ATTN Theologians: Psalm 2:7

[Ivon Denosovich]

The KJV says:

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

The NIV says:

I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father."

The NLT says:

The king proclaims the LORD's decree: "The LORD said to me, 'You are my son. Today I have become your Father.'

The Message says:

Let me tell you what God said next. He said, "You're my son, And today is your birthday.

The NASB says:

I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

If I'm reading the passages correctly (Big If) it seems that Christ is not an eternal being, but rather an everlasting being. So, does Christ have a definite beginning? Did He himself originate from the Father? If this has been discussed before, my apologies.

 

[donnA]

Jesus and the Father are one, they are inseparable in their being, their exsistance. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit have always existed ( as one), and will always exist.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Jesus and the Father are one, they are inseparable in their being, their exsistance. God/Jesus/Holy Spirit have always existed ( as one), and will always exist.

In your view, what does a correct interpretation of Psalm 2:7 read like?

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

This verse comes up in the NT a few times. In one of Paul's sermons, he links the timing of this declaration with the Resurrection (Acts 13:33).

Some church fathers, like Cyril interpreted "today" in this text as eternal, before all the ages.

However, you're confusing issues by talking as if eternal and originate are mutually exclusive. The pro-Nicenes defended Christ's eternal generation from the Father with the Father as the cause of Christ. This causal relationship only applies to the Persons' modes of being (how they are) not essence (what they are), so they are equal. I could be reading too much in your usage of "originate" though.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

This verse comes up in the NT a few times. In one of Paul's sermons, he links the timing of this declaration with the Resurrection (Acts 13:33).

Some church fathers, like Cyril interpreted "today" in this text as eternal, before all the ages.

However, you're confusing issues by talking as if eternal and originate are mutually exclusive. The pro-Nicenes defended Christ's eternal generation from the Father with the Father as the cause of Christ. This causal relationship only applies to the Persons' modes of being (how they are) not essence (what they are), so they are equal. I could be reading too much in your usage of "originate" though.

Thanks for the great response! I'm honored to be learning from someone who's actually in seminary.

What I mean by "origin" is that God literally (at a specific point in time) created Christ as a separate being from himself. I don't see how the two are one.

ETA: How is it that "eternal" and "originate" are not mutually exclusive?

 

[donnA]

In your view, what does a correct interpretation of Psalm 2:7 read like?

You know what, I don't know. But I do know Jesus is not created, if He were He would not be God. God and Jesus can not be seperated, they are one, whether or not we understand that.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Verses from Acts 13:

30 But God raised him from the dead, 31 and for many days he was seen by those who had traveled with him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now his witnesses to our people. 32 "We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers 33 he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: "'You are my Son; today I have become your Father.' 34 The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: "'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.' 35 So it is stated elsewhere: "'You will not let your Holy One see decay.'

Paul seems to be saying that only after Christ was raised that God became His spiritual father. I'm sure there's a better understanding of this text than what I have.

Btw, the wording of Psalm 2:7 reminds me of John 3:16 in the sense that God is credited with Christ's existence.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Hello again Ivon,

You're questions are reasonable and fine. I think if we compare what Paul writes in Romans 1:3 about this, then Paul is saying that Jesus was proclaimed as God's Son in power by the Resurrection. Some people, though, argue differently (I won't go into that here).

The orthodox view of eternal generation is that the Father is the cause of the Son by begetting Him. However, begotten is not the same as created or made (as the Nicene definition states). Thus, when the Bible says that "God" (using the word as a shorthand for the Father) is credited with Christ's existence, it is true. But this does not have to mean that there was a time when the Son was not. This also does not mean that the Son is inferior to the Father as to "whatness."

Here are two links you may find helpful:

This first is from Athanasius's defense of the Nicene definition that explains some of the terms (like "begotten not made")

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xiv.ii.iii.html



The second is a famous letter from Gregory of Nyssa to Ablabius that explains the causal relationship between the divine Persons

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.viii.v.html

The eternal generation doctrine is difficult and some evangelicals today have wanted to discard it, but I think it is proper, biblical, and is almost an essential part of a proper doctrine of the Trinity. Feel free to PM me if you have more questions.

Seminary can be helpful, but I am still a learner in many things.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

Feel free to PM me if you have more questions.

Doing it now. Many thanks!!!

 

[Salamander]

The way I have understood this passage is that it speaks literally of David and is a typology of Christ.

Here's some Jewish perspectives of Ps 2:7:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/ps2mesin.htm

Many times the choice remains with which rabbinic order to follow, but it seems they all end up at the same conclusion; The Messiah is here spoken about.

 

[Humblesmith]

Part of the confusion is over the term "begotten." As pointed out above, it does not necessarily mean created.

No orthodox theologian ever questioned whether Jesus was eternal, but some did question whether he was a "son" prior to being "begotten."

I take it begotten merely means to come from, but I haven't done a word study on it.