Hebrews 1:5 as Fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant

Recently, the guys at Fide-O have posted a very helpful brief outline of the development of the Davidic Covenant throughout the Bible.

I would highly recommend that anyone reading this post who happened to read my recent thoughts concerning Hebrews 1:5a/Psalm 2:7 also study the Fide-O post linked above. As Scripture’s main purpose is soteriological- that is, through Scripture alone sinners have a right knowledge of God and our means of a right relationship with Him- and as God has established the covenants, which are all fulfilled in Christ, as the way for sinners to be restored to blessed fellowship with Him- it is absolutely crucial that verses such as Hebrews 1:5a/Psalm 2:7 be understood in their covenantal context. I would like to especially direct readers' attention to the place of Hebrews 1:5 in Fide-O's outline of the Davidic Covenant, which is under point 11, "The Davidic Covenant Fulfilled."

As an additional note: It has recently come to my attention that at least one blogger has grossly misunderstood my previously-posted thoughts concerning Hebrews 1:5a/Psalm 2:7. This may very well be due to a lack of clarity on my part, and if so I apologize. The blogger just mentioned wrote the following in response to my post:

[N]either the incarnation nor the resurrection constitutes the Sonship of Christ, but are simply manifestations of His Eternal Sonship.

A. H. Strong more appropriately expresses the essence of Psalms 2:7, which is the view most frequently found in orthodox theologians and commentators. Strong's work on systematic theology has an impressive presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity (Vol. I, part iv, chapter 2). On pages 340-343, he expounds the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ. In this section, Strong says --

>>
That the Sonship of Christ is eternal, is intimated in Psalm 2:7. "This day have I begotten thee" is most naturally interpreted as the declaration of an eternal fact in the divine nature. Neither the incarnation, the baptism, the transfiguration, nor the resurrection marks the beginning of Christ's Sonship, or constitutes him Son of God. These are but recognitions or manifestations of a pre-existing Sonship, inseparable from his Godhood.
>>

Therefore, Psalms 2:7 can be said to be "related" to both the incarnation and the resurrection only in the sense of their being "declarations," "recognitions," or "manifestations" of the "pre-existing Sonship."

I would like to say that, on the whole, I agree with everything in the quote just given. It was never my intention to say that Lord became the Son of God with His resurrection or when He "sat down at the right hand of the majesty on high." My only point was to say that in its context the "manifestation" of Christ's "pre-existing Sonship" foretold in Psalm 2:7 and seen as fulfilled in Christ by passages such as Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5 is, in these verses, specifically related to Christ's resurrection and enthronement at the right hand of God, rather than (again, within these specific contexts) His incarnation.

Just for the record, my views on the Trinity can be summarized by the following statement from Reformed Baptist apologist James White, author of The Forgotten Trinity, who once said, "Within the one being that is God, there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal Persons, namely, the Father the Son, and the Holy Spirit." A fuller statement of what I believe concerning the Trinity can be found in chapter 2 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession.