33<\/strong>. God hath fulfilled the same<\/em> ] Better, “how that God hath,” &c. The “glad tidings” are concerning the promise, and the precise message which is the cause for gladness is contained in the announcement that the promise has been fulfilled.<\/p>\n hath fulfilled<\/em> ] The verb in the original is a strengthened form and indicates “complete fulfilment.”<\/p>\n unto us their children<\/em> ] The Greek order of the words is emphatic, “unto their children, even us.’ There are some good MSS. which read “unto our children,” but this weakens the language greatly, for what the audience whom St Paul addressed would desire was a fulfilment for themselves. Their children would inherit what they received, but a promise to be fulfilled to their children would not move them so much as one of which they were to be sharers themselves.<\/p>\n in that he hath raised up Jesus again<\/em> ] i.e. from the dead. This is necessary to the Apostle’s argument, which is on the resurrection of Jesus as a proof that He was the Messiah. The quotation which follows need not refer alone to the birth of Jesus into this world. He was also the first-begotten from the dead, the firstfruits of them that slept.<\/p>\n as it is also written in the second psalm<\/em> ] The reading of many good MSS. is “in the first<\/strong> psalm.” What we now call the first psalm was formerly regarded as an introduction to the whole and not counted in the numbering. The quotation which follows is, according to the present order of the Psalms, taken from Psa 2:7<\/span>.<\/p>\n God hath fulfilled – <\/B>God has completed or carried into effect by the resurrection of Jesus. He does not say that every part of the promise had reference to his resurrection; but his being raised up completed or perfected the fulfillment of the promises which had been made respecting him.<\/P> In the second psalm – <\/B>Act 13:7<\/B><\/span>.<\/P> Thou art my Son – <\/B>This psalm has been usually understood as referring to the Messiah. See the notes on Act 4:25<\/span>.<\/P> This day have I begotten thee – <\/B>It is evident that Paul uses the expression here as implying that the Lord Jesus is called the Son of God because he raised him up from the dead, and that he means to imply that it was for this reason that he is so called. This interpretation of an inspired apostle fixes the meaning of this passage in the psalm, and proves that it is not there used with reference to the doctrine of eternal generation, or to his incarnation, but that he is called his Son because he was raised from the dead. And this interpretation accords with the scope of the psalm. In Act 13:1-3<\/span> the psalmist records the combination of the rulers of the earth against the Messiah, and their efforts to cast off his reign. This was done, and the Messiah was rejected. All this pertains, not to his previous existence, but to the Messiah on the earth. In Act 13:4-5<\/span>, the psalmist shows that their efforts would not be successful; that God would laugh at their designs; that is, that their plans should not succeed.<\/P> In Act 13:6-7<\/span>, he shows that the Messiah would be established as a king; that this was the fixed decree, and that he had been begotten for this. All this is represented as subsequent to the raging of the pagan, and to the counsel of the kings against him, and must, therefore, refer, not to his eternal generation or his incarnation, but to something succeeding his death; that is, to his resurrection, and his establishment as King at the right hand of God. This interpretation by the apostle Paul proves, therefore, that this passage is not to be used to establish the doctrine of the eternal generation of Christ. Christ is called the Son of God for various reasons. In Luk 1:35<\/span>, because he was begotten by the Holy Spirit. In this place, on account of his resurrection. In Rom 1:4<\/span> it is also said that he was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead. See the notes on that place. The resurrection from the dead is represented as in some sense the beginning of life, and it is with reference to this that the terms Son, and begotten from the dead, are used, as the birth of a child is the beginning of life. Thus, Christ is said, Col 1:18<\/span>, to be the first-born from the dead; and thus, in Rev 1:5<\/span>; he is called the firsthegotten of the dead; and with reference to this renewal or beginning of life he is called a Son. In whatever other senses he is called a Son in the New Testament, yet it is here proved:<\/P> (1) That he is called a Son from his resurrection; and,<\/P> (2) That this is the sense in which the expression in the psalm is to be used.<\/P> This day – <\/B>The words this day would naturally, in the connection in which they are found, refer to the time when the decree was made. The purpose was formed before Christ came into the world; it was executed or carried into effect by the resurrection from the dead. See the notes on Psa 2:7<\/span>.<\/P> Have I begotten thee – <\/B>This evidently cannot be understood in a literal sense. It literally refers to the relation of an earthly father to his children; but in no such sense can it be applied to the relation of God the Father to the Son. It must, therefore, be figurative. The word sometimes figuratively means to produce, to cause to exist in any way; 2Ti 2:23<\/span>, Unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender (beget) strifes. It refers also to the labors of the apostles in securing the conversion of sinners to the gospel: 1Co 4:15<\/span>, In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel; Phm 1:10<\/span>, Whom (Onesimus) I have begotten in my bonds. It is applied to Christians: Joh 1:13<\/span>, Which were born (begotten), not of blood, etc., but of God; Joh 3:3<\/span>, Except a man be born (begotten) again, etc. In all these places it is used in a figurative sense to denote the commencement of spiritual life by the power of God; so raising up stoners from the death of sin, or so producing spiritual life that they should sustain to him the relation of sons. Thus, he raised up Christ from the dead, and imparted life to his body; and hence, he is said figuratively to have begotten him from the dead, and thus sustains toward the risen Saviour the relation of father. Compare Col 1:18<\/span>; Rev 1:5<\/span>; Heb 1:5<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 33. Written in the second Psalm<\/B><\/I>] Instead of the second Psalm<\/I>, , the first Psalm<\/I>, is the reading of D, and its Itala<\/I> version, and several of the primitive fathers. Griesbach has received it into the text; but not, in my opinion, on sufficient evidence. The reason of these various readings is sufficiently evident to those who are acquainted with Hebrew MSS. In many of these, two<\/I> Psalms are often written as one<\/I>; and the first<\/I> and second<\/I> Psalms are written as one<\/I> in seven<\/I> of Kennicott’s<\/I> and De Rossi’s<\/I> MSS. Those who possessed such MSS. would say, as it is written in the FIRST<\/I> Psalm<\/I>; those who referred to MSS. where the two Psalms were separate<\/I>, would say, in the SECOND Psalm<\/I>, as they would find the quotation in question in the first verse of the second Psalm. There is, therefore, neither contradiction nor difficulty here; and it is no matter which reading we prefer, as it depends on the simple circumstance, whether we consider these two Psalms as parts<\/I> of one and the same, or whether we consider them as two distinct<\/I> Psalms.<\/P> <\/P> Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.<\/B><\/I>] It has been disputed whether this text should be understood of the incarnation<\/I> or of the resurrection<\/I> of our Lord. If understood of his incarnation<\/I>, it can mean no more than this, that the human<\/I> nature<\/I> of our blessed Lord was begotten by the energy of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the blessed virgin; for as to his Divine nature, which is allotted to be God, it could neither be created<\/I> nor begotten<\/I>. See some reasons offered for this on Lu 1:35<\/span>; and, if those be deemed insufficient, a thousand<\/I> more may be added. But in the above reasons it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship<\/I> of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself. ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning<\/I>, nor stands in any reference to time<\/I>: SON supposes time, generation<\/I>, and father<\/I>; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son<\/I> and eternity<\/I>, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite<\/I> ideas.<\/P> <\/P> If the passage in question be understood of the resurrection<\/I> of Christ, it points out that the human nature, which was produced by the power of God in the womb of the virgin, and which was the Son<\/I> of God<\/I>, could see no corruption; and therefore, though it died for sin, must be raised from the dead before it saw corruption. Thus God owned that human nature to be peculiarly his own; and therefore Jesus Christ was declared to be the Son of God with<\/I> power, by the resurrection from the dead<\/I>, Ro 1:4<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Raised up Jesus again; <\/B>some refer these words to the incarnation, others to the resurrection, of our Saviour: our translators lay the stress upon the preposition, with which the verb is compounded, and by adding again, <\/B>intend it to be understood of the resurrection; and there is ground for it in the context; for the resurrection of Christ is that which in Act 13:30<\/span> is propounded by St. Paul as his theme or argument to preach upon. <\/P> Thou art my Son; <\/B>these words quoted, though they do not seem to be a proof of Christs resurrection at the first view, yet if we weigh them well, they answer St. Pauls purpose: <\/P> Thou art my Son, <\/I>Psa 2:7<\/I><\/span>, is ushered in with, I have made thee king, Act 13:6<\/span>, and followed with, I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance; <\/I>which was in an especial manner to be fulfilled after the resurrection, as our Saviour manifests, Mat 28:18<\/span>,19<\/span>. <\/P> This day have I begotten thee; <\/I>not as if Christ at his resurrection began to be the Son of God; but then he was manifested to be so, Rom 1:4<\/span>; which before, whilst he was in a suffering condition was not so apparent. Some of the ancients have understood these words, of the eternal generation of the Son of God; eternity being an everlasting point, and one and the same day for ever. <\/P> <\/p>\n 33. God hath fulfilled thesame<\/B>“hath completely fulfilled.” <\/P> in that he hath raised upJesus again<\/B>literally, “raised up”; but the meaningis (notwithstanding the contrary opinion of many excellentinterpreters) “from the dead<\/I>“; as the contextplainly shows. <\/P> as it is written in thesecond psalm<\/B>in many manuscripts “the first Psalm”;what we call the first being regarded by the ancient Jews as only anintroduction to the Psalter, which was considered to begin with thesecond. <\/P> this day have I begottenthee<\/B>As the apostle in Ro 1:4<\/span>regards the resurrection of Christ merely as the manifestation<\/I>of a prior Sonship, which he afterwards (Ac8:32<\/span>) represents as essential,<\/I> it is plain that this ishis meaning here. (Such declarative<\/I> meaning of the verb “tobe” is familiar to every reader of the Bible). See Joh15:8<\/span>, “So shall ye be,” that is, be seen<\/I> to be”My disciples.” It is against the whole sense of the NewTestament to ascribe the origin<\/I> of Christ’s Sonship to Hisresurrection.<\/P><\/p>\n God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children<\/strong>,…. The natural descendants of them, as Paul and Barnabas, and the Jews in the synagogue, were:<\/p>\n in that he hath raised up Jesus again<\/strong>; which may not be understood of his resurrection from the dead, since the promise made, and now fulfilled, has not a single respect to that; but of his being raised up, and sent forth into the world, to be a Saviour and Redeemer, and to sit upon the throne of David, as in Ac 2:30<\/span> of which raising of him up to regal dignity, mention is made in Ps 2:1<\/span>, Ps 6:1<\/span> which is produced as a testimony of it; and the rather this seems to be the sense, since the article of the resurrection of the dead is spoken of in the next verse, as distinct from this; and other passages of Scripture are produced, as speaking of it; though admitting that Christ’s resurrection from the dead is here intended, as the Alexandrian copy reads, what follows is very applicable to it, without any detriment to the doctrine of Christ’s eternal generation and sonship, as will be hereafter made to appear:<\/p>\n as it is written in the second psalm<\/strong>: Beza’s most ancient copy, and other very ancient copies, read, “in the first psalm”; for the first and second psalms seem to have been reckoned by the ancient Jews but one psalm, or one section; for so they say d<\/p>\n “”blessed is the man”, c. and “why do the Heathen rage”, c. , are one “parasha”, or section: and they further observe e, that “every section that was dear to David, he began it with “blessed”, and ended it with “blessed” he began with “blessed”, as it is written, Ps 1:1<\/span> “blessed is the man”, c. and he ended it with “blessed”, as it is written, Ps 2:12<\/span> “blessed are all they that put their “trust in him”:” though it is elsewhere said f, “blessed is the man”, &c. (Ps 1:1<\/span>) “and why do the heathen rage”, &c. (Ps 2:1<\/span>) are two sections and “to the chief musician on Muth Labben”, (Ps 9:1<\/span>) and “why standest thou afar off”, c. (#Ps 10:1-18) are two sections.”<\/p>\n And Kimchi calls g this psalm, as the generality of copies here do, saying,<\/p>\n “this psalm is , “the second psalm.””<\/p>\n And that this psalm belongs to the Messiah, is evident from the mention made of him in Ps 2:2<\/span> from the mad counsel, and vain attempts of the kings of the earth against him, Ps 2:1<\/span>. God’s decree and resolution to make and declare him King of Zion, notwithstanding all their efforts upon him, Ps 2:4<\/span> from his asking and having the Gentiles, and uttermost parts of the earth for his inheritance, which is true of no other, Ps 2:8<\/span> and especially from that reverence, worship, and adoration, which are to be given to him, and that trust and confidence to be placed in him, Ps 2:10<\/span> which can by no means agree with David, nor with any mere creature whatever and as for Ps 2:7<\/span> which is here cited, what is said in that is inapplicable even to angels, Heb 1:5<\/span> and much more to David, or any mere man. The whole psalm was, by the ancient Jews, interpreted of the Messiah, as is confessed by some of their later doctors. R. David Kimchi says h,<\/p>\n “there are that interpret it of Gog and Magog, and the Messiah, he is the King Messiah and so the Rabbins of blessed memory interpret it.”<\/p>\n And Jarchi confesses the same, and is somewhat more open in giving his reason for interpreting it otherwise.<\/p>\n “Our Rabbins (says he) expound this affair concerning the King Messiah; but according to its literal sense, and for an answer to the heretics (or Christians), it is right to explain it concerning David himself.”<\/p>\n he clause, “and for an answer to the heretics”, is left out in later editions, but was in the more ancient ones; it being so open and barefaced, that the Jews did not choose to let it stand. Aben Ezra is in a doubt whether to interpret the psalm of David, or of the Messiah; though he thinks the former is best; and particularly this seventh verse is, by several of their ancient writers, applied to the Messiah; in one of their writings, esteemed very ancient, are these words i;<\/p>\n “from thence shall come forth, in that day, the Messiah of David; and this is the mystery of, “I will declare the decree, the Lord said unto me, thou art my Son”, c.”<\/p>\n And this is the sense of R. Ame k, a famous ancient doctor of theirs: upon mention of those words in Jer 31:22<\/span> “the Lord hath created a new thing”, c.<\/p>\n “says R. Hone, in the name of R. Ame, this is the King Messiah, as it is said, Ps 2:7<\/span> “this day have I begotten thee”.”<\/p>\n And in like manner in the Talmud l, it is understood of the Messiah, where are these expressions<\/p>\n “the Rabbins teach, that Messiah, the son of David, who shall be revealed in haste in our days, the holy blessed God said unto him, ask anything of me, and I will give it thee, as it is said, Ps 2:7<\/span> “I will declare the decree, c. this day have I begotten thee”.”<\/p>\n And that this was the sense of the Jews in the times of the apostle, need not be doubted, since the apostle cites these words before a Jewish assembly, in one of their synagogues, and applies them to the Messiah, without any hesitation, or any further reasoning upon it, as being a thing generally agreed on, and out of doubt wherefore the Jew m has no reason to charge the apostle with an error in citing a passage in this psalm, and applying it to Christ, since their ancient doctors have allowed, that it belongs to him, and even the very passage which the apostle produces which passage Maimonides n himself applies to the Messiah. This objector would have it, that David spoke the whole psalm by the Holy Spirit concerning himself, and that he calls himself the Lord’s anointed; and that being anointed by the will of the Lord, what was against his kingdom, was against the Lord himself; and that he is called the Son of God, because he attended to the worship of God; and that the begetting of him refers to the time of his unction by Samuel; and that it can by no means agree with Jesus of Nazareth, who never ruled in any place, but others ruled over him, when they condemned him to death as the meanest of the people; and who himself says, that he came not to be ministered unto, Mt 20:28<\/span> especially he thinks those words, “ask of me, and I will give the Heathen”, c. greatly militate against the application of the psalm to Jesus for if he is God, what need has he to ask of another? But since the Jewish doctors themselves have applied this psalm to the Messiah, the apostle ought not to be blamed for making such an application; and there are many things which cannot be applied to David himself; for whatever may be said of his anointing, begetting, and sonship, the uttermost parts of the earth were never given for his possession; and much less can he be the son the kings of the earth are called upon to kiss and worship, or he be the object of trust and confidence; and though Jesus in the days of his humiliation was not ministered unto, but ministered to others, and ruled not over others, but submitted to the death of the cross; he has since been made and declared Lord of all, and his kingdom has taken place in the nations of the world, and ere long all the kingdoms of it will become his; and though he is God, it is no ways inconsistent with him, as man and Mediator, to ask anything of his Father, and especially what has been agreed between them shall be given: the words cited by the apostle are, “thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee”; in Beza’s ancient copy, the verse following these words is added, “ask of me”, c. The words are to be understood of the eternal filiation of Christ, and are produced, to set forth the greatness and dignity of his person whom God had raised and sent forth in human nature, to be the Saviour and Redeemer of his people: though should they be applied to the resurrection of Christ from the dead, it will no ways prejudice the doctrine of Christ’s proper and natural sonship, as being the only begotten of the Father; since the resurrection of Christ is not the cause of his sonship, or the reason why he is called the Son of God, but a manifestation of it; Christ was the Son of God, before his resurrection from the dead; he was declared to be so by a voice from heaven, was believed on by his disciples as such, and confessed by others, both men and devils: besides, if his resurrection was the cause of his sonship, he must beget himself, which is absurd, for he was himself concerned in his resurrection from the dead; more over, his sonship would not be proper, but figurative and metaphorical, whereas he is God’s own, or proper son; besides, on this account he could not be called God’s only begotten Son, because there are others that have been, and millions that will be raised from the dead besides him: but the reason why these words are applied to the resurrection of Christ, allowing them to be so, is not because he was then begotten as the Son of God, but because he was then manifested to be the eternally begotten Son of God; things are said to be, when they are only manifested to be; so Christ is said to be that day begotten, because he was “declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead”, Ro 1:4<\/span> Hence these words are applicable to any time or thing wherein Christ is manifested to be the only begotten Son of God, and accordingly are applied to different times and things; see Heb 1:3<\/span>.<\/p>\n d T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 9. 2. e Ib. fol. 10. 1. f Piske Tosephot in T. Bab. Megilla, art. 34. g In Psal. ii. 1. h In Psal. ii. 12. Vid. T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 3. 2. i Zohar in Numb. fol. 82. 2. k In Abarbinel. Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 37. 2. l T. Bab. Succa, fol. 52. 1. m R. Isaac, Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 68. p. 454, &c. n In Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 11. sect. 1.<\/p>\n Hath fulfilled <\/B> (<\/SPAN><\/span>). Hath filled out (<\/SPAN><\/span>).<\/P> Unto our children <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). The MSS. vary greatly here about <\/SPAN><\/span> (our), some have <\/SPAN><\/span>, some <\/SPAN><\/span>. Westcott and Hort consider these readings “a primitive error” for <\/SPAN><\/span> (to us) taken with <\/SPAN><\/span> (having for us raised up Jesus). This raising up (from <\/SPAN><\/span>, set up) as in Acts 3:22<\/span>; Acts 7:37<\/span> refers not to resurrection (verse 34<\/span>), but to the sending of Jesus (two raisings up).<\/P> In the second psalm <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Ps 2:7<\/span>. D has <\/SPAN><\/span> because the first psalm was often counted as merely introductory. <\/P> <\/p>\n Hath fulfilled [] <\/SPAN><\/span>. Completely fulfilled; force of ejk, out and out.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1 ) “God, hath fulfilled the same unto us their children,”<\/strong> (hoti tauten ho theos ekpepleroken tois teknois hemin) “That very same promise God has fulfilled to us, the children of the promise,” and the children or heirs of the fathers to whom the promises were given, to the Jew first, Act 13:46<\/span>; Joh 1:11-12<\/span>; Rom 1:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “In that He hath raised up Jesus again,”<\/strong> (anastesas lesoun) “In the raising up (resurrection) of Jesus,” from the dead, from among dead bodies of the tombs, Mat 26:32<\/span>; Mat 28:6<\/span>; Act 2:24<\/span>; Act 4:10<\/span>; Act 4:33<\/span>; Rom 8:11<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “As it is also written in the second psalm,”<\/strong>(hos kai en to psalmo gegraptai to deutero) “Even as or just as it has been recorded in the second psalm,” as follows: Psa 2:7<\/span>; Heb 1:5<\/span>; Heb 5:5<\/span>.<\/p>\n 4) “Thou art my son,”<\/strong> (huios mou ei see) “Thou art (dost exist as) my Son,” 2Sa 7:14-15<\/span>, Jesus was God’s Son, not only by virgin birth when He came into the world, but also by the Holy Spirit begettal from the Dead, Rom 8:11<\/span>, to be heir of all things in their restitution to the Father, Act 3:20-26<\/span>; 1Co 15:20-28<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5) “This day have I begotten thee.”<\/strong> (ego semeron gegenneka se) “I have begotten you today,” this very day, brought forth, as the first born or begotten from the city of the dead, from the graves, from out of the tombs; This was and is the ultimate manifestation of the Sonship or heir-ship of Jesus Christ over all the universe, 1Co 15:20<\/span>; 1Co 15:23<\/span>; Rom 8:17-23<\/span>.<\/p>\n 33. To their children, namely, to us. It is certain that Paul speaketh of natural children, who had their beginning of the holy fathers, which we must therefore note, because certain brain-sick men, drawing all things unto allegories, dream that there is no respect to be had in this place of kindred, but only of faith. And with such an invention they make the holy covenant of God of none effect, where it is said, <\/p>\n “<\/p>\n I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed,” (Gen 17:7<\/span>.) <\/p>\n It is faith (say they) alone which maketh us the children of Abraham. But I say, on the other side, that even those who are born the children of Abraham according to the flesh, are also counted the spiritual children of God, unless they grow out of kind through unbelief (812) For the boughs be naturally holy, because they spring from a holy root, until they become profane through their own fault, (Rom 11:16<\/span>.) And assuredly it is Paul’s drift to allure the Jews unto Christ; and that he may do this, they must be distinguished from the common sort by some privilege. And yet it followeth not thereupon (which these knaves do odiously object) that the grace of God is tied to the carnal seed; because, though the promise of life came by inheritance to the posterity of Abraham, yet many were deprived by their unbelief. Therefore faith is the cause, that of a great multitude only a few are counted children. And that is the double election whereof I spake before. The one common to the whole nation alike; because the first adoption of God containeth the whole family of Abraham. The other, which is restrained unto the secret counsel of God, and is at length established by faith, that it may be confirmed to men. <\/p>\n Therefore Paul doth well and truly affirm that that was performed to the Jews which God had promised to the fathers. For it was promised to them also, as Zacharias saith in his song, “The oath which he sware to our father Abraham, that he would give himself for us,” etc. And yet the worthiness of that nation doth not hinder but that the grace of Christ may also spread itself throughout the whole world; because the first-begotten hath the first degree of honor, so that he doth, notwithstanding, leave the second place to his brethren. For in that after the old people were cast off, the possession of the church was left empty for strangers, it began to be a new occasion of gathering the Church of the Gentiles; but and if that people had stood in the faith, the Gentiles had been joined into the common society of honor. <\/p>\n After that he had raised Christ. The word raised, in my judgment reacheth farther than it doth where it is shortly after repeated. For he doth not only say that Christ rose from the dead, but that he was appointed of God, and, as it were, brought to light by the hand of God, that he might fulfill the office of the Messiah, as the Scripture teacheth everywhere that kings and prophets are raised up. (813) For the word αναστησαι is sometimes taken in this sense: And this reason moveth me thus to think, because God, by sending his Son into the world, did fulfill his promise made to his servants in times past, by the effect itself. <\/p>\n Likeas, in the second Psalm. Though the Greek books, (814) agree in the number, yet we must not pass over that which Erasmus saith, that many of the old writers read the first Psalm. And it may be that Luke wrote so; for that which at this day is counted the second Psalm, might have been called the first not without reason, seeing that it is likely that the first Psalm was added instead of a proem by the scribes and priests, by whose industry the Psalms were gathered into one body. For the name of the author is not set to it, and it doth only exhort to meditate upon the law of God. But there is no great weight in that matter. (815) For this is the chiefest thing, that we know how properly and how well Paul applieth the testimony taken out of the Psalm unto the matter which he hath in hand. We do not deny that David, when he saw that he was on every side assailed by his enemies, and that they were of greater power and might than that he was able to resist them, doth set against them God’s aid, who he knew was the author of his kingdom and reign. But forasmuch as he was a figure of the true Messiah, we know that those things were shadowed in his person, which do appertain, wholly and perfectly to the Messiah alone. And the text itself doth prove sufficiently that there is not only a simple and bare thanksgiving contained there, agreeable to David’s kingdom, but it is a higher prophecy. For it is well known that David did in his life scarce taste of the hundredth part of the glory which is spoken of in this place, concerning which we have spoken more at large, chapter 4. <\/p>\n Now let us look higher into the words: Kings are indeed called sons of God, (Psa 82:6<\/span>.) But seeing that God doth intend to prefer David before all other kings, and to exempt him out of the number of them, this title of honor is given to him principally above all other; not because so great honor resteth in his person, because by this means he should pass (816) the angels, as it is in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 chapter. Therefore he is thus gorgeously set out in respect of Christ, whose image he was, that God doth not take him for one of the common sort, or for some one of a great multitude, but he doth, as it were, acknowledge him to be his only begotten Son. The proof followeth, because God did beget him when he established the kingdom in his hand. For that was not done by man’s industry, but God showed from heaven the invincible power of his hand, whereby it might plainly appear that he reigned according to God’s counsel. Therefore this begetting, by him mentioned, must be referred unto the understanding of knowledge of men; to wit, because it was then openly known that he was begotten of God, when as he was set upon the throne of the kingdom wonderfully, contrary to the hope of all men, and did, by the heavenly power of the Spirit, break infinite conspiracies; because he could not reign until he had brought all nations round about him in subjection, as if a certain world were subdued. <\/p>\n Now, let us come unto Christ. He came not into the world without testimony, whereby he did prove that he was the Son of God. For his glory did appear as became the only begotten Son of God, as it is written, Joh 1:14<\/span>, and he saith everywhere that he hath God for the witness and maintainer of this honor. Therefore God begat Christ, when he gave him certain marks, whereby he might be known to be his true and lively image and Son. And yet this doth not let but that Christ is the Wisdom begotten of the Eternal Father before time. But that is the secret generation; and now David declareth that it was revealed to men; so that the relation is, as we have said, unto men and not unto God; because that which was hidden in the heart of God was make known to men. And it is a very fine figure, because Christ’s divinity was no less declared and established, than if he had been begotten of God before the eyes of men. I know that Augustine’s deep sight (817) doth please some, that by today is meant perpetuity. But when as the Spirit of God himself is his own interpreter, and whereas he doth expound that by the mouth of Paul which he had said by David, we must not invent any other sense. And forasmuch (as the same Paul doth witness) that Christ was declared to be the Son of God in power when he rose from the dead, (Rom 1:4<\/span>,) we gather that this was the principal token of celestial excellency, and that the Father did then bring him truly to light, that the world might know that he was begotten of him. Therefore, though God began to raise Christ when he came into the world, yet his raising was then, as it were, perfect and full; because whereas he was humbled before, having taken, as it were, the form of a servant, (Phi 2:7<\/span>,) he did then appear to be the conqueror of death and the Lord of life; so that he wanted nothing of that majesty which was meet for the Son of God, and that for the only begotten Son. <\/p>\n (812) “ Nisi sua infidelitate degenerent.” unless they degenerate through their own infidelity. <\/p>\n (813) “ A Domino,” by the Lord, omitted. <\/p>\n (814) “ Codices,” manuscripts. <\/p>\n (815) “ Sed in ea re non est multum momenti,” but the point is not of much importance. <\/p>\n (816) “ Praestantior esset,” be more excellent than. <\/p>\n (817) “ Augustini argutiam,” the subtlety of Augustine. <\/p>\n (33) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children.<\/strong>The better MSS. give, with hardly an exception, unto our children, <\/em>and the Received text must be regarded as having been made to obtain what seemed a more natural meaning. St. Pauls language, however, is but an echo of St. Peters to us and to our children, in Act. 2:39<\/span>.<\/p>\n As it is also written in the second psalm.<\/strong>The various-reading, in the first<\/em> Psalm, given by some MSS. is interesting, as showing that in some copies of the Old Testament, what is now the first Psalm was treated as a kind of prelude to the whole book, the numeration beginning with what is now the second.<\/p>\n Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.<\/strong>Historically, Psalms 2<\/span> appears as a triumph-song, written to celebrate the victory of a king of Israel or JudahDavid, or Solomon, or anotherover his enemies. The king had been shown by that day of victory to have been the chosen son of Godthe day itself was a new begetting, manifesting the sonship. So, in the higher fulfilment which St. Paul finds in Christ, he refers the words, not primarily to the Eternal Generation of the Son of God, begotten before all worlds, nor to the Incarnation, but to the day of victory over rulers and priests, over principalities and powers, over death and Hades. The Resurrection manifested in the antitype, as the victory had done in the type, a pre-existing sonship; but it was to those who witnessed it, or heard of it, as the ground on which their faith in that sonship rested. Christ was to them the firstborn of every creature, because He was also the firstborn from the dead. (See Notes on Col. 1:15<\/span>; Col. 1:18<\/span>.)<\/p>\n 33<\/strong>. <\/strong> Raised up Jesus again<\/strong> The word again <\/em> is here unauthorized by the Greek. We do not understand the passage here quoted from the second Psalm to describe or prove the resurrection of Christ, but his birth and consequent inauguration as king upon Zion. Paul in the three Act 13:33-35<\/span> quotes three proof texts in the order of a beautiful climax. This first quotation proves the divine Sonship of Christ, which prepares us to accept the proof of his superiority to death and corruption. The second, from Isa 55:3<\/span>, (Septuagint version,) proves the everlasting kingdom of the Messiah, and his consequent personal immortality. The third, from Psa 16:10<\/span>, directly proves the exemption of Messiah from bodily corruption, thus bringing the argument to its complete point. <\/p>\n Thou art my Son<\/strong> In this second Psalm, which was applied by the Jewish Church to the Messiah, Jehovah is introduced as inaugurating his Son upon Mount Zion. That Son is heir to the uttermost parts of the earth; the Gentiles, with all their kings, are bidden to forestall a forced subjection by a voluntary obedience. It is this Messiah whom Paul this day proclaims to Antioch.<\/p>\n 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. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 33. In the second Psalm<\/strong> ] Erasmus testifieth, that some ancient copies here have it, “in the first Psalm;” either because the first and second were of old but one Psalm, or because the first is not properly a Psalm, but a preface to the Psalms; like as the 119th Psalm is set (saith one) as a poem of commendation before the book of God, mentioning it in every verse, testimonies, laws, statutes, word, &c.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n This day have I begotten thee<\/strong> ] That is, I have this day of thy manifestation in the flesh made known that thou art my Son, as well by my testimony of thee as by thine assumption of humun nature. <\/p>\n 33<\/strong> .] The reading is explained thus: “hic psalmus qui nobis secundus est olim primus fuit, quod is qui prcedit, tanquam promium, numeratus non esset.” Rosenm. Arg. Psa 2<\/span> St. Paul refers the prophecy in its full completion to the Resurrection<\/em> of our Lord: similarly in Rom 1:4<\/span> , .<\/p>\n Act 13:33<\/span> . : “hath fulfilled to the utmost,” cf.<\/em> Mal 1:2<\/span>Mal 1:2<\/span> ; 3Ma 1:22 , Polyb., i., 67, 1, . , see critical notes. : “in that he raised up Jesus,” R.V.; “in that he hath raised up Jesus again,” A.V. The former rendering is quite compatible with the view that the reference of the word here is not to the resurrection of Jesus, but to the raising up of Jesus as the Messiah, cf.<\/em> Act 3:22<\/span> , Act 7:37<\/span> , Deu 18:15<\/span> . The first prophecy, Act 13:33<\/span> , would be fulfilled in this way, whilst in Act 13:34-35<\/span> the prophecy would be fulfilled by the resurrection from the dead, . (see Knabenbauer in loco<\/em> , p. 233 ff.). Wendt argues that Heb 1:5<\/span> , where the same prophecy is quoted as in Act 13:33<\/span> , also refers to the raising up as the Messiah, but see on the other hand Westcott, Hebrews, in loco<\/em> .<\/p>\n the same = this. <\/p>\n children. Greek. teknon. App-108. <\/p>\n in that he hath . . . again = having raised up. Greek. anistemi. App-178. <\/p>\n it is also, &c. = it has been written in the second Psalm also. See Psa 2:7. App-107. <\/p>\n begotten Thee = brought Thee to the birth, i.e. in resurrection. <\/p>\n 33.] The reading is explained thus: hic psalmus qui nobis secundus est olim primus fuit, quod is qui prcedit, tanquam promium, numeratus non esset. Rosenm. Arg. Psalms 2 St. Paul refers the prophecy in its full completion to the Resurrection of our Lord: similarly in Rom 1:4, .<\/p>\n Act 13:33. , in the Psalm) Kimichi thinks that this Psalm was written by David about the beginning of his reign. However, that it was written at Jerusalem, may be inferred from the words in Act 4:27, in this city.[78] For Sion is mentioned in Psa 2:6. Luke mentioned the Psalm without the numeral epithet[79] (see Appar. Crit. p. 622; Ed. ii. pp. 294, 295. Add Hesychius the Presbyter, in the Anecdota Grca of Wolf, T. iii. p. 175): otherwise the word first would not have been written by some, and second by others afterwards; nay, the doubt whether it was the first or second Psalm would have never arisen among the ancients. Why should not Luke have also specifically said, at least (if he specified the Psalm in the former case) at Act 13:35, which makes reference to this Act 13:33, the 15th or 16th Psalm? [Whereas he only says, In another Psalm.]- ) So the LXX., Psa 2:7.- , My Son) This is the sentiment, Thou, Jesus, art My Son, and therefore the true Messiah. Comp. note on Heb 5:5, Christ glorified not Himself to be made an High Priest, but He that said unto Him, Thou art My Son (not meaning that the priesthood was conferred on Him at the time when the Father said, Thou art My Son, for the Sonship is prior to the Priesthood; but that the Son, who alone was capable of that Priesthood, as such received it from the Father).[80]-) Thou, alone, the Messiah. Paul refers, whilst he quotes the chief point, to the whole Psalm, which was well known to his hearers, and especially the second verse, where there is express mention of the Messiah, The Lord and His Anointed. The pronouns, , , thou, I, are put together in succession with marvellous force.-, this day) The Son of God is indeed from everlasting: but His everlasting nature is never signified by the expression, this day. Wherefore the words, This day have I begotten Thee, are used in this sense: This day I have definitely declared, that Thou art My Son. The generation, properly so called, is presupposed. The Lord said, Thou art My Son, at the time when the psalm was sung: comp. Heb 4:7-9, note: and also at the time when Christ was born as the Son of David. Moreover, a thing is often said to be done then, when it is vividly presented to the eyes as one or about to done: 2Ch 9:6, The Queen of Sheba to Solomon, I believed not-until-mine eyes had seen: and the one half-was not told me; for thou hast added to, (i.e. I see there is additional greatness in thee besides), the fame that I heard: Jos 22:31, , ye have delivered (ye have shown yourselves as delivering: Phinehas to the children of Reuben): and so Heb 1:6, When He bringeth the first-begotten into the world; Act 1:18, note, where Judas is said to have purchased the field, because he was the occasion of its being purchased, and had himself designed to purchase it: a condensed mode of expression. Glassius has collected more examples out of the sacred writings, l. 3, tr. 3, can. 15; and Linacer, l. 2, at the end, some out of profane authors. The expression this day, which occurs, Luk 2:11, Unto you is born this day, may be compared. Comp. ibid. ch. Luk 1:32-33; Luk 1:35. Often the particle to-day expresses present time, as Deu 31:2, I am an hundred and twenty years old this day: Jos 14:11, so Caleb, this day. It is therefore an abbreviated expression, as Joh 8:58, Before that Abraham was made, I (was, and to-day) am. So I have begotten Thee; and that fact is this day visible, that I have begotten Thee. Comp. Heb 10:8-9, note (the authority of the Psalms is shown, in that the declaration of the Son of God was made at the time that the second Psalm was composed, as the oath of Jehovah as to His Priesthood was made when the 110th Psalm was composed).<\/p>\n [78] Rec. Text in Act 4:27 omits the words . But ABDEde Vulg. Hilar. Iren. and Lucif., the weightiest authorities, support them.-E. and T.<\/p>\n [79] Which is more openly shown by the margin of Ed. 2, than by the margin of the larger Ed.-E. B.<\/p>\n [80] I think the connection of the Sonship with the Resurrection of Jesus (for so I take ), according to the apostles reasoning, is, that the latter was the manifestation of the former to all. So Rom 1:4 : Declared to be the Son of God with power-by the resurrection from the dead. The same connection exists between the believers sonship (heretofore hidden) and his future resurrection, which shall manifest it; Luk 20:36; 1Pe 1:3; Rev 1:5; 1Jn 3:2; Rom 8:23.-E. and T.<\/p>\n Lachm. reads , following (1) the order of the words in ABC, and (2) the numeral which Origen expressly mentions as being the reading of the passage, 2,538a; also Dd Hilar. 27,42, though not in the same order. Tisch. has , following D and Hilar, as above. Rec. Text has , with Ee Vulg.; but Jerome supports . The reading of Rec. Text no doubt was a correction to suit the present order and division of the Psalms.-E. and T.<\/p>\n Thou art: Psa 2:7, Heb 1:5, Heb 1:6, Heb 5:5 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Deu 9:5 – that he may Psa 40:10 – faithfulness Psa 49:9 – see Psa 69:13 – in the Jer 32:39 – for the Jer 33:14 – General Jon 2:6 – yet Zec 10:7 – yea Zec 10:9 – live Luk 20:42 – himself Luk 24:44 – that all Joh 1:14 – the only Joh 1:41 – first Act 1:20 – in Act 3:26 – first Act 5:30 – raised Act 26:6 – the promise Rom 1:4 – the Son Rom 9:4 – promises Eph 4:10 – fill<\/p>\n Act 13:33. God hath fulfilled. The Greek word here may be rendered hath completely fulfilled,completely, because in the resurrection which is here about to be mentioned, the ascension and exaltation of Messiah are both involved.<\/p>\n In the second psalm. Some of the fathers and one ancient MS. read here, in the first psalm. This singular variation is accounted for by the first psalm being frequently not numbered, but simply looked at as a psalm of introduction. It is not the Custom of Paul or the New Testament writers to quote so exactly as in this instance, never giving the number of the chapter or the psalm whence the reference was drawn; the exception in this case was probably owing to the high importance attached by the early Christian teachers to this great Messianic prophecy appearing as it does on the first page, so to speak, of the sacred psalter.<\/p>\n Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. The Eternal speaks in this psalm to Messiah, Thou art my Son, todaythe day of Thy resurrectionI have declared Theehave exhibited Thee as begotten. He had been the Son of God from all eternity; but by His triumphant resurrection after His humiliation He was openly declared or shown to be so. Paul later expands the same great thought: He (Jesus Christ) was declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4).<\/p>\n See notes one verse 30<\/p>\n 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he {o} hath raised up Jesus again; {13} as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.<\/p>\n (o) For then he appeared plainly and manifestly as the only Son of God, when he left behind his weakness and came out of the grave, having conquered death.<\/p>\n (13) If Christ had remained dead, he would not have been the true Son of God, neither would the covenant which was made with David have been certain.<\/p>\n 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. 33. God hath fulfilled the same ] Better, “how that God hath,” &c. The “glad tidings” are concerning the … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 13:33”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27354","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27354","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27354"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27354\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27354"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27354"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27354"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Greek Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"