No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Psalm 2:7 and the concept of περιχώρησις
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 April 2014
Abstract
This article takes as its springboard the well-known text of Psalm 2:7, in which the Psalmist – presumably David, king of Israel – refers to himself as a ‘begotten’ son of God by virtue of his Lord's decree. The article first explores various linguistic and theological options as to the identity of the ‘son’ to whom the passage refers; and analyses the relationship between that son and the one who is stated to have begotten him. In this context, the article addresses ways in which the passage more generally sheds light on the relationship between God and Israel, including through analysis of a number of fluctuating usages of singular and plural terms in the Old Testament to describe that relationship. Second, and against that background, the article examines texts in the New Testament which quote or refer to Psalm 2:7 to see whether they provide a better understanding of the nature of the relationship between the father and the son described in the Psalm; and further to see whether any enhanced understanding of that relationship reciprocally sheds light on the relationship of God the Father to God the Son as revealed in the New Testament. The article then seeks to determine whether these passages, taken as a whole, provide explicit, implicit, or proto-Trinitarian concepts in anticipation of those given fuller expression in orthodox Church doctrine. Finally, the article explores the concept of circumincession, or coinherence, John of Damascus’ highly abstracted and nearly poetic effort at the close of the Patristic era to provide an extra-biblical explanation of the relationship between the Father and the Son as well as the relationship among the three members of the Trinity. The article concludes by finding that his attempted articulation, and quite possibly all such efforts, will ultimately fail, leaving intact the mystery of the Trinity as one escaping, or rather surpassing, conceptual analysis.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 2014
References
1 The Hebrew term for ‘anointed’ in Psalm 2:2 is 
, hence ‘Messiah’.
2 Psalm 2:7 (ESV): ‘I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.”’ The Septuagint translation of the verse will become important later: διαγγέλλων τὸ πρόσταγμα κυρίου κύριος εἶπεν πρός με υἱός μου εἶ σύ ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε. There is a possible additional reference to the anointed king in verse 11, sometimes translated as ‘Kiss the Son’ and sometimes as ‘Arm yourselves with purity’. Compare Anon, ‘Objections to 2nd and 22nd Psalm’, available at http://www.truthnet.org/TheMessiah/12_Messiah_Objections_Psalms_2_22/ with Anon, ‘The Son of God’, available at http://www.shalom.org.uk/library/SonofGod.html.
3 See, e.g., Num 26:53 (using the same Hebrew term 
to describe the 12 Tribes’ allotted portions). David's promised inheritance of all the nations has been called ‘astonishing in its singularity’ in the context of the Old Testament, which otherwise focuses on the inherited land of Mays, Canaan. J., ‘“In a Vision”: The Portrayal of the Messiah in the Psalms,’ Ex Auditu 7 (1991)Google Scholar. See also Hengstenberg, F. W., Christology of the Old Testament (Keith, R., trans.) (Alexandria, D.C.: William M. Morrison, 1836), Vol. I, p. 81Google Scholar.
4 A complete discussion of ‘sonship’ in the Bible is beyond the scope of this article. For a number of possible approaches, however, see, e.g., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds), Vol. VIII, pp. 334 ff. (υἱός) (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972) (TDNT).
5 Idem., p. 347; see also Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1961), Part I, pp. 291–95Google Scholar; Moore, G.F., Judaism (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1997) (reprinted ed.), Vol. II, pp. 202 ffGoogle Scholar.
6 Gesenius, W., A Hebrew-English Lexicon (28th ed.) (Cambridge: The Riverside Press, 1888)Google Scholar (Gesenius), s.v. 
.
7 Liddell, H.G., Scott, R. and Jones, H.S., A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.) (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1940)Google Scholar (LS&J), s.v. γεννάω; Bauer, W., Arndt, W.F., Gingrich, F.W. and Danker, F.W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (3rd ed.) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)Google Scholar (BAGD), s.v. γεννάω. Whether such engendering is strictly causal, and whether there is a necessary time element involved (i.e., a time when the begotten one did not exist), remains unclear in these lexical materials.
8 See Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed.) (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1989) (OED), s.v. ‘begotten’ (citing sources referring to natural procreation).
9 Idem. (citing as its earliest appearance Wyclif's translation of John 1:14: ‘the glorie as of the oon bigetun of the fadir’).
10 Psalm 89:26 (NIV). While the ESV translates the latter part of the verse as ‘the rock of my salvation’, the NIV brings out more of a messianic reference in the verse to Jesus with its non-genitival translation of the Hebrew word 
.
11 See Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 6, s.v. ‘Son of God’, pp. 128–29 (New York: Doubleday, 1992). Hence the alternative meaning of 
, ‘to appoint’, may add a nuance to our understanding, but standing alone seems inadequate to convey the full sense of the father/son relationship described in Psalm 2:7.
12 E.g., Exod 4:22; Jer 31:9.
13 E.g., Deut 32:6; Jer 3:4.
14 E.g., Deut 14:1; 32:5; Psalm 103:13.
15 TDNT, p. 352, citing Deut 32:5–6 and 18–19.
16 Deut 32:18.
17 Gesenius, s.v. 
. The LXX similarly uses words from the same Greek verb γεννάω: γεννήσαντά, in Deut 32:18 and γεγέννηκά, in Psalm 2:7.
18 This may have implications for a New Testament understanding of the relationships between Christ and the Church on the one hand and between Christ and individual believers on the other. Stated very broadly, to the extent that the former is over-emphasised, personal faith and piety may suffer; while to the extent that the latter is over-emphasised, corporate order, discipline and worship may suffer.
19 Johnson, A.R., The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God (2nd ed.) (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1961), p. 7Google Scholar.
20 Num 21:4 (KJV). The Hebrew uses the singular form, 
.
21 2 Sam 19:14 (ESV). Again the Hebrew uses the singular form, 
for ‘heart’.
22 ‘One man’ is 
, using the Hebrew word 
to express such unity.
23 See Bray, G., The Doctrine of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), p. 140Google Scholar.
24 The arguments of some of the early Church Fathers to the effect that theophanies such as that in Genesis 18 are in fact revelations of God's Trinitarian nature are therefore also unpersuasive. Idem.; see also Wainwright, A.W., The Trinity in the New Testament (London: S.P.C.K., 1962), p. 18Google Scholar. Imputing such status runs the risk of confusing the messengers with the one who sent them. See Miller, P. Jr., ‘A Strange Kind of Monotheism’, Theology Today 54 (2004), p. 295Google Scholar.
25 While it is occasionally suggested that the plural in these contexts is simply a form of the ‘royal we’, that explanation does not appear to hold up as a grammatical matter. See Johnson, op. cit., p. 32 n.1 (citing Gesenius). Among other things, a singular verb is not invariably used with Elohim, see, e.g., Gen. 20:13 (‘God caused me to wander. . .’) (
), 35:7 (‘God appeared to him. . .’) (
); and plural adjectives are at times used to describe him, see, e.g., Deut 4:7 (‘God is near. . .’) (
) and Joshua 24:19 (‘God is holy. . .’) (
). Again, the point is not to establish ‘unity’ over and against ‘singularity,’ but rather to show that both are found, even in the same context. For example, in the Joshua 24:19 passage cited above, immediately following the use of the plural ‘Elohim is holy’, Joshua states in the singular that ‘He is a jealous El’ (
).
26 See generally Huntress, E., ‘“Son of God” in Jewish Writings Prior to the Christian Era’, J. of Biblical Lit. 54 (1935), p. 117CrossRefGoogle Scholar, citing inter alia Wisdom 2:16 and 5:4–5 as a 1st century B.C. illustration; see also TDNT, pp. 360–61 (noting that the term ‘Son of God’ was used with reference to Messianic promises such as those in Psalm 2:7, but was not a general synonym for Messiah); Moore, op. cit., pp. 323 ff. (examining the expressions ‘son of David’ and ‘son of man’ in pre-Christian era); but cf. Wainwright, op. cit., p. 174 (expressing the view that ‘there is no sure evidence of the identification [of the Messiah as the “Son of God”] before the time of Christ’).
27 Thus, Psalm 2:7 in the LXX reads in relevant part υἱός μου εἶ σύ, while Mark 1:11 reads Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου and Luke 3:22 reads σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός. And one would expect some reordering in shifting from the indirect grammar of the Psalm to the direct speech in the Gospels.
28 Gen. 22:2 (ESV). As noted, the relevant words in the LXX are: τὸν υἱόν σου τὸν ἀγαπητόν.
29 Matthew 17:5 (ESV) (οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός); Mark 9:7 (ESV) (Οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός); 2 Pet 1:17 (ESV) (ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἁγαπητός μου οὖτος ἐστιν). Again, the further reference to Abraham's proferred sacrifice on Mount Moriah is unmistakable.
30 See Henstenberg, op. cit., p. 78.
31 See, e.g., TDNT, p. 350.
32 Heb 1:5. The writer's quotation from the LXX is exact – Υἱός μου εἶ σύ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε – thus supporting the view that it was the Greek and not the Hebrew OT text with which the early Church was most familiar. Jesus similarly quotes the Sh’ma precisely from the LXX in Mark 12:29 when he is asked to name the first and greatest commandment.
33 Heb 5:5 (KJV). The quotation from the LXX for Psalm 2:7 is exact and thus it is difficult to impute the nuance of ‘appointment’ found in the Hebrew into the Greek word γεννάω, which otherwise is not defined to include that meaning. Nevertheless, the context plainly suggests that the appointment arises out of the Son's status as begotten, thus combining the two thoughts.
34 Heb 5:6 (KJV). Again, the quotation from the LXX is exact: σὺ εἶ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ.
35 Heb 7:3 (ESV) (emphasis added).
36 See also Hengstenberg, op. cit., p. 78 (‘The word 
, day, has been taken as the designation of eternity, in which there is neither past nor future, and which may therefore most fitly be expressed by an image of the present.’).
37 These several occurrences have led to a debate whether the Apostles only viewed Jesus as a man who was ‘adopted’ as God's Son at one or another point in time or as otherwise ‘subordinate’. For a rejection of this view, see generally Wainwright, op. cit., pp. 181–95.
38 Also known as John Damascene; additionally as a Saint of the Catholic Church, with a Feast Day on December 4. For background, see generally Louth, A., St John Damascene: Tradition and Originality in Byzantine Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 It is of course beyond the scope of this article to address the continuing acrimony between the Eastern and Western Church over the addition of the word filioque to the Chalcedonian Decree.
40 Such questions arguably shifted the Church's focus and thinking away from what seems to be its initial focus on the immanent and experiential relationship, mystery though it might be, between an individual believer and God the Father, mediated by the Son and enabled by the Holy Spirit, to contemplation of the internal, or ‘economic,’ relations among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is not to suggest that the early Fathers were unaware of a risk of losing the Church's initial focus. It was indeed perhaps precisely to justify and maintain the individual believer's relationship with God that Augustine stressed a love relationship inhering among the members of the Trinity with that same love being manifested to Christians in the person of Jesus. See generally Bray, op. cit.
41 See generally Hardy, E.R. (ed.), Christology of the Later Fathers (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006)Google Scholar. This so-called ‘Cappadocian Settlement’ is formulated in shorthand as ‘one ousia and three hypostases’. See Prestige, G.L., God in Patristic Thought (London: S.P.C.K., 1959), pp. 233Google Scholar ff. (distinguishing this view from the ‘Latin view, according to which God is one Object and three Subjects (una substantia, tres personae)’.); see also Anatolios, K., Retrieving Nicaea (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), pp. 212–35Google Scholar; Leinhard, J.T., ‘Ousia and Hypostasis: The Cappadocian Settlement and the Theology of “One Hypostasis”’, in The Trinity: an Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity (David, S.T., Kendall, D., O’Collins, G., eds) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 99–100Google Scholar; Muller, R.A., Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1985)Google Scholar, s.v. Trinitas; Berkhof, L., The History of Christian Doctrines (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1975), pp. 89–90Google Scholar.
42 ‘An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith’, in Saint John of Damascus: Writings (F.H. Chase, trans.) (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1958), p. 165. It is relevant to this study that the description of Jesus in this verse as only-begotten is the same as in John 1:14: μονογενής.
43 Idem.
44 Idem., p. 167.
45 Idem. (emphasis added).
46 Chase, op. cit., p. 178 (emphasis added).
47 Idem., pp. 178–79.
48 Idem., p. 178 (emphasis added).
49 Idem., p. 179.
50 Idem., pp. 179–80. See also Louth, A., St. John Damascene (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 111CrossRefGoogle Scholar (noting John's dependence on Basil of Caesarea for this line of reasoning). To the extent this reflects a general theory of knowledge, it is consistent with Eccl 3:11 (KJV): ‘[H]e hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end’; and with 1 Cor 13:9 (KJV): ‘For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.’
51 Chase, op. cit., pp. 182–83.
52 Chase, op. cit., p. 181. The fire and light image seems to me somewhat confusing, but John freely admits, as noted, that ‘it is impossible to find in creation any image which exactly portrays the manner of the Holy Trinity in Itself’. Idem., p. 183. Indeed, that is in many respects his point.
53 Idem., p. 184 (i.e., ‘the being unbegotten, the begetting, and the procession’).
54 John's language sometimes fails him in explaining what is ‘compound’ and what is not. Thus John argues that ‘Christ has a compound nature’, by which he means that Christ is a ‘composite Person’ in which the two natures – human and divine – preserve their essential differences intact; yet at the same time he denies that the natures are ‘compound[ed]’ in the sense used by Eutyches and other monophysites, whereby the natures are ‘mixed[ed]’ or ‘blend[ed]’. Idem., pp. 275, 282.
55 Idem., p. 185.
56 Idem., p. 186. See the explanation of what is therefore a ‘mind/body’ distinction in John's writings in Louth, op. cit., p. 12 (‘In created reality, individual hypostases are just that: individual units separated from one another in reality. Any communion, any union with one another, is [therefore] perceived only conceptually’.) (emphasis added).
57 Chase, op. cit., p. 186. Again, this ‘manner of existing’ is ‘begetting’, ‘being begotten’ and ‘proceeding’. See also Bray, op. cit., p. 159.
58 Chase, op. cit., p. 187 (emphasis added) (quoting John 14:11).
59 Idem.
60 Idem. (emphasis added).
61 ‘Circumincession’ is from the Latin circumincessio, itself a translation of the original Greek περιχώρησις, a term rendered in English either as circumincession or ‘coinherence’.
62 Neither, however, used the term in a Trinitarian context. Prestige, op. cit., p. 291.
63 G.W. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1961), s.v. περιχώρησις. The noun form has the same essential meanings: reciprocity and interpenetration. Idem. The word does, at the same time, resonate with the sense of reciprocity that may be inferred from Jesus’ use of ἐν in John 14:11 to refer both to the Father and to the Son: ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί.
64 See Volf, M., After Our Likeness (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 209Google Scholar (emphasis in original). It has been suggested that such confusion of persons may be avoided by focusing instead on the ‘inseparable operations’ of the members of the Trinity, such that ‘whatever action is performed by [the Trinity] must be thought to be performed at the same time by the Father and by the Son and by the Holy Spirit. . .’. B.A. Strawn, And These Three Are One: A Trinitarian Critique of Christological Approaches to the Old Testament, Perspectives in Religious Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2 (2004), p. 203 (quoting from Augustine, Epistle 11.2). While certainly all three members of the Trinity are involved, for example, in the work of redemption, only Jesus was crucified; and it is unclear whether the concept of ‘inseparable operations’ adds anything further to our basic understanding of what otherwise appear in the scriptures to be separable tasks. See, e.g., Williams, D.T., ‘The Spirit in Creation,’ Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 67, Issue 1 (Feb 2014), 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
65 See W.P. Alston, ‘Substance and the Trinity’ in The Trinity: an Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, op. cit., pp. 183–84. John was fully aware of such risks and therefore argues against both Sabellius and Arius.
66 In fairness, however, it must be pointed out that the genius of Greek Patristic thought, crystallised by John of Damascus, may well have been precisely to remove the doctrine of the Trinity from the realm of particulars. Prestige, op. cit., p. 236. Prestige therefore concludes that the doctrine is ‘a monument of inspired Christian rationalism’. Idem., p. 299. And cf. Ginsberg, A., “Wales Visitation,” Planet News (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1968), p. 142Google Scholar (‘What did I notice? Particulars! The vision of the great One is myriad – ’).
67 Gal 4:6 (KJV).
68 Bruce, F.F., The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1970), p. 112Google Scholar: ‘The mutual coinherence of God and His children is the Spirit's work, as is also the outflowing of the love of God through them to others’.
69 See, e.g., Romans 12:2; I Cor 2:16; Eph 4:13–16.