Clarke's Bible Commentary - Acts 13:33
Verse 33. Written in the second Psalm] Instead of tw yalmw tw deuterw the second Psalm, prwtw yalmw, the first Psalm, is the reading of D, and its Itala 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 Psalms are often written as one; and the first and second Psalms are written as one in seven of Kennicott's and Deuteronomy Rossi's MSS. Those who possessed such MSS. would say, as it is written in the FIRST Psalm; those who referred to MSS. where the two Psalms were separate, would say, in the SECOND Psalm, 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 of one and the same, or whether we consider them as two distinct Psalms.
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.] It has been disputed whether this text should be understood of the incarnation or of the resurrection of our Lord. If understood of his incarnation, it can mean no more than this, that the human nature 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 nor begotten. See some reasons offered for this on Luke i. 35; and, if those be deemed insufficient, a thousand more may be added. But in the above reasons it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself.
ETERNITY is that which has had no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time: SON supposes time, generation, and father; and time also antecedent to such generation: therefore the rational conjunction of these two terms, Son and eternity, is absolutely impossible, as they imply essentially different and opposite ideas.
If the passage in question be understood of the resurrection 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 of God, 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 power, by the resurrection from the dead, Rom. i. 4.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 33. God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children , etc.] The natural descendants of them, as Paul and Barnabas, and the Jews in the synagogue, were: in that he hath raised up Jesus again ; 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 ( Acts 2:30 3:26 13:23) of which raising of him up to regal dignity, mention is made in ( Psalm 2:1-12), ( Psalm 6:1-7:17) 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 Christs 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 Christs eternal generation and sonship, as will be hereafter made to appear: as it is written in the second psalm : Bezas 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 f677 blessed is the man, etc. and why do the Heathen rage, etc. ayh hrp adj , are one parasha, or section: and they further observe f678 , 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, ( Psalm 1:1) blessed is the man, etc. and he ended it with blessed, as it is written, ( Psalm 2:12) blessed are all they that put their trust in him: though it is elsewhere said f679 , blessed is the man, etc. (( Psalm 1:1-6)) and why do the heathen rage, etc. (( Psalm 2:1-12)) are two sections; and to the chief musician on Muth Labben, (( Psalm 9:1-20)) and why standest thou afar off, etc. (( Psalm 10:1-18)) are two sections.
And Kimchi calls this psalm, as the generality of copies here do, saying, this psalm is ynh rwmzmh , the second psalm. And that this psalm belongs to the Messiah, is evident from the mention made of him in ( Psalm 2:2) from the mad counsel, and vain attempts of the kings of the earth against him, ( Psalm 2:1-3). Gods decree and resolution to make and declare him King of Zion, notwithstanding all their efforts upon him, ( Psalm 2:4-6) from his asking and having the Gentiles, and uttermost parts of the earth for his inheritance, which is true of no other, ( Psalm 2:8,9) 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, ( Psalm 2:10-12) which can by no means agree with David, nor with any mere creature whatever; and as for ( Psalm 2:7) which is here cited, what is said in that is inapplicable even to angels, ( Hebrews 1:5) 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 f681 , 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.
And Jarchi confesses the same, and is somewhat more open in giving his reason for interpreting it otherwise. 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. 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 f682 ; 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, etc.
And this is the sense of R. Ame f683 , a famous ancient doctor of theirs: upon mention of those words in ( Jeremiah 31:22) the Lord hath created a new thing, etc. says R. Hone, in the name of R. Ame, this is the King Messiah, as it is said, ( Psalm 2:7) this day have I begotten thee.
And in like manner in the Talmud f684 , it is understood of the Messiah, where are these expressions; 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, ( Psalm 2:7) I will declare the decree, etc. this day have I begotten thee.
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 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 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 Lords 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, ( Matthew 20:28) especially he thinks those words, ask of me, and I will give the Heathen, etc. 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 Bezas ancient copy, the verse following these words is added, ask of me, etc. 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 Christs 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 Gods own, or proper son; besides, on this account he could not be called Gods 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, ( Romans 1:4) 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 Hebrews 1:3-5, 5:5).
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 32-37 - The resurrection of Christ was the great proof of his being the Son of God. It was not possible he should be held by death, because he was the Son of God, and therefore had life in himself, which he could not la down but with a design to take it again. The sure mercies of David ar that everlasting life, of which the resurrection was a sure pledge; an the blessings of redemption in Christ are a certain earnest, even in this world. David was a great blessing to the age wherein he lived. We were not born for ourselves, but there are those living around us, to whom we must study to be serviceable. Yet here is the difference Christ was to serve all generations. May we look to Him who is declare to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, that by fait in him we may walk with God, and serve our generation according to his will; and when death comes, may we fall asleep in him, with a joyfu hope of a blessed resurrection.
Greek Textus Receptus
οτι 3754 CONJ ταυτην 3778 D-ASF ο 3588 T-NSM θεος 2316 N-NSM εκπεπληρωκεν 1603 5758 V-RAI-3S τοις 3588 T-DPN τεκνοις 5043 N-DPN αυτων 846 P-GPM ημιν 2254 P-1DP αναστησας 450 5660 V-AAP-NSM ιησουν 2424 N-ASM ως 5613 ADV και 2532 CONJ εν 1722 PREP τω 3588 T-DSM ψαλμω 5568 N-DSM τω 3588 T-DSM δευτερω 1208 A-DSM γεγραπται 1125 5769 V-RPI-3S υιος 5207 N-NSM μου 3450 P-1GS ει 1488 5748 V-PXI-2S συ 4771 P-2NS εγω 1473 P-1NS σημερον 4594 ADV γεγεννηκα 1080 5758 V-RAI-1S σε 4571 P-2AS
Vincent's NT Word Studies
33. Hath fulfilled (ekpeplhrwke). Completely fulfilled; force of ejk, out and out.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
13:33 {Hath fulfilled} (ekpeplerwken). Hath filled out (ek). {Unto our children} (tois teknois hemwn). The MSS. vary greatly here about hemwn (our), some have autwn, some autwn hemin. Westcott and Hort consider these readings "a primitive error" for hemin (to us) taken with anastesas iesoun (having for us raised up Jesus). this raising up (from anistemi, set up) as in #3:22; 7:37 refers not to resurrection (verse #34), but to the sending of Jesus (two raisings up). {In the second psalm} (en twi yalmwi twi deuterwi). #Ps 2:7. D has prwtwi because the first psalm was often counted as merely introductory.
