Show Bible Commentary For A Bible Verse

Click here to show/hide instructions.

Selected Verse: Hebrews 1:5 - King James

Verse	Translation	Text
Heb 1:5	King James	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?

Summary Of Commentaries Associated With The Selected Verse

Open All | Close All Open All | Close All

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882]
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; Heb 7:3, Heb 7:14) [BENGEL]. this day have I begotten thee-- (Psa 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Act 13:33; Rom 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 Luk 20:36; Rom 1:4; Rev 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; Psa 2:2-3, Psa 2:9-12) is a type of God's ultimately subduing all enemies under His Son, whom He sets (Hebrew, "anointed," Psa 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; Rev 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" (Pro 30:4; Joh 10:30, Joh 10:38; Joh 16:28; Joh 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 Act 2:30-35).

A Commentary, Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset and David Brown [1882]

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; Heb 7:3, Heb 7:14) [BENGEL].

this day have I begotten thee-- (Psa 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Act 13:33; Rom 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 Luk 20:36; Rom 1:4; Rev 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; Psa 2:2-3, Psa 2:9-12) is a type of God's ultimately subduing all enemies under His Son, whom He sets (Hebrew, "anointed," Psa 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; Rev 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" (Pro 30:4; Joh 10:30, Joh 10:38; Joh 16:28; Joh 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 Act 2:30-35).

Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, [1834]
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 Psa 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 Act 4:25; Act 13:33. This day - see notes on Act 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:" Rev 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 Psa 2:2-6. Have I begotten thee - See this place explained in the notes on Act 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 Rev 1:5. And yet though Paul Act 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 Rom 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, Psa 95:7; Heb 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, Rom 1:4; Act 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. All this is substantially allowed by Owen, than whom a more stanch supporter of the doctrine of eternal Sonship cannot be named. "The apostle, in this place," says he, "does not treat of the eternal generation of the Son, but of His exaltation and pre-eminence above angels. The word also, היום haayowm, constantly in the Scripture, denotes some signal time, one day, or more. And that expression, 'this day have I begotten thee,' following immediately upon that other typical one, 'I have set my King upon my holy hill of Zion,' seems to be of the same import, and in like manner to be interpreted." On the general doctrine of the Sonship, the author has stated his views both here and elsewhere. That it is eternal or has its origin in the previous existence of Christ, he will not allow. It is given to the second person of the Trinity because he became God incarnate, so that but for the incarnation and the economy of redemption, he would not have had this name. But the eternal Sonship of Christ rests on a body of evidence, that will not soon or easily be set aside. See that evidence adduced in a supplementary Note under Rom 1:4. Meanwhile we would simply ask the reader, if it do not raise our idea of the love of God, in the mission of Christ, to suppose that he held the dear relation of Son previous to His coming - that being the Son, he was sent to prove what a sacrifice the Father could make, in yielding up one so near, and so dear. But this astonishing evidence of love, if not destroyed, is greatly weakened, by the supposition that there was no Sonship until the sending of Christ. See also supplementary note under Heb 1:3.) "And again, I will be to him a Father." This passage is evidently quoted from Sa2 7:14. A sentiment similar to this is found in Psa 89:20-27. As these words were originally spoken, they referred to Solomon. They occur in a promise to David that he should not fail to have an heir to sit on his throne, or that his throne should be perpetual. The promise was particularly designed to comfort him in view of the fact that God would not suffer him to build the temple because his hands had been defiled with blood. To console him in reference to that, God promises him far greater honor than that would be. He promises that the house should be built by one of his own family, and that his family and kingdom should be established forever. That in this series of promises the "Messiah" was included as a descendant of David, was the common opinion of the Jews, of the early Christians, and has been of the great body of interpreters. It was certainly from such passages as this, that the Jews derived the notion which prevailed so universally in the time of the Saviour that the Messiah was to be the son or the descendant of David; see Mat 22:42-45; Mat 9:27; Mat 15:22; Mat 20:30-31; Mar 10:47-48; Luk 18:38-39; Mat 12:23; Mat 21:9; Joh 7:42; Rom 1:3; Rev 5:5; Rev 22:16. That opinion was universal. No one doubted it; and it must have been common for the Jews to apply such texts as this to the Messiah. Paul would not have done it in this instance unless it had been usual. Nor was it improper. If the Messiah was to be a descendant of David, then it was natural to apply these promises in regard to his posterity in an eminent and special sense to the Messiah. They were a part of the promises which included him, and which terminated in him. The promise, therefore, which is here made is, that God would be to him, in a special sense, a Father, and he should be a Son. It does not, as I suppose, pertain originally exclusively to the Messiah, but included him as a descendant of David. To him it would be applicable in an eminent sense; and if applicable to him at all, it proved all that the passage here is adduced to prove - that the name "Son" is given to the Messiah - a "name" not given to angels. That is just the point on which the argument turns. What is implied in the bestowment of that name is another point on which the apostle discourses in the other parts of the argument. I have no doubt, therefore, that while these words originally might have been applicable to Solomon, or to any of the other descendants of David who succeeded him on the throne, yet they at last terminated, and were designed to terminate in the Messiah - to whom pre-eminently God would be a Father; compare the introduction to Isaiah, section 7, iii. (3), and the notes on Isa 7:16. (The promise, doubtless, had a special reference to the Messiah. Nay, we may safely assert, that the chief reference was to him, for in the case of typical persons and things what they adumbrate is principally to be regarded. So here, though the original application of the passage be to Solomon, the type of Christ, yet it finds its great and ultimate application in the person of the glorious antitype. However strange this double application may seem to us, it is quite in accordance with the whole system of things under the Jewish dispensation. Almost everything connected with it was constructed on this typical principle. This the apostles understood so well, that they were never stumbled by it, and what is remarkable, and of the last importance on this subject, "never for a moment drawn from the ultimate and chief design of a promise or prophecy" by its primary reference to the type. They saw Christ in it, and made the application solely to him, passing over entirely the literal sense, and seizing at once the ultimate and superior import. The very passage in question Sa2 7:11-17, is thus directly applied not only here, but throughout the New Testament; Luk 1:32-33; Act 2:30, Act 2:37; Act 13:22-23. Now certainly the apostles are the best judges in matters of this kind. Their authority, in regard to the sense of passages quoted by them from the Old Testament, is just as great as in the case of the original matter of the New Testament. That Christ was indeed principally intended is further evident from the fact, that "when the kingdom had passed from the house of David," succeeding prophets repeat the promise in 2 Sam. 7: as yet to be fulfilled. See Jer 33:14, Jer 33:26. Now connecting this fact with the direct assertion of the writer of the New Testament above referred to, every doubt must be removed. It will be alleged, however, that while the direct application to the Messiah, of this and other prophecies, is obvious and authoritative, it is yet desirable, and they who deny inspiration will insist on it as essential, to prove that there is at least nothing in the original places, whence the citations are made, inconsistent with such application. Such proof seems to be especially requisite here; for immediately after the words, "I will be his Father and he shall be my Son," there follows: "if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men," Sa2 7:14; which last sentence, it is affirmed, cannot, in any sense, be applicable to the Messiah. It has been said in reply, that though such language cannot be applied to Christ "personally," it may yet refer to him as the "covenant head" of his people. Though there be no iniquity in him, "such fallings and transgressions as disannul not the covenant, often fall out on their part for whom he undertaketh therein." In accordance with this view, it has been observed by Mr. Pierce, and others after him, that the Hebrew relative pronoun אשׁר 'asher should be translated "whosoever;" in which case, the sense is, whosoever of his "children," that is, the Messiah's, shall commit iniquity, etc. And to this effect indeed is the alteration of the words in Psa. 89, where the original covenant is repeated, "if his children forsake my law - then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes." Perhaps, however, the better solution of the difficulty is what at once admits, that the words in question cannot apply to the antitype but to the type only. It is a mistake to suppose, that in a typical passage every thing must necessarily have its antitypical reference. The reader will find some excellent and apposite remarks on this subject in Dr. Owen's commentary on the place. "No type," says that judicious writer, "was in all things a type of Christ, but only in that particular wherein he was designed of God so to be. David was a type of Christ, but not in all things that he was and did. In his conquests of the enemies of the church, in his throne and kingdom, he was so; but in his private actions, whether as a man, or as a king, or captain, he was not so. Nay, not all things spoken of him that was a type, even in those respects wherein he was a type, are spoken of him as a type, or have any respect unto the thing signified, but some of them may belong to him in his personal capacity only. And the reason is, that he who was a type by God's institution, might morally fail in the performance of his duty, even then and in those things wherein he was a type. And this wholly removes the difficulty connected with the words 'if he sin against me;' for those words relating to the moral duty of Solomon, in that wherein he was a type of Christ, namely, the rule and administration of his kingdom, may not at all belong to Christ, who was prefigured by God's institution of things, and not in any moral deportment in the observance of them." These observations seem to contain the true principles of explication in this and similar cases. The solution of Prof. Stuart is not materially different. "Did not God," says he, "engage, that David should have successors on his 'earthly' throne, and also that he 'should' have a son who would sit on a 'spiritual' throne, and have a kingdom of which David's own was but a mere type? Admitting this, our difficulty is diminished if not removed. "The iniquity committed is predicated of that part of David's seed, who might commit it," that is, his successors on the 'national' throne, while the more exalted condition predicated of his successor, belongs to Him to whom was given a kingdom over all.")

Notes on the Bible, by Albert Barnes, [1834]

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 Psa 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 Act 4:25; Act 13:33.

This day - see notes on Act 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:" Rev 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 Psa 2:2-6.

Have I begotten thee - See this place explained in the notes on Act 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 Rev 1:5.

And yet though Paul Act 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 Rom 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, Psa 95:7; Heb 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, Rom 1:4; Act 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.

All this is substantially allowed by Owen, than whom a more stanch supporter of the doctrine of eternal Sonship cannot be named. "The apostle, in this place," says he, "does not treat of the eternal generation of the Son, but of His exaltation and pre-eminence above angels. The word also, היום haayowm, constantly in the Scripture, denotes some signal time, one day, or more. And that expression, 'this day have I begotten thee,' following immediately upon that other typical one, 'I have set my King upon my holy hill of Zion,' seems to be of the same import, and in like manner to be interpreted." On the general doctrine of the Sonship, the author has stated his views both here and elsewhere. That it is eternal or has its origin in the previous existence of Christ, he will not allow. It is given to the second person of the Trinity because he became God incarnate, so that but for the incarnation and the economy of redemption, he would not have had this name. But the eternal Sonship of Christ rests on a body of evidence, that will not soon or easily be set aside. See that evidence adduced in a supplementary Note under Rom 1:4. Meanwhile we would simply ask the reader, if it do not raise our idea of the love of God, in the mission of Christ, to suppose that he held the dear relation of Son previous to His coming - that being the Son, he was sent to prove what a sacrifice the Father could make, in yielding up one so near, and so dear. But this astonishing evidence of love, if not destroyed, is greatly weakened, by the supposition that there was no Sonship until the sending of Christ. See also supplementary note under Heb 1:3.)

"And again, I will be to him a Father." This passage is evidently quoted from Sa2 7:14. A sentiment similar to this is found in Psa 89:20-27. As these words were originally spoken, they referred to Solomon. They occur in a promise to David that he should not fail to have an heir to sit on his throne, or that his throne should be perpetual. The promise was particularly designed to comfort him in view of the fact that God would not suffer him to build the temple because his hands had been defiled with blood. To console him in reference to that, God promises him far greater honor than that would be. He promises that the house should be built by one of his own family, and that his family and kingdom should be established forever. That in this series of promises the "Messiah" was included as a descendant of David, was the common opinion of the Jews, of the early Christians, and has been of the great body of interpreters.

It was certainly from such passages as this, that the Jews derived the notion which prevailed so universally in the time of the Saviour that the Messiah was to be the son or the descendant of David; see Mat 22:42-45; Mat 9:27; Mat 15:22; Mat 20:30-31; Mar 10:47-48; Luk 18:38-39; Mat 12:23; Mat 21:9; Joh 7:42; Rom 1:3; Rev 5:5; Rev 22:16. That opinion was universal. No one doubted it; and it must have been common for the Jews to apply such texts as this to the Messiah. Paul would not have done it in this instance unless it had been usual. Nor was it improper. If the Messiah was to be a descendant of David, then it was natural to apply these promises in regard to his posterity in an eminent and special sense to the Messiah. They were a part of the promises which included him, and which terminated in him. The promise, therefore, which is here made is, that God would be to him, in a special sense, a Father, and he should be a Son. It does not, as I suppose, pertain originally exclusively to the Messiah, but included him as a descendant of David. To him it would be applicable in an eminent sense; and if applicable to him at all, it proved all that the passage here is adduced to prove - that the name "Son" is given to the Messiah - a "name" not given to angels.

That is just the point on which the argument turns. What is implied in the bestowment of that name is another point on which the apostle discourses in the other parts of the argument. I have no doubt, therefore, that while these words originally might have been applicable to Solomon, or to any of the other descendants of David who succeeded him on the throne, yet they at last terminated, and were designed to terminate in the Messiah - to whom pre-eminently God would be a Father; compare the introduction to Isaiah, section 7, iii. (3), and the notes on Isa 7:16.

(The promise, doubtless, had a special reference to the Messiah. Nay, we may safely assert, that the chief reference was to him, for in the case of typical persons and things what they adumbrate is principally to be regarded. So here, though the original application of the passage be to Solomon, the type of Christ, yet it finds its great and ultimate application in the person of the glorious antitype. However strange this double application may seem to us, it is quite in accordance with the whole system of things under the Jewish dispensation. Almost everything connected with it was constructed on this typical principle. This the apostles understood so well, that they were never stumbled by it, and what is remarkable, and of the last importance on this subject, "never for a moment drawn from the ultimate and chief design of a promise or prophecy" by its primary reference to the type. They saw Christ in it, and made the application solely to him, passing over entirely the literal sense, and seizing at once the ultimate and superior import. The very passage in question Sa2 7:11-17, is thus directly applied not only here, but throughout the New Testament; Luk 1:32-33; Act 2:30, Act 2:37; Act 13:22-23. Now certainly the apostles are the best judges in matters of this kind. Their authority, in regard to the sense of passages quoted by them from the Old Testament, is just as great as in the case of the original matter of the New Testament. That Christ was indeed principally intended is further evident from the fact, that "when the kingdom had passed from the house of David," succeeding prophets repeat the promise in 2 Sam. 7: as yet to be fulfilled. See Jer 33:14, Jer 33:26. Now connecting this fact with the direct assertion of the writer of the New Testament above referred to, every doubt must be removed.

It will be alleged, however, that while the direct application to the Messiah, of this and other prophecies, is obvious and authoritative, it is yet desirable, and they who deny inspiration will insist on it as essential, to prove that there is at least nothing in the original places, whence the citations are made, inconsistent with such application. Such proof seems to be especially requisite here; for immediately after the words, "I will be his Father and he shall be my Son," there follows: "if he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men," Sa2 7:14; which last sentence, it is affirmed, cannot, in any sense, be applicable to the Messiah. It has been said in reply, that though such language cannot be applied to Christ "personally," it may yet refer to him as the "covenant head" of his people. Though there be no iniquity in him, "such fallings and transgressions as disannul not the covenant, often fall out on their part for whom he undertaketh therein." In accordance with this view, it has been observed by Mr. Pierce, and others after him, that the Hebrew relative pronoun אשׁר 'asher should be translated "whosoever;" in which case, the sense is, whosoever of his "children," that is, the Messiah's, shall commit iniquity, etc. And to this effect indeed is the alteration of the words in Psa. 89, where the original covenant is repeated, "if his children forsake my law - then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes."

Perhaps, however, the better solution of the difficulty is what at once admits, that the words in question cannot apply to the antitype but to the type only. It is a mistake to suppose, that in a typical passage every thing must necessarily have its antitypical reference. The reader will find some excellent and apposite remarks on this subject in Dr. Owen's commentary on the place. "No type," says that judicious writer, "was in all things a type of Christ, but only in that particular wherein he was designed of God so to be. David was a type of Christ, but not in all things that he was and did. In his conquests of the enemies of the church, in his throne and kingdom, he was so; but in his private actions, whether as a man, or as a king, or captain, he was not so. Nay, not all things spoken of him that was a type, even in those respects wherein he was a type, are spoken of him as a type, or have any respect unto the thing signified, but some of them may belong to him in his personal capacity only. And the reason is, that he who was a type by God's institution, might morally fail in the performance of his duty, even then and in those things wherein he was a type. And this wholly removes the difficulty connected with the words 'if he sin against me;' for those words relating to the moral duty of Solomon, in that wherein he was a type of Christ, namely, the rule and administration of his kingdom, may not at all belong to Christ, who was prefigured by God's institution of things, and not in any moral deportment in the observance of them."

These observations seem to contain the true principles of explication in this and similar cases. The solution of Prof. Stuart is not materially different. "Did not God," says he, "engage, that David should have successors on his 'earthly' throne, and also that he 'should' have a son who would sit on a 'spiritual' throne, and have a kingdom of which David's own was but a mere type? Admitting this, our difficulty is diminished if not removed. "The iniquity committed is predicated of that part of David's seed, who might commit it," that is, his successors on the 'national' throne, while the more exalted condition predicated of his successor, belongs to Him to whom was given a kingdom over all.")

Vincent's Word Studies, by Marvin R. Vincent [1886]
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 Gal 3:16; Gal 4:22-25. To which (τίνι) Note the author's characteristic use of the question to express denial. Comp. Heb 1:14; Heb 2:3; Heb 3:17; Heb 7:11; Heb 12:7. First quotation from Psa 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 Act 4:25, and these words Act 13:33. Thou art my Son Note the emphatic position of υἱός son. See on Heb 1:4. In the O.T. son is applied to angels collectively, but never individually. See Psa 29:1; Psa 89:6. Similarly, son is applied to the chosen nation, Exo 4:22; Hos 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 Act 13:33, this is distinctly asserted; and in Rom 1:4, Paul says that Christ was "powerfully declared" to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead. Comp. Col 1:18; Rev 1:5. Second quotation, Sa2 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 Co2 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 Mat 19:5; Luk 2:34; Act 19:27; Co1 4:3.

Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible, by John Wesley [1754-65]
Thou art my Son - God of God, Light of Light. This day have I begotten thee - I have begotten thee from eternity, which, by its unalter able permanency of duration, is one continued, unsuccessive day. I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son - I will own myself to be his Father, and him to be my Son, by eminent tokens of my peculiar love The former clause relates to his natural Sonship, by an eternal, inconceivable generation; the other, to his Father's acknowledgment and treatment of him as his incarnate Son. Indeed this promise related immediately to Solomon, but in a far higher sense to the Messiah. Psa 2:7; Sa2 7:14

Adam Clarke Commentary on the Whole Bible - Published 1810-1826
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee - These words are quoted from Psa 2:7, a psalm that seems to refer only to the Messiah; and they are quoted by St. Paul, Act 13:33, as referring to the resurrection of Christ. And this application of them is confirmed by the same apostle, Rom 1:4, as by his resurrection from the dead he was declared - manifestly proved, to be the Son of God with power; God having put forth his miraculous energy in raising that body from the grave which had truly died, and died a violent death, for Christ was put to death as a malefactor, but by his resurrection his innocence was demonstrated, as God could not work a miracle to raise a wicked man from the dead. As Adam was created by God, and because no natural generation could have any operation in this case, therefore he was called the son of God, Luk 3:38, and could never have seen corruption if he had not sinned, so the human nature of Jesus Christ, formed by the energy of the eternal Spirit in the womb of the virgin, without any human intervention, was for this very reason called the Son of God, Luk 1:35; and because it had not sinned, therefore it could not see corruption, nor was it even mortal, but through a miraculous display of God's infinite love, for the purpose of making a sacrificial atonement for the sin of the world and God, having raised this sacrificed human nature from the dead, declared that same Jesus (who was, as above stated, the Son of God) to be his Son, the promised Messiah; and as coming by the Virgin Mary, the right heir to the throne of David, according to the uniform declaration of all the prophets. The words, This day have I begotten thee, must refer either to his incarnation, when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the virgin by the power of the Holy Spirit; or to his resurrection from the dead, when God, by this sovereign display of his almighty energy, declared him to be his Son, vindicated his innocence, and also the purity and innocence of the blessed virgin, who was the mother of this son, and who declared him to be produced in her womb by the power of God. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, to which the words most properly refer, not only gave the fullest proof that he was an innocent and righteous man, but also that he had accomplished the purpose for which he died, and that his conception was miraculous, and his mother a pure and unspotted virgin. This is a subject of infinite importance to the Christian system, and of the last consequence in reference to the conviction and conversion of the Jews, for whose use this epistle was sent by God. Here is the rock on which they split; they deny this Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and their blasphemies against him and his virgin mother are too shocking to be transcribed. The certainty of the resurrection of Jesus refutes their every calumny; proves his miraculous conception; vindicates the blessed virgin; and, in a word, declares him to be the Son of God with power. This most important use of this saying has passed unnoticed by almost every Christian writer which I have seen; and yet it lies here at the foundation of all the apostle's proofs. If Jesus was not thus the Son of God, the whole Christian system is vain and baseless: but his resurrection demonstrates him to have been the Son of God; therefore every thing built on this foundation is more durable than the foundations of heaven, and as inexpugnable as the throne of the eternal King. He shall be to me a Son? - As the Jews have ever blasphemed against the Sonship of Christ, it was necessary that the apostle should adduce and make strong all his proofs, and show that this was not a new revelation; that it was that which was chiefly intended in several scriptures of the Old Testament, which, without farther mentioning the places where found, he immediately produces. This place, which is quoted from Sa2 7:14, shows us that the seed which God promised to David, and who was to sit upon his throne, and whose throne should be established for ever, was not Solomon, but Jesus Christ; and indeed he quotes the words so as to intimate that they were so understood by the Jews. See among the observations at the end of the chapter.

Top

³⁰ Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
³¹ He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
³² This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
³³ Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.
³⁴ For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
³⁵ Until I make thy foes thy footstool.

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?

⁶ And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

⁴ Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

⁸ For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

²⁸ I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

³⁸ But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

³⁰ I and my Father are one.

⁴ Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

⁵ And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

¹⁸ And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

⁶ Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

⁹ Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
¹⁰ Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
¹¹ Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
¹² Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

⁴ And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

³⁶ Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

⁴ And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

³³ God hath fulfilled the same unto us 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.

⁷ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

¹⁴ For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

³ Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

¹⁶ For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

¹³ But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

¹⁴ I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

²⁶ Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

¹⁴ Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.

²² And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.
²³ Of this man's seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus:

³⁷ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

³⁰ Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

³² He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
³³ And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

¹¹ And as since the time that I commanded judges to be over my people Israel, and have caused thee to rest from all thine enemies. Also the LORD telleth thee that he will make thee an house.
¹² And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.
¹³ He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.
¹⁴ I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:
¹⁵ But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.
¹⁶ And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.
¹⁷ According to all these words, and according to all this vision, so did Nathan speak unto David.

¹⁶ For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

¹⁶ I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

⁵ And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.

³ Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

⁴² Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

⁹ And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.

²³ And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

³⁸ And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
³⁹ And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.

⁴⁷ And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
⁴⁸ And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.

³⁰ And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
³¹ And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.

²² And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

²⁷ And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.

⁴² Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
⁴³ He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
⁴⁴ The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
⁴⁵ If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

²⁰ I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
²¹ With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
²² The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
²³ And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
²⁴ But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.
²⁵ I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.
²⁶ He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.
²⁷ Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

¹⁴ I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

³ Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

⁴ And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

³³ God hath fulfilled the same unto us 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.

⁴ And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

⁷ Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts.

⁷ For he is our God; and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. To day if ye will hear his voice,

⁴ And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

³³ God hath fulfilled the same unto us 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.

² The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
³ Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
⁴ He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
⁵ Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
⁶ Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

³³ God hath fulfilled the same unto us 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.

²⁵ Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

¹ Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
² The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
³ Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
⁴ He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
⁵ Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
⁶ Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
⁷ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
⁸ Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
⁹ Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
¹⁰ Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
¹¹ Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
¹² Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

³ But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.

²⁷ So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.

³⁴ And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

⁵ And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

¹⁸ And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

¹⁴ I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

¹⁸ And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

⁴ And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

³³ God hath fulfilled the same unto us 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.

¹ When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

²² And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

⁶ For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?

¹ A Psalm of David. Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty, give unto the LORD glory and strength.

⁴ Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

³³ God hath fulfilled the same unto us 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.

²⁵ Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?

⁷ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

⁷ If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

¹⁷ But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness?

³ How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

¹⁴ Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

²² For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
²³ But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
²⁴ Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
²⁵ For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

¹⁶ Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

¹⁴ I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

⁷ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

¹⁴ I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

³⁵ And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

³⁸ Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

⁴ And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

³³ God hath fulfilled the same unto us 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.

⁷ I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.