God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
God hath fulfilled, х ekpepleerooken (G1603)] - rather, 'completely fulfilled,'
The same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again, х anasteesas (G450)] - rather, "in that He hath raised up Jesus;" though our translators have rightly (as we think) taken this to mean, from the dead. The word has not indeed that sense, unless when associated with some word or words fixing it to that meaning (as at Acts 2:26); and so some good critics take the meaning here to be, 'in that he sent' or 'brought forward Jesus.' So Calvin [excitato Jesu], Beza [suscitato], Grotius [exhibens], Bengel [quum suscitavit]; also Olshausen, Humphry, Alexander, Lechler. But the two following verses seem to fix the meaning here to resurrection from the dead. So the Vulgate [resuscitatus], and Luther [auferwecket hat]: also Meyer, DeWette, Alford, Hackett, Webster and Wilkinson.
As it is also written in the second psalm - or, according to another reading, 'the first psalm;' that psalm being regarded as a general introduction to the whole Psalter, in which view the one that followed would be reckoned the first, as indeed it is numbered in several Hebrew manuscript. Still the evidence in favour of the received reading immensely preponderates. [In favour of prootoo (G4413) are D only of extant manuscript, though Origen and other early fathers must have so read it: in favour of deuteroo (G1208) are 'Aleph (') A B C E G H, etc.; the Vulgate and most ancient versions; with Chrysostom and other fathers. The only argument in favour of prootoo (G4413) is, that it might more naturally have been corrected into deuteroo (G1208) than the reverse. Accordingly, Lachmann and Tischendorf adopt it; and it is preferred by Erasmus, Meyer, Olshausen, Alford, Lechler. But this consideration is hardly sufficient to outweigh the preponderating evidence in favour of deuteroo (G1208)].
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Augustine, with some moderns, apply this to Christ's external generations from the Father. 'The expression (says Alexander) "I have begotten thee" means, I am thy Father: "Today" refers to the date of the decree itself: but this, as a divine act, was eternal, and so must be the Sonship it affirms.' This, however, is a forced way of interpreting the words, and not at all consistent with the context, which clearly connects the Sonship with the resurrection of Christ. Does the apostle, then; mean to say that Christ became God's Son-for the first time and in the only sense in which He was the Son of God-by His resurrection from the dead? That cannot be; for, besides that it would contradict the whole, strain of the New Testament regarding Christ's relation to the Father, it is in direct contradiction to the apostle's own statements in Romans 8:32, where he reasons on the Sonship of Christ as one of eternal essence; and even still more in Romans 1:4, where he says of the resurrection of Christ, that he was thereby only "declared (defined or determined) to be the Son of God with power" - in other words, the resurrection of Christ was merely the manifestation of a Sonship which existed before, but was only then "declared with power." Are we not warranted, then, on the apostle's own authority, in understanding his meaning here to be the same - "Today," meaning that memorable day of His resurrection from the dead, when God, by an act not to be misunderstood, proclaimed that He whom men killed, by hanging Him on a tree, was none other than His own Son. As Meyer happily expresses, it 'it was the divine legitimation of His Sonship;' Such declarative meaning of the verb 'to be' is familiar to every reader of the Bible (see, for example, John 10:15; Acts 15:8); and in this sense verb 'to be' is familiar to every reader of the Bible (see, for example, John 10:15; Acts 15:8); and in this sense nearly all good interpreters agree that this verse is to be understood.