And this is the whole that was incumbent on the apostle to prove by the testimony produced He manifests him sufficiently to be more excellent than the angels, from the excellency of the name which he inherits, according to his proposition before laid down. There is, indeed, included in this reasoning of the apostle an inti- mation of a peculiar filiation and sonship of Christ. Had he not been so the Son of God as never any angel or other creature was, he never had been called so in such a way as they are never so called. But this the apostle at present doth not expressly insist upon; only, he intimates it as the foundation of his discourse.
To conclude, then, our considerations of this testimony, we shall
136 AN EXPOSITION OF THE . fOr ar.t
briefly inquire after the sense of the words themselves, absolutely considered; although, as I have showed, that doth not belong di- rectly unto the present argument of the apostle.
Expositors are much divided about the precise intendment of these words, both as they are used in the psalm, and variously ap- pled by the apostles. But yet generally the expositions given of them are pious, and consistent with each other. I shall not insist long upon them, because, as I said, their especial sense belongeth not unto the design and argument of the apostle.
That Christ is the natural and eternal Son of God is agreed at this day by all Christians, save the Socinians.. And he is called so because he is so. The formal reason why he is so called is one and the same, namely, his eternal Sonship; but occasions of actual as- cribing that name unto him there are many. And hence ariseth the difficulty that is found in the words. Some think these words, “This day have I begotten thee,” do contain the formal reason of Christ’s being properly called the Son of God, and so denote his eternal generation. Others think they express only some outward act of God towards the Lord Christ, on the occasion whereof he was declared to be the Son of God, and so called. The former way went Austin, with sundry of the ancients. The 55], the “hodie,” or “this day,” here, was the same with them as the “nune stans,” as they call it, of eternity; and -the TAY, “T have begotten thee,” denotes, as they say, the proper natural generation of the Son, by an inconceivable communication of the essence and substance of the Godhead by the person of the Father unto him. And this doctrine is true, but whether here intended or no is by some greatly ques- tioned.
Others, therefore, take the words to express only an occasion of giving this name at a certain season tothe Lord Christ, when he was revealed or declared to be the Son of God. And some assign this to the day of his incarnation, when he declared him to be his Son, and that he should be so called, as Luke i. 35; some to the day of his baptism, when he was again solemnly from heaven proclaimed so to be, Matt. ii. 17; some to the day of his resurrection, when he was declared to be the Son of God with power, Rom. i. 4, and Acts xii. 83; some to the day of his ascension, whereunto these words are applied. And all these interpretations are consistent, and recon- _ cilable with each other, inasmuch as they are all means serving unto the same end, that of his resurrection from the dead being the most signal amongst them, and fixed on in particular by our apostle in his application of this testimony unto him, Acts xiii, 33.
And in this sense alone the words have any appearance of respect unto David, as a type of Christ, seeing he was said, as it were, to be begotten of God when he raised him up, and established him in his
VER. 5.| EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 137
rule and kingdom. Neither, indeed, doth the apostle treat in this place of the eternal generation of the Son, but of his exaltation and pre-eminence above angels.
The word 5'*3, also, constantly in the Scripture’ denotes some sig- nal time, one day or more. And that expression, “This day have I begotten thee,” following immediately upon that other typical one, “T have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion,” seems to be of the same importance, and in like manner to be interpreted. Thus far, then, I choose to embrace the latter interpretation of the words,— namely, that the eternal generation of Christ, on which his filiation or sonship, both name and thing, doth depend, is to be taken only declaratively; and that declaration to be made in his resurrection, and exaltation over all that ensued thereon, But every one is left unto the liberty of his own judgment herein.
And this is the first testimony whereby the apostle confirms his assertion of the pre-eminence of the Lord Christ above the angels, from the name that he inherits as his peculiar right and possession.
For the further confirmation of the same truth, he adds another testimony of the same importance, in the words ensuing :—
Ver. 5.— Ka) réduvr Eye toowon adrw sig rarépa, xa adrds zorcs wor gig viv;
Vulg.: “Et rursum, ego ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium;”—* I willbe to him for a father, and he shall be to me for a son.” So also the Syriac, 82S? and N73, “in patrem,” and “in fililum;” not “pro patre,” and “ pro filio,” as some render the words. Hrasmus worse than they: “Ego ero ei loco patris, et ille erit mihi loco filii;”—* Instead of a father,’ and “instead of a son,” or, “in the place;” which agrees not with the letter, and corrupts the sense. Beza: « Figo ero ei pater, et ipse erit mihi filius ;” who is followed by ours, “ And again, T will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.”