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

“This is the way, dear friends, in which we found our salvation, Jesus Christ, the high priest of our offerings, the protector and helper of our weakness. Through him we fix our gaze on the heights of heaven. In him we see mirrored God's pure and transcendent face. Through him the eyes of our hearts have been opened. Through him our foolish and darkened understanding springs up to the light. Through him the Master has willed that we should taste immortal knowledge. For, since "he reflects the glory of God," "he is as much superior to the angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs." For thus it is written: "He makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire." But of his Son this is what the Master said: "You are my son, today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession." And again he says to him, "Sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool." Who are meant by "enemies"? Those who are wicked and resist his will.”

“"For to 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"? For these things indeed are spoken with reference also to the flesh: "I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son" - while this, "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," expresses nothing else than "from [the time] that God is." For as He is said to be, from the time present (for this befits Him more than any other), so also the [word] "To-day" seems to me to be spoken here with reference to the flesh. For when He hath taken hold of it, thenceforth he speaks out all boldly. For indeed the flesh partakes of the high things, just as the Godhead of the lowly. For He who disdained not to become man, and did not decline the reality, how should He have declined the expressions?”

“As was said above, the Apostle throughout the whole chapter intends to set Christ before the Angels as to excellence, and so he has set down four things pertaining to the excellence of Christ: namely as to origin, because he is Son; as to lordship, because he is heir; as to operation, because he himself made the ages; as to honor, because he sits at the right hand of majesty. Now the Apostle in this part shows that Christ, as to these four things, surpasses the Angels; and first as to sonship; second as to lordship, where he says and again when he brings in; third as to the operation of creation, where he says and thou, Lord, in the beginning hast founded the earth; fourth as to the Father's confession, where he says but to which of the Angels. Concerning the first he does two things, for first he sets forth what he intends; second he proves what he has proposed, where he says for to which. He says therefore so much better than the Angels, that is, holier, and therefore closer, in which he sets forth the excellence of Christ over the Angels. Eph. 1:20: setting him on his right hand in the heavenly places, above all principality and power. But then a question arises how the Apostle understands this, whether according to the divine nature or the human, since according to the divine it does not seem true, because according to that he was begotten, not made; but according to the human he is not better than the Angels, as below, chapter 2: but him who by a little than the Angels, and so on. But it must be said that Christ according to human nature had two things in this life, namely the infirmity of the flesh, and thus he was made lower than the Angels — below, chapter 2: him who by a little, and so on. Likewise he had the fullness of grace, and thus also in his humanity he was greater than the Angels in grace and glory. Jn. 1:14: we saw him as it were the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. But this is not the understanding meant here. For the Apostle does not understand that he was made better as to grace, but on account of the union of the human nature to the divine; and thus he is said to have been made, insofar as through the accomplishing of that union he came to this, that he should be better than the Angels, and should be called and should be the Son of God. And therefore he adds as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they. And as to this name, he shows the difference as to three things: namely as to the signification of the name, because the proper name of the Angels is that they are called Angels, which is the name of a minister — for Angel is the same as messenger — but the proper name of Christ is that he is called the Son of God. And this name is very much more different from that one, because however much difference you posit, there is still a greater one to be given, since they differ infinitely. Prov. 30:4: what is his name, and what is the name of his son, if thou knowest? For the name of his son, like that of the Father, is incomprehensible. Phil. 2:9: and gave him a name which is above every name. But perhaps you will say that the Angels too are called sons of God. Job 1:6 and 2:1: when the sons of God stood before the Lord, and so on. It must be said that if they are called sons of God, this is not essentially and by nature, but by a certain participation. But he himself is essentially the Son of God, and therefore has a name more different than theirs; and this is the second point, for they differ as to the manner. Ps. 88:7: who among the sons of God is like to God? As if to say: none, by nature. As to the third he says that he inherited that name. For an inheritance follows upon origin. Hence Christ has it that he is Son from his origin, and by nature; but the Angels have it from the gift of grace. Matt. 21:38: this is the heir. Hence he inherited the name, but not the Angels, and this is the third difference. Then when he says for to which of the Angels said he at any time, he proves what he said; and first he treats of the name as it belongs to Christ according to divinity; second according to humanity, where he says and again, I will be, and so on. As to the first he brings in the authority of Ps. 2:7: the Lord hath said to me, and so on. And this is for to which of the Angels, etc., as if to say: to none of the Angels were these words spoken, but only to Christ. Where three things can be noted. First, the manner of origin, in the word said; second, the singularity of the sonship, where he says thou art my son; third, his authority, where he says I this day. This manner is not carnal but spiritual and intellectual. For God is spirit, Jn. 4:24, and therefore he does not beget carnally, but spiritually and intellectually. Now the intellect, in speaking, begets a word, which is its concept, and therefore he pointedly said that the Lord said to me, that is, the Father said to the Son. For the Father's intellect to speak, then, is nothing other than to conceive a word in the heart. Ps. 44:2: my heart hath uttered a good word. Job 33:14: he speaketh once, and repeateth not the same thing a second time. Ecclus. 24:5: I came out of the mouth of the most High. But as to the second, this generation is singular, for he says thou art my son, as if to say: although many others are called sons, yet to be a natural son belongs to him alone; the others are called sons of God because they are participants of the Word of God. Jn. 10:35: he called them gods to whom the word of God was made; but Christ is the very Word. Matt. 17:5: this is my beloved son. But as to the third, this generation is not temporal but eternal, for this day have I begotten thee. Now time differs from eternity, because time varies as motion does, whose measure lies in variation and succession, and therefore it is named by the succession of past and future. But eternity is the measure of a thing immovable, and therefore there is no variation there by succession, but it is always present; and therefore it is denoted by the adverb of present time, namely today, that is, in eternity. But because that which is coming to be, since it is not yet, is on that account incomplete, whereas that which has been made is complete, and thus perfect; therefore he does not say I beget thee but I have begotten, because he is perfect. Yet lest his generation be thought to be entirely in the past, and consequently in defect, he adds today. And he joins the past to the present, namely today and I have begotten, that you may know that this generation always is, and is perfect, and thus in today its permanence, and in I have begotten its perfection, is designated. So that the sense is: thou art perfect, O Son, and yet thy generation is eternal, and thou art always begotten of me; just as light in the air is perfect, and yet always proceeds from the sun. Mic. 5:2: his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Ps. 109:3: from the womb before the day-star I begot thee. This could also be expounded of a temporal generation, so that he says today, that is, in time, I have begotten thee. Next, when he says and again: I will be to him a father, etc., he shows what he has proposed, according as it belongs to Christ according to his humanity, and this by another authority. According to the Gloss, this is said in Isaiah, I will be to him a father, yet nothing quite like this is found in Isaiah except this: and a son is given to us. But in 2 Kings 7:14 and 1 Chron. 22:10 these same words of the Lord are found, spoken to David concerning Solomon, by whom Christ was prefigured. Now it should be known that in the Old Testament certain things are said of one who is a figure, not insofar as he is a certain thing, but insofar as he is a figure, and then it is not to be expounded of him except insofar as it is referred to the thing figured. For example, in Ps. 71 certain things are said of David, or of Solomon, only insofar as they prefigured Christ. But certain things are said of them also according as they are certain men, and these sayings about them can be expounded also of Christ; as this: give to the king thy judgment, O God, since that can apply to Solomon. But those things that are said of them insofar as they are a figure can never be expounded of them, as this: and he shall rule from sea to sea, etc., because this can in no way be verified of Solomon. So too in the case before us, although these words were said of Solomon, yet they can be expounded of Christ, who was prefigured by him. He says therefore I will be, which is of future time, to denote that the incarnation of the Son was to be in time. Gal. 4:4: but when the fullness of time was come, and so on. Above, however, when he was speaking of the eternal generation, he said thou art, as it were without motion; but here, when he speaks of the temporal, he says into a son, which denotes the terminus of some motion. For assumption implies motion into sonship. And since every motion comes about through the operation of someone, terminated at some effect, therefore he first sets down the operation of the one acting, because the assumption was made not by the power of the humanity, but of the divinity, when he says I will be to him a father, that is, I will assume him to the union of the person of the Son. And he adds the effect that follows, namely that, because he has been received into the personal unity of the Son, he shall be to me a son. Of the first it is said, Lk. 1:35: the power of the Most High, namely that which makes the assumption, shall overshadow thee. Of the second, Rom. 1:3: who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh. Again, I will be to him, that is, unto his honor and benefit I will glorify him. Jn. 17:5: glorify me, Father. And he shall be to me, that is, unto my honor, by manifesting my name to men. Jn. 17:6: I have manifested thy name, and so on. Then when he says and again, etc., he treats of the lordship of Christ, by which he is heir of all things. Where he does three things: first he shows his lordship, and especially over the Angels; second he sets down the reason for that lordship on the part of the Angels, where he says and to the angels; third on the part of Christ, where he says but to the son. As to the first he brings in the authority of Ps. 96:7, when he says: adore him, all his angels; this is found in Ps. 96:1: the Lord hath reigned, let there be rejoicing, and so on. For adoration is not paid except to a lord; therefore if the Angels adore him, he is their lord. The Apostle, wishing to bring in this authority, first touches upon the intention of the Psalmist, when he says and when again he bringeth in, etc., that the Psalmist speaks of the coming of Christ into the world. And therefore he says: and when Scripture bringeth in, that is, is about to bring in, it saith firstborn, etc.; as if to say: it has already been said that Christ is Son above the Angels; therefore he is principally begotten from the Father. He is therefore to be called firstborn. Rom. 8:29: that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. Now this firstborn was to be brought into the world, and so on. And see how orderly the Apostle speaks. For first he says that he himself is from the Father, where he says I will be to him a father; second, that he was assumed into the unity of the person, where he says and he shall be to me a son; but now he sets him forth into the knowledge of men. Now he calls the incarnation a bringing in unto the world. But against this: Christ himself calls it a going out. Jn. 16:28: I came out from the Father, and am come into the world. And it must be said that a going out is also a bringing in. Just as, if someone is to be reconciled to a prince, first a mediator goes out to him and afterward brings him in. A similar thing is found in 1 Kings 20:5 and following, concerning David toward Jonathan. So Christ, the mediator of God and men, first went out to men, and afterward brought them back in reconciled. Below, 2:10: who had brought many sons into glory, and so on. Or he bringeth in, that is, leads him even into the hearts of men, because Scripture, speaking of the coming of Christ, says that he is to be received within the hearts of men. Now this reception comes about through faith. Eph. 3:17: Christ to dwell by faith in your hearts. Ps. 95:3: declare his glory among the nations. For when Scripture says that the nations ought to believe, it says that Christ is about to enter into their heart. Now this word again, which he uses, is expounded in many ways. For Chrysostom says that concerning the incarnation of the Word, which is called a bringing in, Scripture does not speak once, but again and again. Or otherwise, because he himself was first in the world through the power of his divinity invisibly, but again he is brought into the world according to the presence of his humanity, visibly. Or otherwise, because above he had said I will be to him a father, that is, I will assume him into personal unity with myself. And when again he bringeth in him, namely this firstborn one, assumed to the unity of the person: because it would not suffice to say that he is brought in, unless it were said how he is brought in, namely that it is not as one of the world, nor as the Angels, but above all. Therefore he says let all the angels adore him. Neh. 9:6: the host of heaven adoreth thee. Apoc. 7:11: all the angels stood round about the throne, and they fell down, and adored, and so on. Then when he says and to the angels, etc., the reason is set down on the part of the Angels why they adore him, as if to say: it is just that they should adore him, because they are ministers. Hence he says who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. For God sometimes operates by illuminating the intellect. Jn. 1:9: he enlighteneth every man, and so on. But sometimes he moves to a work. Is. 26:12: thou hast wrought all our works in us. And the first, God does in us by the mediation of the Angels. Ps. 75:5: thou enlightenest wonderfully from the everlasting hills. The second also he does in us, they themselves being the intermediaries, as Dionysius says in chapter 4 of the Celestial Hierarchy. Insofar, therefore, as he enlightens through them, they are called messengers, for it belongs to messengers to announce those things that are in the heart of their lord. But insofar as they are the intermediaries of divine works, they are called ministers. Ps. 102:21: his ministers, that do his will. They are therefore both messengers and ministers. But of what sort they are, he describes them by two corporeal things most fitting for this. One is air, whose property greatly suits a messenger, while the property of fire suits a minister. For air is receptive of light and of impressions; likewise it renders very well what it has received; likewise it has swift motion. Now a good messenger ought to have these qualities, namely that he receive well what is said, report well what he has received, and do both swiftly. These things fit the Angels well. For they receive divine illuminations most excellently. For the Angels are clean mirrors, according to Dionysius. Matt. 18:10: and their angels in heaven, and so on. Likewise they render most excellently, which is signified in Apoc. 1:1: God signified the things which must shortly come to pass, speaking by his angel to his servant John, and so on. Likewise they are swift. Is. 18:2: go, ye swift angels, and so on. Now these are called spirits, because every invisible substance is called spirit; hence also air is called spirit. Likewise they are fire, insofar as ministers. Now fire, among all the elements, is most active and efficacious for acting. Hence in Ps. 103:4, concerning the Angels, where they are called his ministers, there it is added and thy ministers a burning fire. Likewise fire causes heat, by which charity is designated. Cant. 8:6: lamps of fire and flames. Hence they are described in fire, and are called Seraphim, Is. 6:2. Likewise fire always moves upward; so the Angels and good ministers, whatever they do, always refer it to the glory of God, as is clear of the Angel, Tob. 12:6: bless ye the God of heaven, and so on. He does not say: bless me, but the God of heaven. Not so of the evil angel, who says, Matt. 4:9: if falling down thou wilt adore me. But the good Angel, as a good minister, says, Apoc. last: see thou do it not, and there follows: adore God.”

“For unto which of the angels said he at any time,.... That is, he never said to any of the angels what he has said to Christ; namely, what follows, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee for though angels are called the sons of God, Job 1:6 yet are never said to be begotten by him; or, with this clause annexed to it, "this day have I begotten thee"; nor are they ever so called in a proper sense, or in such sense as Christ is: this is said to Christ, and of him, in Psa 2:7 and that agreeably to the sense of the Jewish church at this time, or the apostle would never have produced it to the Hebrews in such a manner; and not only the whole psalm in general, but this verse in particular, is owned by Jewish writers (t), both ancient and modern, to belong to the Messiah. Christ is the Son of God, not by Creation, nor by adoption, nor by office, but by nature; he is the true, proper, natural, and eternal Son of God; and as such is owned and declared by Jehovah the Father, in these words; the foundation of which relation lies in the begetting of him; which refers not to his nature, either divine or human: not to his divine nature, which is common with the Father and Spirit; wherefore if his was begotten, theirs must be also, being the same undivided nature, common to all three; much less to his human nature, in which he is never said to be begotten, but always to be made, and with respect to which he is without Father; nor to his office, as Mediator, in which he is not a Son, but a servant; besides, he was a Son, previous to his being a prophet, priest, and King; and his office is not the foundation of his sonship, but his sonship is the foundation of his office; or by which that is supported, and which fits him for the performance of it: but it has respect to his divine person; for as, in human generation, person begets person, and like begets like, so it is in divine generation; though care must be taken to remove all imperfection from it, as divisibility and multiplication of essence, priority and posteriority, dependence, and the like; nor can the modus, or manner of it, be conceived, or explained by us: the date of it, today, designs eternity, as in Isa 43:13, which is one continued day, an everlasting now; and this may be applied to any time and case, in which Christ is declared to be the Son of God; as at his incarnation, his baptism, his transfiguration on the Mount, and his resurrection from the dead, as in Act 13:33 and at his ascension to heaven, when he was made Lord and Christ, and his divine sonship more manifestly appeared; which seems to be the time, and case, more especially referred to here. And again, I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a Son: which words are taken from Sa2 7:14 and the sense is, not that he should be his son by adoption; or that he would be instead of a father to him; or that he should be as dear to him as a son is to a father; but that he was really and properly so; and he would make it manifest, and own him as such, as he did at Jordan's river, upon the Mount, and at his resurrection and ascension; though the words are spoken of Solomon, as a type of Christ, they properly belong to the antitype, who is greater than Solomon. (t) Zohar in Numb. fol. 82. 2. Maimon. in Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 11. 1. & Abarbinel, Mashmia Jeshua, fol. 37. 4. & 38. 1.”

“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.”

“Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. These words, though commonly expounded of the eternal generation of the Son of God in the day or moment of eternity, yet may be truly applied either to Christ made man by his incarnation, or to Christ risen from the dead, as they are used by St. Paul, (Acts xiii. 33.) because the same Christ both these ways is the Son of God. It was the only true and natural Son of God, who was made flesh, who was made man, who rose from the dead; and the eternal Father manifested his eternal Son by his incarnation, and shewed him triumphing over death by his resurrection. — I will be to him a father, &c. Although these words might be literally spoken of Solomon, yet in the mystical sense (chiefly intended by the Holy Ghost) they are to be understood of Christ, who in a much more proper sense is the Son of God. (Witham)”

“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).”