When is "this day" that Jesus was "begotten"? And how is this related to Jesus being called God's "son"? [closed]

Question

In Psalm 2:7 the psalm refers to the day that Messiah was begotten:

Psa_2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

And twice that verse is quoted in the NT:

Act_13:33 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.

Heb_1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Was "this day" some time in eternity past; ie, "from everlasting"? Or is it referring to a day in history?

And how is this related to Jesus being God's son?

Heb_1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Bonus:

Is this begetting that which is referred to by the fourth gospel?:

Joh_1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Joh_1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Joh_3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Joh_3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

And the Revelation?:

Rev_1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Is this begetting that which is referred to in the Creed of Athanasius?:

"...22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten..."

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

Answer 1

When is "this day"

As you rightly note, Psalms 2:7 is quoted multiple times throughout the new Testament. Clearly this had special significance to the New Testament audience. One reason for this can be seen in verse 1 which reads:

ἵνα τί ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη καὶ λαοὶ ἐμελέτησαν κενά (LXX)

לָמָּה רָגְשׁוּ גֹויִם וּלְאֻמִּים יֶהְגּוּ־רִֽיק׃ (MT)

Why do the nations rebel? Why are the countries devising plots that will fail? (NET)

Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? (DRA)

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? (KJV)

Each of these translations was chosen to illustrate an important point about the range of this word. In Hebrew גֹויִם transliterates to goyim, or gentile. Modern Jews have been known to even employ a Shabbos goy ("Sabbath Gentile") to do work like lighting fires or stoves and turning on lights and similar activities forbidden by Jewish law and customs. This is why the translators of the Douay-Rheims Bible chose "Gentiles" for their translation. In greek, ἔθνη means foreign nations (Which is why the NET chose "nations" for their translation) or foreign peoples (ἔθνη transliterates to ethnos, the origin of the English word "ethnic" and "ethnicity"). As you can imagine, this mainly became a pejorative shorthand for the Roman Empire during New Testament times, as the Roman Empire were the foreign people Israel. As such, the KJV chose "heathen" which tends to capture the pejorative nature of this term.

Accordingly, the BDAG¹ notes:

Sometimes it is plainly Hebrew influence which gives special meaning to words and expressions in the LXX and our literature. τὰ ἔθνη = ‘the heathen, Gentiles’ comes about when that plural form is used to translate גּוֹיִם, a rendering that was more natural for the translators of the LXX, because among the Greeks it had become customary to call foreigners ἔθνη

And on Pg 276, the BDAG defines this word as meaning:

1. People groups foreign to a specific people group (corresp. to Heb. גּוֹיִם in LXX; a nationalistic expression, also usually in Greek for foreigners.

2. those who do not belong to groups professing faith in the God of Israel, the nations, gentiles, unbelievers (in effect=‘polytheists’)

So, this is a somewhat coded signal to the New Testament reader that the "begetting" occurs during the day that the Gentiles/Romans/foreign peoples rage and devise plots doomed for failure; the time when kings of the earth form a united front and collaborate against the LORD and his anointed king.. Essentially, the New Testament authors are implying that "this day" refers to the time of the Roman Empire.

This then also ties into the theme of the expectation that the Messiah would be a militaristic leader who would come to overthrow the Roman Empire when we look at Psalms 2:8-9 (an expectation that persist even until today among Jews:

Ask me, and I will give you the [gentiles/foreign] nations as your inheritance, the ends of the earth as your personal property. You will break them with an iron scepter; you will smash them like a potter’s jar!’”

Not "Begotten" but "Begat"

It is important to distinguish between the "firstbegotten", "begetter" and the "onlybegotten". In Greek and Hebrew the firstborn (πρωτότοκον / בְּכוֹר) recieves a birthright (πρωτοτόκιά / בְּכוֹרָה) from the father, the "begetter" (γεγέννηκά). When there is only one child born to a father, he is regarded as "onlybegotten" (μονογενοῦς)

γεγέννηκά

Psalm 2:7 in the LXX, Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5 all use the word "γεγέννηκά" which means to become the parent of. In it's masculine form, it refers to the father becoming a father and the feminine form refers to a mother giving birth. In other passages, Jesus is characterized as receiving a (πρωτοτόκιά / בְּכוֹרָה / birtright) from the father, but in these cases the word used only encapsulates the begetter.

The Athenasian Creed is heavily influenced by the Nicene Creed which has very similar wording:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God,] Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father

Wikipedia characterizes Athenasius of Alexandria, the author of the Athenasian Creed as a "famous defender of Nicene theology" and goes on to state:

The Athanasian Creed uses the term substantia (a Latin translation of the Nicene homoousios: 'same being' or 'consubstantial') not only with respect to the relation of the Son to the Father according to his divine nature, but also says the Son is substantia of his mother Mary according to his human nature.

As you can see, it is pretty obvious that this earlier creed is the basis for the Athenasian Creed. While the Athenasian Creed is in Latin, the Nicene Creed is in Greek, and in fact uses the same Greek word γεγέννηκά as is used in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5 and Psalms 2:7 LXX. So, in short, Yes; this is the same begetting as is referenced in the Athenasian Creed.

μονογενοῦς

In contrast however are John 1:14 and John 3:16 which both use the word μονογενῆ (monogenē) or μονογενοῦς (monogenous)

On Page 658, the BDAG¹ defines this word as meaning

① pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only

In one example given for the parent-child relationship in the BDAG, this term is used to describe Isaac as Abraham's only (legitimate) son in Hebrews 11:17.

The BDAG also notes that μονογενοῦς can:

② pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category

So one example given is

Of a mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2

The BDAG also notes that one variant or usage of the word

μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus.

While this wording or sense of "onlybegotten-ness" does make it into the Nicene Creed, it doesn't seem to have "trickled down" to the Athenasian Creed.

πρωτότοκος

Revelation 1:5 however uses the term πρωτότοκος (prōtotokos). This term refers specifically to the individual, as opposed to the blessing itself. The BDAG however does note on Pg 894 that this can and is often used figuratively to indicate

having special status associated with a firstborn

Again, while this concept of Christ as "firstborn" did not make it into the Athenasian Creed, it was reflected in the Nicene Creed.

Who inherits in Psalms?

In the Psalms, the authorship is traditionally attributed to King David. This can be seen in the title in Chapter 3 of Psalms, for example which states

A psalm of David, written when he fled from his son Absalom.

These titles appear in many older manuscripts and are generally understood to be a reliable attribution.

Thus, in Psalms 2, the "Day" that the author was referring to was the times of the reign of David and it was David himself who "begotten". By virtue of being the son of God, David is entitled to a birthright (πρωτοτόκιά / בְּכוֹרָה), the Covenant made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Inasmuch as the New Testament authors are drawing on this to use the "day" to refer to the times of Roman occupation, the attachment of this text to Christ indicates that it is Christ who is "begotten".

This duality is intentionally done in order to draw on the link of Jesus to the Lineage of David. The requirement that the Messiah be descendant of David can be seen in in Isaiah 11:1:

A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock, a bud will sprout from his roots.

And also in Jeremiah 23:5-6:

“I, the Lord, promise that a new time will certainly come when I will raise up for them a righteous branch, a descendant of David. He will rule over them with wisdom and understanding and will do what is just and right in the land. Under his rule Judah will enjoy safety and Israel will live in security. This is the name he will go by: ‘The Lord has provided us with justice.’

And Jeremiah 33:17:

For I, the Lord, promise: “David will never lack a successor to occupy the throne over the nation of Israel.

Quoting Psalm 2 intentionally draws readers to Matthew 1:6 and Luke 3:31 which establish Jesus as a descendant of David. By virtue of being an heir of David, Jesus inherits the same birthright (πρωτοτόκιά / בְּכוֹרָה) that David inherits in Psalm 2.

Theologians like Dr. John F. Walvord term this the Davidic Covenant and teach that these verses indicate that through Christ, Jesus inherits and fulfills the original Covenant and establishes a "New Covenant" at the Last Supper.

For example, in the IVP New Testament Commentary Series, Theologian Ray Stedman states²:

The writer here especially claims the superiority of Jesus over the angels as the Son of Man. No angel could claim either eternity or resurrection as the basis of his sonship, but Jesus had both. Though the angels collectively were called sons of God, no individual angel ever is given that title, or singled out as having a unique status before God. So the writer demands rhetorically, To which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”?

Psalm 2 is specifically applied to Jesus in Revelation 12:5 and 19:15 and to those who share his kingdom reign in Revelation 2:27, especially in conjunction with the words “you will rule them with an iron scepter” (Ps 2:9). Several scholars have felt that Psalm 2 represents a coronation liturgy which was included in enthronement ceremonies of the Davidic dynasty. One of the rabbis in Midrash Tehillim says of Psalm 2:7, “And when the hour comes, the Holy One—blessed be He!—says to them, I must create him a new creation, as it is said, ‘This day have I begotten thee.”’ Of this F. F. Bruce says, “The implication here seems to be that Psalm 2:7 refers to the time when Messiah, after suffering and death, is brought back to the realm of the living” (1964:13, fn. 63). This understanding would agree with Paul’s use of Psalm 2:7 in Acts 13:33 and clearly the word today refers to the resurrection of Jesus rather than the day of his birth in Bethlehem, or of his baptism in the Jordan.

The second source of support from the Old Testament draws on 2 Samuel 7:14. Historically the words “I will be his father, and he will be my Son” were spoken to David concerning Solomon when the prophet Nathan told David that Solomon will build a house for God in Jerusalem. There is, however, a hint that David’s power would extend to his progeny, which would also include the Messiah. The prophets in later times spoke often of a greater son of David who would fulfill all the promises to David of an eternal reign. Bruce quotes from the Dead Sea Scrolls where 2 Samuel 7:14 is linked with an expectation of the imminent restoration of David’s house by the “shoot of David,” the Messiah (1964:14). Note again how the human nature of the Lord is underscored by his title Son of David. As the risen Man, he claims the throne of David, but as such the Father calls him “my Son.” By these two quotations, with their royal implications, the writer of Hebrews claims that being related to God as a Son is a far greater title than any angel could claim. This rests on the base of a shared eternity and a resurrection, which is the “new creation.”

Similarly, Bruce Barton notes in the Life Application Bible Commentary on Hebrews³:

For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, “I will be his Father, and he will be my Son”? NIV Beginning here in 1:5 and continuing through 1:13, the writer strings together seven quotations from the Old Testament: (1) Psalm 2:7, (2) 2 Samuel 7:14, (3) Deuteronomy 32:43 (v. 6), (4) Psalm 104:4 (v. 7), (5) Psalm 45:6–7 (vv. 8–9), (6) Psalm 102:25–27 (vv. 10–12), (7) Psalm 110:1 (v. 13). All but two are found in the Greek Psalter, the hymnbook of the synagogue and early church. The writer introduces two quotations from the Psalms by asking the rhetorical question, For to which of the angels did God ever say…. The answer is, of course, he never said this to any angel. The first quote, You are my Son; today I have become your Father, comes from a coronation psalm. Psalm 2:7 was also quoted at Jesus’ baptism (Mark 1:11) and transfiguration (Mark 9:7), as well as in 2 Peter 1:17. The psalm was originally sung at the crowning of a new king (perhaps originally of David or Solomon). This psalm was used for centuries of Jewish history as a song of worship. Jewish rabbis attached a deeper meaning to the song—one that looked forward to the coming Messiah. Because the Messiah fulfilled the promises of the Old Testament, the writer understands that these Old Testament verses apply to Christ. The present tense, “you are” (ei su), describes a continuing relationship. Jesus did not become God’s Son but was always God’s Son. The Father acknowledged him as his Son in a special way when Jesus was enthroned on high. The Bible calls angels “sons of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1), but not the Son of God. No angel or person other than Christ could ever receive that honor. There are two common interpretations for the word “today”: Either it could refer to Christ’s glorification (he has been elevated, honored, and seated at the right hand of God), or this honor was based on Jesus’ death and resurrection. The first choice is preferable because it continues the thought that Jesus is at the right hand of the Father. God spoke the words, I will be his Father, and he will be my Son, to David with respect to Solomon (2 Samuel 7:14; 1 Chronicles 17:13). Although Solomon fulfilled these words, Hebrews illustrates that Christ ultimately and completely fulfilled them. In John 7:42, the religious leaders discussed Jesus’ authority, and they alluded to this passage in Samuel, which said that the Messiah must come from David’s family. The titles of “Father” and “Son” reveal a distinction between these two members of the Godhead. They also reveal the unique relationship of the Son to the Father. Although a unity exists in the Trinity, a distinction between the members exists, too. The question implies that no angel can claim such a relationship.

Conclusion

This day, as it is used in the New Testament refers to the time of the Roman Empire and specifically to Christ's resurrection. It is connected to Jesus being called God's son because Jesus is established as Heir to the throne of David and "begets" the birthright of the "Eternal Reign" promised to David, Solomon and his Heirs by the Prophet Nathan in the Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7:14 and by later prophets. Referencing Psalm 2, a psalm used during coronation ceremonies is intended to signify Jesus coronation as "King of Kings".

It is a basis for the claim of being "begotten" in the Athenasian and Nicene Creeds along with a body of other passages.

---

¹Arndt, William ; Danker, Frederick W. ; Bauer, Walter: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 2000

² Stedman, Ray C.: Hebrews. Downers Grove, Ill., U.S.A. : InterVarsity Press, 1992 (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series), S. Heb 1:6

³ Barton, Bruce B. ; Veerman, David ; Taylor, Linda Chaffee ; Comfort, Philip Wesley: Hebrews. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale House Publishers, 1997 (Life Application Bible Commentary), S. 8

Answer 2

Virgin Birth?

"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (ὢν: being) as (ὡς: as, just as) was supposed (ἐνομίζετο: was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" Luke 3:23

First, I think it's important to know who Yeshua's biological father was. According to trinitarian doctrine, Joseph is not the biological father of Yeshua because his father is the first person of the triune god- "God the Father". Yeshua calls his God "the Father" several times in the gospels, so this is understandable.

The idea that Yeshua was not a real man that became the son of God is introduced to us in the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke.

"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." Matthew 1:18

"And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Luke 1:35

Now we have three potential fathers of Yeshua: "the first person of the triune god- God the Father", "the third person of the triune god- God the Holy Spirit", and Joseph.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there was a very early sect called the Ebionites (Heb. The Poor Ones):

The doctrines of this sect are said by Irenaeus to be like those of Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They denied the Divinity and the virginal birth of Christ; they clung to the observance of the Jewish Law; they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew (Adv. Haer., I, xxvi, 2; III, xxi, 2; IV, xxxiii, 4; V, i, 3).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm

The Ebionites used what is called the "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". This is believed to be the original story that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew language. Although the Hebrew Gospel is lost, the "early church fathers" speak of it quite frequently. The Ebionites denied the virgin birth, and if they used Mark or John this would make sense; but they only used Matthew. Epiphanius wrote that the Ebionites copy of Matthew says:

"And the beginning of their Gospel runs: It came to pass in the days of Herod the king of Judaea, when Caiaphas was high priest, that there came one, John by name, and baptized with the baptism of repentance in the river Jordan. It was said of him that he was of the lineage of Aaron the priest, a son of Zacharias and Elisabeth : and all went out to him." (Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.6)

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/gospelebionites-panarion.html

Besides the facts that there are no historical records of a mass slaughtering of children, Matthew and Luke's virgin stories have no resemblance, and it is not mentioned again by anyone in any of the gospels or epistles, this is further evidence that Matthew knew nothing of a virgin birth.

Concerning Luke, a quick Google search of "the oldest copy of Luke" will bring you to Papyrus 75. This manuscript is considered "corrupted and manipulated" because it is missing the first two chapters.

"This day have I begotten thee"

So if we entertain the idea that Matthew and Luke began their gospel with John the baptist (like Mark and John do), we are left with two possible fathers of Yeshua- Joseph, because he was married to Mary; and God- whom Yeshua calls father.

There are actually two other occurrences of Psalm 2:7 in the gospels. According to Meyer's NT commentary of Matthew 3:17:

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews the words of the voice ran, according to Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. 13 : σύ μου εἶ ὁ υἱὸς ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα· καὶ (and) πάλιν (again) ἐγὼ (I) σήμερον (this day) γεγέννηκά (have begotten) σε (you). So also substantially in Justin, c. Tr. 88. Manifestly an addition from later tradition, which had become current from the well-known passage in Psalms 2. Nevertheless, Hilgenfeld regards that form of the heavenly voice as the more original. See on the opposite side, Weisse, Evangelienfrage, p. 190 ff.

The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is quoted by Epiphanius and Justin Martyr as saying "Thou art my son; this day have I begotten thee" at Yeshua's baptism.

According to a footnote in the NET translation of Luke 3:22...

Instead of “You are my one dear Son; in you I take great delight,” one Greek ms and several Latin mss and church fathers (D it Ju [Cl] Meth Hil Aug) quote Ps 2:7 outright with “You are my Son; today I have fathered you.” But the weight of the ms testimony is against this reading.

So it appears Luke's gospel also contained a direct quote of Psalm 2:7. Justin Martyr even attempted to explain why this reading did not promote adoptionism. Here is the quote from Justin:

"He was considered to be the son of Joseph the carpenter; and He appeared without comeliness, as the Scriptures declared; and He was deemed a carpenter (for He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making ploughs and yokes; by which He taught the symbols of righteousness and an active life); but then the Holy Ghost, and for man's sake, as I formerly stated, lighted on Him in the form of a dove, and there came at the same instant from the heavens a voice, which was uttered also by David when he spoke, personating Christ, what the Father would say to Him: 'You are My Son: this day have I begotten You;' [the Father] saying that His generation would take place for men, at the time when they would become acquainted with Him: 'You are My Son; this day have I begotten you.'"

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01286.htm

Firstborn of the Dead

Yeshua is also called "the firstborn of the dead", which has led many to believe that God begat Yeshua through the resurrection. However, Yeshua constantly refers to God as his father long before his death. Therefore, firstborn of the dead cannot mean Yeshua was begotten when God physically raised him from the dead. The Scriptures say:

"See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;

In that I command thee this day to love YHVH thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and YHVH thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it." Deuteronomy 30:15

To believe in YHVH our God, to love Him with all our heart, and to follow his commandments is aionios life. When we hear God's word and believe in Him that sent Yeshua, we cross over from death- to life:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24

When Lazarus died, Yeshua said he would rise again. Martha thinks Yeshua is talking about the resurrection of the dead:

"Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee.

Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again.

Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day.

Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." John 11:21

And again...

"And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.

Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." Luke 9:59

We should not love God because we think He's going to let us "live forever". For Yeshua says:

"Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it." Luke 17:33

We love God because we know His word is true; and we love Him because he first loved us (1 John 4:19). Yeshua is the word of God. Not literally, as though he was a divine Word-Man that came from heaven- but because he followed God's word to perfection. Therefore God chose him to His first-begotten son.

John's Gospel

In John's gospel, he speaks of the "logos", or divine reason for all things. All was made because of this reason, which is to make mankind in the image of God. In John 1:14, he says:

And the reason flesh became and dwelt within (ἐν) us and we beheld the glory of it glory as (ὡς: like) of an only begotten of a father full of grace and truth

There are no definite article before "only-begotten" and "father", so John is not talking about any specific people here. This is a simile. Also, the logos of God did not dwell "among" us, it dwells "within" us, as Yeshua says:

"And ye have not his word (λόγον) abiding in (ἐν) you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not." John 5:38

Yeshua is not the logos, but he came "on behalf of" the logos:

"This is he of (ὑπέρ: on behalf of) whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me." John 1:30

The reason becomes flesh when it dwells within us, because when we believe the reason, we fulfill it. We become the image of God. Whoever believes in the name of YHVH our father and His son Yeshua- to them He gives authority; and children of God we become:

"But as many as received him (it), to them gave he (it) power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name (YHVH: He that Causes to become):

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12

Though Yeshua was born of blood, flesh, and the will of man (just as we all are), he believed in the name of YHVH, so that he was "born from above":

"Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again (ἄνωθεν" from above)." John 3:4

So you see, Yeshua does not say that to be the children of God we must be born of a virgin that God impregnated. John does not say that Yeshua was born of a virgin that God impregnated. We don't have to preexist as some divine spiritual being to be the children of God. Yeshua says:

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." John 17:5

And concerning us he says:

"And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" John 17:22

(Quick note: in Hebrews, the author says:

"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten (μονογενῆ transliteration: monogenes) son" Hebrews 11:17

Issac was not the only-begotton, the "one and only", or even the firsborn son of Abraham. So there is no reason why monogenes should have anything to do with a virgin birth or a preexisting Messiah)

Conclusion:

Yeshua was a man, born of Joseph and Mary. He became the son of God at his baptism, when the spirit of God descended on him as a dove. This is the only day he was begotten of God, because God said:

"Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee"

Thank you.

Answer 3

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten (יְלִדְתִּֽיךָ) thee. (Psalm 2:7 KJV)

The most common meaning of the verb יָלַד is to father or to give birth. There are other uses which do not involve child birth:

Joseph saw Ephraim’s children to the third generation. The children of Machir, the son of Manasseh, were also brought up (יֻלְּד֖וּ) on Joseph’s knees. (Genesis 50:23 NKJV)

And they assembled all the congregation together on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees (וַיִּתְיַֽלְד֥וּ) after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, by their polls. (Numbers 1:18 KJV)

Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth (וְיָ֣לַד) falsehood. (Psalm 7:14 KJV)

God did not give birth to the Messiah as a child is born to a mother or a father. God did bring forth the Messiah:

And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. (Acts 3:15 KJV)

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead… (Acts 4:10 KJV)

This occurred on the Day of First Fruits following the Passover in the year that Jesus the Nazarene was crucified. On that Day the Messiah was brought forth when God raised Jesus from the dead.

In terms of God's Son:

• In the beginning He was with God and He was God (John 1:1-2)
• He emptied Himself and took on the form of a servant being born in the likeness of men. (Philippians 2:6-7) [In doing so He calls His true nature into question: would God really take on human form? Maybe He was not God?]
• He humbles Himself further by dying on the cross. (Philippians 2:8) [Since God cannot be killed, His death on the cross is proof He was never God.]
• He is raised to life! He is and always was God.

Answer 4

It seems to me that the fulfillment of Psalm 2:7: "Thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee" is in reference to the Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ in his resurrection from the dead. The expression to be 'raised from the dead' as it applies to Jesus Christ is what the apostle Peter explained to the Jews on the first Pentecost morning. "God loosed him from the pangs of death, for it was not possible for him to be held by it"

This seems to be a reference to Ps.116:3: "The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell (sheol) got hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow." This is one of the Psalms of Hallel which are read on (Shavuot) Pentecost by the Jewish priests. This same Psalm is quoted in part by the apostle Paul in reference to the resurrection of Jesus Christ: "Since we have the same spirit of faith according to what has been written, “I believed, and so I spoke,” we also believe, and so we also speak, knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence."

So, it seems that in Jesus Christ we have the same Spirit of faith as Jesus Christ. And what exactly is that declaration of faith of which our Lord Jesus Christ spoke? The apostle Peter on that first Pentecost quotes Psalm 16: "Thou will not leave my soul in hades (sheol), neither will thou allow thy Holy One to see corruption" A declaration of the faith and hope of Jesus Christ that God, his Father would neither leave his soul in sheol, nor allow his body to see corruption.

This would explain why Psalm 2:7 is quoted in Hebrews 1:5 with reference to Ps.110:1-4 after Jesus Christ was raised from the dead and having ascended to heaven: The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand,Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.Rule in the midst of Your enemies! Your people shall be volunteers In the day of Your power; In the beauties of holiness, from the womb of the morning, You have the dew of Your youth. The Lord has sworn And will not relent,“You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” Because the verse following Psalm 2:7 is: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."

These verses seem to be what Peter was trying to explain on the day of Pentecost:"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Answer 5

I will try to answer from a Patristic perspective.

Regarding your question, "Was 'this day' some time in eternity past; ie, 'from everlasting'? Or is it referring to a day in history?" as referred to in Psalm 2, I think the answer is yes to both. On the one hand, as Son of God, He is unoriginate. Augustine wrote in his "Discourse on Psalm 2":

It is possible to see the words this day a prophecy of the day on which Jesus Christ was born in His human nature. Yet as the words this day denote the actual present, and as in eternity nothing is past as if it had ceased to be, nor future as if it had not yet come to pass, but all is simply present, since whatever is eternal is ever in being, the words, "Today have I begotten Thee" are to be understood of the divine generation. In this phrase, Orthodox Catholic belief proclaims the eternal generation of the Power and Wisdom of God who is the only-begotten Son (On the Psalms).

Origen, citing the passage you quoted from John, called "today" an "eternal today", focusing on Christ as God being "eternally begotten". Basil the Great expressed a similar opinion in one of his Letters to his brother, Gregory of Nyssa.

On the other hand, as Son of Man, He was born at a specific instant of time. Commenting on one of the verses you chose - Hebrews 1:5 - John Chrysostom (4th c.) wrote "'today'" seems to me to be spoken here with reference to the flesh"

I do not think that the reference to the firstborn of the dead in Revelation 1:5 relates to the other verses above. Athanasius wrote:

He is said to be the 'firstborn of the dead', not that He died before us, for we had died first; but because having undergone death for us and abolished it, He was the first to rise, as man, for our sakes raising His own body. Henceforth, on account of His having risen, we, too, from Him and because of Him, rise in due course from the dead (Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse II, Ch. XXI)

Answer 6

A Begotten Son

To understand this a very clear division must get made between a son and a begotten son.

Jesus defends his claim as the son of God

The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? (John 10:33-36 NASB)

His reference he is using when pointing to "I said, you are gods"

I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. (Psalm 82:6 NASB)

Yet John says "only begotten son", therefore if all are the sons of God, what is making the distinction here as an only begotten son vs. a son of God?

Definition of Begotten
μονογενῆ - 3439 monogenḗs (from 3411 /misthōtós, "one-and-only" and 1085 /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind).

Therefore we can see a contradiction how can "all are sons" reconcile with "one and only son"?

Yet thanks for the Holy Spirit of God, who comes and brings guidance when facing contradictory information. For when translated to English the Holy Spirit chose the word "begotten" which will help divide this into the correct categories.

Begotten a past participle of beget is a compound word of "be" and "get".

The Hebrew word form the old Semitic root "Be" is הוה derived from the combination of the names of God "I am" and "Lord". Therefore using a=c and b=c therefore a=b logic. We can define begotten as "the one that got the Lord".

An interesting fact about the word "got" in Old High German a root language for the English language, Got was the pronunciation for God. Therefore from this perspective Begotten=Lord God.

The Only

We can learn from this word only, it defines of singularity in methodology. In relation to the word Begotten we can decipher that the method was that of the command "Be".

The method may have many instances, however the method remains singular in pattern.

The First Instance

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38 NASB)

Here we see that God's command gave first birth to the "begotten son of God", then in likeness of attribute Adam was formed, also with the ability to speak.

Another Instance

The Lord said to me, ‘They have spoken well. 18 I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. (Deuteronomy 18:17-18 NASB)

Therefore realize when it says "The Lord said" this defines God as the one with the authority to command "Be". This is why we say become, for we petition For God to say his Be.

This Day

Now realize I may say I will do the dishes, and then later at a time I make the command to myself to wash the dishes. Therefore this day = this day. And as it takes time to do the dishes, and that I can do them at my own pace, God also reveals the result of his command at his own choosing.

Conclusion

Begotten or Begetting shows methodology instead of instantiation. God's method he may command at his own timing and as often as he wishes, as in similarity to mankind speaking at any time of choosing. The phrase "this day" refers to a moment of instantiation and declares the day that says "this day". As similar to a function call the argument value of the current day passes to the function as "this".