What is meant by “I have begotten you”?

Explanation:

The author of Hebrews uses a Hebrew form of poetry known as a chiasm to establish that Jesus is superior to the angels. The form of the chiasm can be detected when an author states a concept, or concepts, and then states them again in reverse order. The purpose is to bring emphasis to a particular point. In the case of Hebrews 1:5, the chiasm is formed by combining Psalm 2:7 with 2 Samuel 7:14, and the author uses the exact phrase of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) for each passage. In English, the form of the chiasm is as follows:

a You are my Son.

b Today I have become your father.

b` I will be to him father,

a` and he shall be to me a son.

While a chiasm simply has to do with form, what is interesting about the chiasm in Hebrews 1:5 is that the contents of the two passages are also related. Both have to do with the royal throne of David, and both were considered messianic by the Jewish community and the apostolic writers.⁶ The fact that both passages are connected to the Davidic kingship is what concerns us most.

First, Psalm 2:1–12 is about the fact that it is vain for the nations to plot against the Anointed One of Israel (Psalm 2:1–2). For the Israelites, the anointed one was the king, and the reason it was foolish to plot against him is that his throne was established by God. The purpose of Psalm 2:7 is not to suggest that the king was physically born of God, but that the king of Israel was supported by God.⁷ The king of Israel is the viceregent of God, and his throne represents God’s power on earth.

The second part of the chiasm comprises 2 Samuel 7:14, which comes just after God stated that he will establish David’s throne forever. In context, 2 Samuel 7:14 clearly refers to Solomon, because the passage states that the person who succeeds David will commit iniquity.

Still, these two passages were regarded by the Jewish community as messianic because in the end, David’s sons always fell short of God’s standard and could never live up to the calling of the Davidic throne.⁸ The author of Hebrews now uses these passages to show that when Jesus sat at the right hand of the Father (Hebrews 1:3b), he was sealed as the Anointed One of God, which implies that God became his Father.

Counterargument:

The problem with this interpretation is that it relies on the reader having a high level of Jewish background knowledge. First, he has to make the connection that when the Father becomes the Father of the Son (Psalm 2:7), this means that he becomes the Father of the Anointed One (Psalm 2:2). This is an easy inference to make when one reads the whole of Psalm 2:1–12, but the author of Hebrews is only quoting Psalm 2:7, so these details are not on the table. Further, the reader has to connect the Anointed One with the king of Israel. This means that even if one has Psalm 2:1–12 as a reference for connecting the Anointed One with the son, one has to further deduce that the Anointed One is the king of Israel (1 Samuel 10:1; 1 Samuel 24:6). Third, the reader has to understand that when the Israelite king is called a son, this does not refer to the king’s physical birth. Rather, it refers to the fact that the king was established by God and is therefore supported by God. All of these inferences need to be held in tension and then applied to the Son introduced in Hebrews 1:2. It is a lot to ask the reader to make all of these inferences in order to understand this passage correctly.

Response to counterargument:

Tradition holds that the letter to the Hebrews was originally written to a Jewish audience.^9,10 This is indicated by the content that largely considers Jesus’ work in light of Jewish themes such as angels and the priesthood. With this in mind, it is perfectly legitimate for the author of the book to use features of writing that his audience is likely to respond to. This means that contemporary readers do well to investigate the Jewish history behind the passages quoted in Hebrews 1:5 in order to understand the significance of the author’s statement.¹¹

Explanation:

In order to understand what it means that God became the Father of Jesus, we need to look at the context. We know from Hebrews 1:2 that through the Son, God created the world. Other passages from Scripture testify to this same fact, and some, like John 1:3, go even further, stating that everything that has been made was made through Jesus. This attributes to Jesus a strong notion of aseity, and also secures that he shared supreme divinity with the Father from all eternity. Still, according to Hebrews 1:5, there is a sense, at least metaphorically, that God became the Father of the Son at some point. If Jesus existed with the Father in all eternity, when did he become the Father’s Son?

Hebrews 1:3–4 gives us the answer. There we read that the Son made purification for sins and then sat at the right hand of the majesty on high. When this happened he became superior to the angels. The verb to become is used in Hebrews 1:4 to indicate what happened after the Son sat at the right hand: he became superior to the angels. This is similar to the verb to beget from Hebrews 1:5, which is used to indicate that today, God has become his father. This implies that when Jesus became superior to the angels by making purification for sins and sitting at God’s right hand, God became his father (metaphorically).

Counterargument:

The notions of the Son’s becoming superior to the angels and of God’s begetting are distinct and should not be so quickly connected. In the case of Hebrews 1:4 the author seems to be referencing the fact that whatever you might think of angels, the Son has become superior to them when he sat at God’s right hand because of the work that he accomplished. The notion here is not that at one time the Son was inferior to the angels, and then became superior, but that at one time the Son had not made purification for sins, and at a later time he had. When he had, his name became superior to all named under heaven.

On the other hand, when it comes to Hebrews 1:5, the verb to beget carries the sense of giving birth. It is not easy to explain why the author of Hebrews chose Psalm 2:7, where we get the statement, Today I have begotten you. Instead of focusing on loose connections between the verbs of Hebrews 1:4b and Hebrews 1:5, we do better to look at the context of the passage as a whole. When we do this, we find that Hebrews 1:5 is part of a larger Jewish catena that stretches from Hebrews 1:5–14 and is meant to combine a list of verses to make a theological statement.¹² In this case, the author is intent on establishing that the Son is superior to the angels, and not on pointing out the timing of when God became the Father of the Son. We can deduce this by noticing the themes of the rest of the catena. For example, Hebrews 1:6 has to do with bringing the firstborn into the world. While Hebrews 1:10 has to do with the Son’s laying the foundations of the world. In other words, the author is establishing the superiority of the Son over the angels, not the timing of when God (metaphorically) became the Father of the Son. On timing, the author is silent.¹³

Response to counterargument:

While it is true that the author of Hebrews is establishing the Son’s superiority over the angels, he is doing this by making claims about the Son. When the author states that the Son is the Lord who participated in the creation of the world (Hebrews 1:10), he is elevating the Son, and this is accomplished by the content of the statement. In other words, one needs to comprehend the content of the statement before one perceives that the statement is being used to elevate the Son.

So what is the content of Hebrews 1:5? There the author quotes Psalm 2:7 and states that today, God has become the Father of the Son. This is not the only place in the New Testament where Psalm 2:1–12 is quoted. First, in Acts 4:25–26 we have members of the early church citing Psalm 2:1–2 to suggest that Jesus is the Anointed One. There is also an indication in Acts 4:25 that the psalm was traditionally considered a psalm of David.¹⁴ Then, in Acts 13:1–52, Paul addresses the Jewish synagogue in Antioch and explains the gospel. When he reaches the crucifixion and resurrection, Paul quotes Psalm 2:7 to indicate that when God raised Jesus from the dead, he was fulfilling that verse in Psalm 2:1–12 (see Acts 13:32–33). The connection is clear. When God raised Jesus from the dead, he became the Father of the Son (metaphorically). The author of Hebrews builds on this notion and includes the Son’s exaltation at the right hand (Hebrews 1:3). In other words, the Father begets the Son (metaphorically) at the resurrection and exaltation of Christ.

The general weakness of this view is that it risks pressing the author of Hebrews for specifics that he did not intend. This weakness was introduced in the counterargument under argument 2. The fact is that over the centuries, exegetes have deduced at least six different meanings from these verses. These include 1) eternal generation, 2) the birth of Jesus, 3) the incarnation, 4) the baptism of Jesus, 5) Jesus’ resurrection, and 6) his exaltation. Some authors, after examining these questions in detail, have concluded that there is no way to be sure what the author of Hebrews might have meant.¹⁵

We do not think the author of Hebrews had no meaning in mind, because he clearly chose texts connected to the Davidic monarchy that were known to be messianic. Still, there is a sense in which the author’s main objective is to establish Jesus as superior to the angels. If by including Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 he also wanted to insinuate that metaphorically, Jesus became the Son of the Father at his resurrection and exaltation, this is not straightaway obvious to non-Jewish twenty-first century readers.

Explanation:

The Bible speaks on several occasions about Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, as being the Son. For example, when the prophet Isaiah predicts the birth of Jesus he calls him a son, writing, For to us a child is born, to us a son is given (Isaiah 9:6). This implies that the incarnation of Jesus is an instance when the second person of the Trinity became a son. Next, in Matthew 3:17 we read that when Jesus was baptized by John, a voice from heaven declared, This is my Son, with whom I am pleased (Matthew 3:17). Further, in Acts 13:33 Paul quotes the same Ps 2 that the author of Hebrews quotes to indicate that when Jesus rose from the dead, he became God’s Son. Clearly, the Biblical authors characterize Jesus as the Son on many occasions.

Still, there is a grander sense in which Jesus has always been the Son. The author of Hebrews alludes to this in Hebrews 1:2 where he writes that through the Son, God created the universe. This implies that before there even was a universe, the second person of the Trinity was God’s Son. And we can push this even further because John 1:3 states that all things were made through the Word who is the second person of the Trinity. And John clarifies what he means by all things, that without him was not anything made that was made. This implies that if other realms existed before the material universe existed, Jesus created these (Colossians 1:16).

So all things were created through the Son, which means that the Son is eternal, and fully divine. At the same time, our passage states that God became the Father of the Son (Hebrews 1:5). The verb used to denote that God became the Father is to beget. Since we know that Jesus exists eternally, and that God the Father begets him, we can conclude that God the Father eternally communicates the divine essence to the Son. The Athanasian Creed of the fourth century AD summarizes the notion of eternal generation succinctly, stating, The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten, the Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

Counterargument:

Eternal generation of the second person of the Trinity through the Father is an orthodox doctrine according to church tradition. Still, in order to determine the meaning of Hebrews 1:5 we need to get at the author’s original intention, and we can do this by considering a number of factors including the audience, historical context, and content of the passage. In the case of Hebrews 1:5, all we have to do is look to the content of the passage to see that the author does not mean to convey any abstract theological truths about the Trinity. Rather, he is showing that Jesus is superior to the angels because he fulfils the role of the predicted Messiah as revealed in what were widely considered messianic psalms.

The weakness of this view is that it takes theological concepts that were developed after the work was produced and reads them back into the text. Like the doctrine of the Trinity, there is no explicit mention of the doctrine of eternal generation in Scripture. Rather, the concept is inferred on the basis of various passages, and on the fact that God reveals himself as triune through the work of the Trinity. Based on these factors, the early church fathers, including Augustine, then developed the doctrine of eternal generation. There is a good chance that eternal generation would have been entirely foreign to the original author. This is because the doctrine is complex and was developed after many decades of reflection on a variety of passages.¹⁷