<- Previous   First   Next ->

In the Targum on Deut. 32:44 which bears the name of Jonathan ben

Uzziel there is the remarkable clause: ‘He by His Word ( hyrmymb ) shall atone

for His people and for His land.’

It may be added that the thought both in Deuteronomy and in the Psalm is essentially the same. The Hymn and the Psalm both look forward to the time when the subordinate spiritual powers, idolised by the nations, shall recognise the absolute sovereignty of Jehovah.

Part of the same verse (Deut. 32:43) is quoted by St Paul in Rom. 15:10.

Heb. 1:5. tivni ga;r ei\pevn pote ] For to which...said He at any time? The use of the rhetorical question is characteristic of the style of the Epistle. Compare 1:14; 2:2 ff.; 3:16 ff.; 7:11; 12:7.

The subject of the verb is taken from the context. God is the Speaker in all revelation (5:1). It has been objected that the title ‘Son’ is not limited to the Messiah in the Old Testament, but the objection rests upon a misunderstanding. The title which is characteristic of Messiah is never used of Angels or men in the Old Scriptures. Angels as a body are sometimes called ‘sons of God’ (Ps. 29:1, 89:6) but to no one ( tivni ) is the title ‘Son of God’ given individually in all the long line of revelation. The tivni and the potev are both significant.

In like manner the title ‘Son’ was given to Israel as the chosen nation: Hos. 11:1; Ex. 4:22; but to no single Jew, except in the passage quoted, which in the original refers to Solomon as the type of Him who should come after.

Nor is it without the deepest significance that in these fundamental passages, Ps. 2:7, 2 Sam. 7:14, the speaker is ‘the LORD’ and not ‘GOD.’ The unique title of Christ is thus connected with God as He is the God of the Covenant ( Jehovah, the LORD), the God of Revelation, and not as He is the God of Nature ( Elohim , GOD).
uiJov" mou ] The order is full of meaning. By the emphasis which is laid upon uiJov" the relation is marked as peculiar and not shared by others. My son art thou , and no less than this; and not Thou too, as well as others, art my son. Compare Ps. 88:27 (89:27) pathvr mou ei\ suv. At the same time the suv is brought into significant connexion with ejgwv in the next clause, where the emphasis is laid on ejgwv (‘I in my sovereign majesty’) and not on shvmeron . shvmeron ] The word both in its primary and in its secondary meaning naturally marks some definite crisis, as the inauguration of the theocratic king, and that which would correspond with such an event in the historic manifestation of the divine King. So the passage was applied to the Resurrection by St Paul (Acts 13:33; comp. Rom. 1:4); and by a very early and widespread tradition it was connected with the Baptism (Luke 3:22 Cod. D; Just. M. Dial. c. 88, and Otto's note).

Many however have supposed that ‘ today ’ in this connexion is the expression for that which is eternal, timeless.

This view is very well expressed by Primasius: Notandum quia non dixit: Ante omnia secula genui te, vel in praeterito tempore; sed, hodie , inquit, genui te , quod adverbium est praesentis temporis. In Deo enim nec praeterita transeunt nec futura succedunt; sed omnia tempora simul ei conjuncta sunt, quia omnia praesentia habet. Et est sensus: Sicut ego semper aeternus sum


<- Previous   First   Next ->