 23:20, 21; cf. Acts 7:31, 35, 38); and this has been identified by theologians with the Word, not yet incarnate, through whom all Divine communications have been made to men. It is to be observed, however, that, after the sin of the golden calf, a distinction seems to be made between the presence of the Lend with his people and that of the angel to be thenceforth sent before them (Exodus 33:2, 3). Ebrard sees in the "angel of the LORD" generally, though understood as signifying a Divine presence, a justification of the statement that the Law was given "through angels," on the ground that, though God did so manifest himself, it was not a direct manifestation, as in the Son, but through forms borrowed from the sphere of the angels. It was an angelophany, denoting an unseen Divine presence, not a true theophany. The only distinct allusion to "angels," in the plural, in connection with the giving of the Law, is in Deuteronomy 33:2, "He came with ten thousands of saints;" with which comp. Psalm 68:17. But there is no doubt that it came afterwards to be the accepted rabbinical view that the dispensers of the Law were angels - whether as attendants on the Divine Majesty, or as agents of the fiery phenomena on Mount Sinai (natural operations being often attributed to angels), or as the utterers of the voice that was heard. "Locutus est Deus per angeles" (Bengel). And the writers of the New Testament plainly recognize this view (see below, Hebrews 2:2; Acts 7:53; Galatians 3:19). Hence our author takes for granted that his readers will understand and recognize it, and so implies it in his argument, expressing, as it does, a true conception of the nature of the Mosaic dispensation, and especially of its relation to the gospel. To resume our view of the argument that follows. The first section (as aforesaid) is from Hebrews 1:5 to Hebrews 3:1, having for its thesis the superiority of the SON to angels. The second section is from Hebrews 3:1 to Hebrews 5:1, having for its thesis the superiority of the Son to Moses. Each section consists of two main divisions, between which in each case an appropriate exhortation is interposed; the first division in each case treating of what the Son is in his own person, the second of his work for man; and both sections leading separately to the conclusion that he is the High Priest of humanity. Then, in Hebrews 5, the subject of his priesthood is taken up. Ebrard happily illustrates the symmetrical plan of the argument thus: "The author, having thus been led from these two different starting-points to the idea of the ἀρχιερεύς, now proceeds to place on the two first parts, which may be viewed as the pillars of the arch, the third part, which forms the keystone." In this third part it begins to be shown, at Hebrews 5:1, how Christ fulfilled in his humanity the essential idea of priesthood. But, for reasons that will appear, the full doctrine of his eternal priesthood is not entered upon till Hebrews 7:1 - 10:19, which may be called the central portion of the whole Epistle. The remainder (Hebrews 10:20 - end) may be distinguished from the rest as being the distinctly hortatory part (though her-ration has been frequently interposed in the argument), being mainly devoted to practical application of the doctrine that has been established. The following plan of the argument of the first two sections, showing the parallelism between them, may assist us in entering into it as it proceeds: - SECTION I. Thesis: Christ superior to the angels. Division 1 (Hebrews 1:5-2:1). The name SON, as applied to the typical theocratic kings, and in its final reference and full meaning (as you all acknowledge) pointing to the Messiah, expresses a position altogether above any assigned anywhere to angels. The Son is represented as one associated with God in his majesty, a sharer of his everlasting throne. Angels are referred to only as ministering spirits or attendant worshippers at the Son's advent. Interposed exhortation (Hebrews 2:1-5). This being so, beware of not appreciating the revelation now given in the Son. In transgression of the Law given through angels was so severely visited, what will be the consequence of neglecting this, accredited to us as it has been? Division 2 (Hebrews 2:5-3:1). The Son also, but never angels, is denoted in prophecy as Lord of the coming age. For the eighth psalm (based on and carrying out the idea of the account in Genesis of the original creation) assigns a supremacy over all created things to man. Man, as he is now, does not fulfill the ideal of his destiny. But Christ, as Son of man, in his exaltation, does. And in him man attains his destined dignity forfeited through sin. His humiliation, suffering and death were for the purpose of thus raising man. His humiliation with this and was a design worthy of God, and in accordance with the purport of Messianic prophecy. For such prophecy intimates association and sympathy of the Messiah with his human brethren. Thus Christ, the SON, is the sympathizing High Priest of humanity. SECTION II. Thesis- Christ superior to Moses. Division 1 (Hebrews 3:1-7). Moses is represented in the Old Testament as but a servant in the house of God. The SON is lord over the house. Interposed exhortation (Hebrews 3:7-4:1). This being so, beware of hardening your hearts, like the Israelites under Moses. If they failed, through unbelief, of entering into the rest offered to them, you may similarly fail of entering into the rest intended for you. Division 2 (Hebrews 4:1-5:1). A rest, symbolized by that of the promised land, is still offered to you, and you may enter into it. The ninetieth psalm shows that the rest into which Joshua led the Israelites was not the final one intended for God's people. The true rest is the rest of God himself (" my rest," Psalm 90.), spoken of in the account of the creation - the sabbath rest of eternity. Christ, after sharing our human trials, has passed into that eternal rest, and won an entrance into it for us. Thus, again, a renewed exhortation being interposed, Christ, the SON, is again set forth as the sympathizing High Priest of humanity. Verse 5. - For to which of the angels said he at any time. Observe the form of the question, which has been already noticed. It is not, "When were angels ever called sons?" but to this effect: "To which of them did he ever speak (individually) in the following remarkable terms?" The first quotation is from Psalm 2:7; the second from 2 Samuel 7:14. The second having had undoubtedly a primary reference to Solomon, and the first presumably to some king of Israel, probably to David, we may here properly pause to consider the principle of the application of such passages to Christ. It must be allowed that, not only in this Epistle, but in the New Testament generally, sayings which had a primary reference to events or personages in the past, are applied directly to Christ; and in some cases where the justness of the application may not be to all of us at first sight obvious. With regard to this usage, Bengel says, "Veri interpretes verborum divinorum sunt apostoli; etiamsi nos sine illis talem sententiam non assigneremur." But such applications are plainly not arbitrary. They rest on a principle of interpretation which it is of importance for us to understand. First, we may observe that the method was not originated by the New Testament writers; it was one received among the Jews of their time, who saw throughout the Old Testament anticipations of the Messiah. This appears both from rabbinical literature and also from the New Testament itself. For instance, the priests and scribes consulted by Herod (Matthew 2:5) referred Micah 5:2 as a matter of course to the Messiah; and the Pharisees (Matthew 22:44) never thought of disputing the application of Psalm 110. to him. And not only so. The Old Testament itself suggests and exemplifies such applications. For students of the prophetic writings must be aware how utterances that had a primary fulfillment in one age are sometimes taken up in a subsequent one as though yet to be fulfilled, their scope enlarged, and their final reference often thrown forward to "that day" - the Messianic age - which alone terminates the view of the later prophets. Now, it has been said, in explanation of this mode of treatment, that prophecy often had a double meaning, referring partly to one thing and partly to another; or several meanings, with reference to several different things. But this way of putting the matter is unsatisfactory. Bacon better hit the mark, when, in a well-known passage in his 'Advancement of Learning' (bk. 2.), he spoke of "that latitude which is agreeable and familiar unto Divine prophecies, being of the nature of their Author, with whom a thousand years are but as one day, and therefore are not fulfilled punctually at once, but have springing and germinant accomplishment throughout many ages; though the height or fullness of them may refer to some one age." We may put it thus: It was of the nature of prophetic inspiration to lift the seer above and beyond his immediate subject to the contemplation of some grand ideal, which it suggested to his vision, and more or less perfectly fulfilled. He has, for instance, as the basis of his vision, a David, a Solomon, a Hezekiah, or a Zerubbabel; he has as its framework the circumstances of his own time or of the time near at hand; but we find his language, as he proceeds, rising far above his vision's original scope, and applicable to those comprised within it only so far as they embody and realize the ideal which they represent to his mind. Hence the taking up of old prophecies by succeeding prophets, their enlargement and reapplication to new fulfillments; and this, too, in terms transcending the reality of these new fulfillments; as, for instance, when Isaiah, taking up the idea of Nathan's message to David (2 Samuel 7.), applies it apparently to a son and a reign to be looked for in his own age, but at length in language which can have no other than a Messianic reference (Isaiah 9:6, etc.; Isaiah 11:1, etc.; cf. Jeremiah 33:15). Hence, lastly, the application in the New Testament of all such ancient utterances at once to Christ, as being the final and complete fulfillment of the ideal of prophecy, the true Antitype of all the types. A clear perception of this view of the drift of prophecy will remove difficulties that have been felt as to the application of many quotations from the Old Testament, in this Epistle and elsewhere, to Christ. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; a quotation from Psalm 2:7. This psalm is expressly quoted as David's in Acts 4:25, and has internal evidence of being his, and of having had primary reference to his reign. For the mention of Zion (ver. 6) precludes an earlier date, while the circumstances of warfare alluded to do not agree with the peaceful reign of Solomon, nor the picture of undivided empire with any period after the secession of the ten tribes. Further, the rising and consequent subjugation by David of subject races, described in 2 Samuel 8, presents to us a state of things very likely to have suggested the psalm; and to this period of David's reign it is usually referred with probability by modern commentators. But the question of date and authorship is not material to our view of the prophetic meaning of the psalm. Taking it to be David's, we find as follows: There is a rebellious confederation of subject kings against the dominion of the King of Israel, who is spoken of as "the Anointed" of the LORD. In view of their hostile preparations, the LORD in heaven is conceived as laughing to scorn their devices against him whom he himself had enthroned on Zion. Then the king speaks, "I will declare the decree [or, 'I will tell of a decree']; the Load said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, and for thy possession the ends of the earth." Then follows an admonition to the rebels to do homage to this SON, submission to whom is submission to the Loan, and whose anger is as the LORD'S anger. Now, it is evident that the language used transcends literal application to any earthly king. Hence some commentators have been led to suppose that it had no even primary reference to one, being simply prophetic of the Messiah, though suggested by the circumstances of David's day. Thus Ebrard, supporting his view by the assumption (which is usually made) of the message of Nathan to David (2 Samuel 7:14) being the "decree" referred to in the psalm, and the foundation of the confidence expressed in it. He argues that it was not to David, but to his posterity (זֶרַע), that the position of sonship was assigned, and eternal dominion promised; and hence that David in this psalm (which he considers to have been certainly by him) must have been speaking, not in his own name, but in that of his seed after him, looking adoringly forward to the fulfillment of that glorious hope in the distant future (2 Samuel 7:19). Thus, he concludes, the insurrection of the Syrians forms merely the occasion, but not the object and import, of the second psalm. But, even if the message of Nathan were certainly the basis of the idea of the psalm, we find an instance of the express application of that message to David himself; as well as to his posterity, in Psalm 89. (see vers. 20-28). It may be, however, that the reference in the psalm is to some Divine intimation, possibly to some prophecy or oracular utterance, delivered to David himself at the time of the inauguration of his own sovereignty, and long before Nathan's message. In any case, it is in accordance with the genius of prophecy, as above explained, that the words should have had a primary reference to David himself, so far forth as he imperfectly fulfilled their meaning. The main thing to be observed is that they represent an ideal of sonship and unlimited sovereignty beyond any that could, as a matter of fact, be considered as fulfilled in David. And this view of its meaning, suggested by the psalm itself, is confirmed by the use made of it in later Scripture. For it is evident that this psalm, together with the passage from 2 Samuel 7. (to be cited next) is made the basis of a long series of Messianic prophecies (cf. 2 Samuel 23:1, etc.; Psalm 110; Psalm 89; Psalm 132; Isaiah 7-9; Isaiah 11:1, 10; Jeremiah 23:5; Jeremiah 33:15; Micah 4-5; Zechariah 6:12, etc.). Its application to Christ in the New Testament is distinct and frequent (cf. Acts 4:25; Acts 13:33; Revelation 2:27; Revelation 12:5; Revelation 19:15). As to the phrase, "This day have I begotten thee," there is a difference of view among both ancient and modern expositors. The word "begotten" (γεγέννηκα) naturally suggests μονογενὴς, and is hence taken by some as referring to the eternal generation of the Son; in which case it can have had no application in any conceivable sense to the human type. "This day" has also in this case to be explained as denoting the ever-present today of eternity. So Origen, in a striking passage, "It is said to him by God, to whom it is always today. For God has no evening, nor (as I deem) any morning, but the time which is coextensive with his own unbegotten and eternal life is (if I may so speak) the day in which the Son is begotten, there being thus found no beginning of his generation, as neither is there of the day." Athanasius takes the same view; also Basil, Primasius, Thomas Aquinas, and many others. The main objection to it is the inapplicability of such a meaning of the words, even in a subordinate sense, to David or any other king of Israel. Alford, indeed, urges that this meaning agrees best with the context in the Epistle, on the ground that the eternal being of the Son, having been stated in the exordium, might be expected to be referred to in the proof. But this is hardly to the point. The writer has now begun his argument from the Old Testament, and is engaged in showing the idea involved in the term Son as applied therein to the Messiah. This, therefore, and not what he has said previously, is what we have to regard in our interpretation; and the most obvious view of the phrase, as it occurs in the psalm itself, is to regard it as a figure denoting forcibly the paternity of God; cf. Jeremiah 2:27, "They say to the wood, Thou art my father; to the stone, Thou hast begotten me." It expresses the idea that the "Son of God" spoken of derives his existence as such from him, and not from human ancestry. Chrysostom, among the ancients, understands the phrase as thus referring to the sonship assigned to the Messiah in time, and not to his eternal being. This view being taken, "this day," in reference to the king, may mean the day of the "decree," or that of his enthronement on Mount Zion. In reference to Christ it has been variously understood of the time of his incarnation, or resurrection, or ascension. If it be thought necessary to assign any definite time to it in its application to Christ, the view of its being the day of the resurrection is supported by such passages as Colossians 1:18, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν: and Romans 1:4, τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει ... ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν: cf. Acts 2:30 and Acts 13:32, etc., "The promise that was made unto the fathers, God hath fulfilled the same unto their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again: as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee." This last text, be it observed, is almost conclusive against the eternal generation being understood as referred to; as is also the application of the same text infra, Hebrews 5:5, where it is quoted in proof of Christ's appointment to the eternal priesthood. [" The title of begetting is ofttimes in sacred language to be measured, not by the scale of philosophers' or naturalists' dialect, but of moral or civil language or interpretation. For they that are sons by adoption only, or next heirs by reversion to a crown or dignity, are said to be begotten of those which adopt them, or of whom they be the immediate heirs or successors: and in this sense in the sacred genealogy (Matthew 1:12) Jeconiah is said to have begotten Salathiel. So that David upon his own occasions (whether upon his anointing to the crown of Judah in Hebron, or of Israel in Zion) might in the literal sense avouch these words of himself, 'I will preach the law whereof the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee.' For David to call the day of his coronation, or of his designation to the crown of Judah, or of all Israel, his birthday, or begetting of God, by whose special power and providence he was crowned, is not so harsh as some haply would deem it that either know not or consider not that it was usual in other states or kingdoms beside Judah to celebrate two natales dies, two solemn nativities or birthdays in honor of their kings and emperors: the one they called diem natalem imperatoris, the other diem natalem imperii; the one the birthday of the emperor when he was born of his natural mother, the other the birthday of him as he was emperor, which we call the coronation day. The reason might hold more peculiar in David than in any other princes, because he was the first of all the seed of Abraham that took possession of the hill of Zion, and settled the kingdom of Judah, prophesied of by his father Jacob, upon himself and his posterity Thus Ego hodie genuite, with submission of my opinion to better judgment, is a prediction typically prophetical, which kind of prediction, as hath been observed before, is the most concludent; and this one of the highest rank in that kind; that is, an oracle truly meant of David according to the literal sense, and yet fulfilled of Christ, the Son of God, by his resurrection from the dead, both according to the most exquisite literal and the mystical and principally intended sense" (T. Jackson's 'Works,' bk. 9. Hebrews 31:6, 7, Oxford edition, 1844, vol. 8. p. 411).] And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son (2 Samuel 7:14); from Nathan's message to David, which has been spoken of above. The words do not in themselves express so unique a sonship as those used in the psalm; but, viewed in connection with the psalm, with their own context, and with subsequent prophecy, they suggest the same meaning. David had formed the design of building a temple; Nathan, by the word of the Lord, forbids his doing so, but tells him that his "seed" after him should build a house for the LORD'S Name, and that the Load would establish the throne of his kingdom for ever." Then comes the text," I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son;" followed by, "If he commit iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men ... but my mercy shall not depart away from him And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever." Now, there can be no doubt that there was a primary and partial fulfillment of this promise in Solomon, who built the temple after David's death. He took it to himself, so far as it was applicable to him, after his completion of the temple (1 Kings 8:17, etc.). But it is equally evident that its meaning could not be exhausted in him. The eternity assigned to the throne of the kingdom points to a distant as well as an immediate fulfillment, and the word translated "seed" (Hebrew, זֶרַע), though applicable in a concrete sense to an individual offspring (cf. Gem 4:25; 1 Samuel 1:11), is properly a collective noun, denoting "posterity," and thus naturally lends itself to a far-reach ng together with other passages which have been referred to in connection with the second psalm. Thus we may properly apply to this particular passage the view of the meaning of prophecy which has been set forth in general terms above, according to which we must regard Solomon, with respect to the sonship assigned to him as well as to his kingdom and the house which he was to build, as but a type and imperfect realization of a grand ideal to be in due time fulfilled. Hebrews 1:5

Vincent's Word Studies

The writer proceeds to establish the superiority of the Son to the angels by O.T. testimony. It is a mode of argument which does not appeal strongly to us. Dr. Bruce suggests that there are evidences that the writer himself developed it perfunctorily and without much interest in it. The seven following quotations are intended to show the surpassing excellence of Christ's name as set forth in Scripture. The quotations present difficulty in that they appear, in great part, to be used in a sense and with an application different from those which they originally had. All that can be said is, that the writer takes these passages as messianic, and applies them accordingly; and that we must distinguish between the doctrine and the method of argumentation peculiar to the time and people. Certain passages in Paul are open to the same objection, as Galatians 3:16; Galatians 4:22-25.

To which (τίνι)

Note the author's characteristic use of the question to express denial. Comp. Hebrews 1:14; Hebrews 2:3; Hebrews 3:17; Hebrews 7:11; Hebrews 12:7.

First quotation from Psalm 2:7. The Psalm is addressed as a congratulatory ode to a king of Judah, declaring his coming triumph over the surrounding nations, and calling on them to render homage to the God of Israel. The king is called Son of Jahveh, and is said to be "begotten" on the day on which he is publicly recognized as king. Words of the same Psalm are quoted Acts 4:25, and these words Acts 13:33.

Thou art my Son

Note the emphatic position of υἱός son. See on Hebrews 1:4. In the O.T. son is applied to angels collectively, but never individually. See Psalm 29:1; Psalm 89:6. Similarly, son is applied to the chosen nation, Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1, but to no individual of the nation.

Have I begotten (γεγέννηκα)

Recognized thee publicly as sovereign; established thee in an official sonship-relation. This official installation appears to have its N.T. counterpart in the resurrection of Christ. In Acts 13:33, this is distinctly asserted; and in Romans 1:4, Paul says that Christ was "powerfully declared" to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead. Comp. Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5.

Second quotation, 2 Samuel 7:14. The reference is to Solomon. David proposes to build a temple. Nathan tells him that this shall be done by Solomon, whom Jahveh will adopt as his son. In 2 Corinthians 6:18, Paul applies the passage to followers of the Messiah, understanding the original as referring to all the spiritual children of David.

A father - a son (εἰς πατέρα - εἰς υἱόν)

Lit. for or as a father - son. This usage of εἰς mostly in O.T. citations or established formulas. See Matthew 19:5; Luke 2:34; Acts 19:27; 1 Corinthians 4:3.