Acts 13:33

Because God fulfilled this promise to your children by raising Jesus, as it is written in the second psalm: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." It should not be thought that this example from the psalm pertains to the resurrection of Christ, …

"Raising up Jesus, as it is also written in the second psalm." The holy Father Hilary thus remembers this place: "But what is now in the psalm: 'You are my Son; today I have begotten you' (Psalm II), does not pertain to the birth from …

"Unto us their children, raising up Jesus." The name "Jesus" the brothers of the God-slayers take as the name of a man. Having said above that the Word was laid in the tomb, Paul — lest anyone think that he called the Word incorporeal — …

God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children,....

The preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles at their request, and upon the Jews' refusal of it, wherein the apostles justified themselves against the displeasure which the Jews conceived at it, and God owned them,

(Such declarative meaning of the verb "to be" is familiar to every reader of the Bible). See Joh 15:8, "So shall ye be," that is, be seen to be "My disciples." It is against the whole sense of the New Testament to ascribe the origin of Christ's Sonship to His resurrection.

Written in the second Psalm - Instead of τῳ ψαλμῳ τῳ δευτερῳ the second Psalm, πρωτῳ ψαλμῳ, the first Psalm, is the reading of D, and its Itala version, and several of the primitive fathers. Griesbach has received it into the text; but not, in my opinion, on sufficient evidence. The reason of these various readings is sufficiently evident to those who are acquainted with Hebrew MSS. In many of these, two Psalms are often written as one; and the first and second Psalms are written as one in seven of Kennicott’s and De Rossi’s MSS. Those who possessed such MSS. would say, as it is written in the First Psalm; those who referred to MSS. where the two Psalms were separate, would say, in the Second Psalm, as they would find the quotation in question in the first verse of the second Psalm. There is, therefore, neither contradiction nor difficulty here; and it is no matter which reading we prefer, as it depends on the simple circumstance, whether we consider these two Psalms as parts of one and the same, or whether we consider them as two distinct Psalms. Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee - It has been disputed whether this text should be understood of the incarnation or of the resurrection of our Lord. If understood of his incarnation, it can mean no more than this, that the human nature of our blessed Lord was begotten by the energy of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the blessed virgin; for as to his Divine nature, which is allotted to be God, it could neither be created nor begotten. See some reasons offered for this on Luk 1:35 (note); and, if those be deemed insufficient, a thousand more may be added. But in the above reasons it is demonstrated that the doctrine of the eternal Sonship of Christ is absolutely irreconcilable to reason, and contradictory to itself. […]

God hath fulfilled - God has completed or carried into effect by the resurrection of Jesus. He does not say that every part of the promise had reference to his resurrection; but his being raised up completed or perfected the fulfillment of the promises which had been made respecting him. In the second psalm - Act 13:7. Thou art my Son - This psalm has been usually understood as referring to the Messiah. See the notes on Act 4: