We want to hear God right. We love God and know that he has spoken in Scripture. Therefore, we read Scripture and try to get better at reading it, understanding its message as intended. The best way to learn how to read Scripture is from the authors of Scripture themselves.
This short essay focuses on hearing God rightly in Hebrews 1:5. Recently, Matthew Bates and Madison Pierce have argued for prosopological exegesis—that the writer of Hebrews perceived divine conversations in eternity between God the Father and God the Son in some of the Old Testament texts cited in Hebrews.[1] In the end, I don’t think they are right. However, I do believe that the writer of Hebrews wants us to see connections in Scripture that help to explain who the Son is, and that as we see these connections, we’ll hear God right.
1. Matthew W. Bates, The Birth of the Trinity: Jesus, God, and Spirit in New Testament and Early Christian Interpretations of the Old Testament (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015), 67–71; Madison Pierce N., “Hebrews 1 and the Son Begotten ‘Today,’” in Retrieving Eternal Generation, ed. Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 117–31; Madison N. Pierce, Divine Discourse in the Epistle to the Hebrews: The Recontextualization of Spoken Quotations in Scripture, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 178 (Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 40–46.
God is Speaking in Hebrews
The book of Hebrews frames its use of Scripture as divine speech (e.g. Heb. 1:1–2, 5, 8; 2:12–13; 3:7; 5:5–6; 8:8; etc.). In former times, God spoke through the prophets but “in these last days” he has spoken in his Son (lit “in Son” 1:2). Hebrews 1:5–14 uses several Old Testament quotations to demonstrate the superiority of the Son over the angels (1:4; 2:5) and the need to obey his message (2:1–4).
In Hebrews 1:5, the author quotes Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 as divine speech regarding the Son.
For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son, today I have begotten you”? And again, “I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son”?[2]
2. My translation. I’ve chosen “and” (NASB, NKJV, NET) instead of “or” (ESV, NIV) which I believe better reflects the connective sense of the kai conjunction that connects these two quotations.
In what sense do these verses refer to the Son? Some early Christians interpreters (e.g. Origen, Justin Martyr, Augustine) understood Psalm 2:7 to refer to the eternal Son in this verse.[3] However, many interpreters since the Reformation understood Hebrews 1:5 to refer to Jesus’s humanity, regarding his installation as king-priest at his resurrection and/or ascension (Heb. 1:3; cf. Ps 110:1).[4]
3. See, for example, Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.204 and Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho 88.8, or Augustine’s comments on Psalm 2 in Expositions of the Psalms. For other references, see notes in Sigurd Grindheim, The Letter to the Hebrews, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2023), 110; Bates, Birth of the Trinity, 70–71.
4. For a concise summary of positions see Grindheim, Hebrews, 110–13. Calvin’s commentary on Psalm 2:5–7 is an accessible example.
Recently, Bates and Pierce have argued that the writer of Hebrews believed that these Old Testament texts did not merely apply to the Son but were spoken to the Son in eternity past. By assigning the divine Son as addressee (rather than David or his descendants, for example), the author practiced what some call prosopological exegesis, a special reading strategy used by ancient Greeks, Philo, and later Christian Fathers.
Whether prosopological exegesis occurs in the New Testament is debated, but there is a growing number of adherents.[5] Nonetheless, I think it is best to take some time to understand what prosopological exegesis is and what problems its users were trying to solve.[6] Once we’ve done that, we’ll be better equipped to understand Bates and Pierce and why better solutions lie elsewhere.
5. Several have found the claim for prosopological exegesis in the New Testament problematic and unlikely. For critiques on prosopological exegesis, see Peter J. Gentry, “A Preliminary Evaluation and Critique of Prosopological Exegesis,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 23, no. 2 (2019): 105–22; William James Dernell, “Typology, Christology and Prosopological Exegesis: Implicit Narratives in Christological Texts,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 24, no. 1 (2020): 137–61; David Stephen Schrock, “Reading the Psalms with the Church: A Critical Evaluation of Prosopological Exegesis in Light of Church History,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 25, no. 3 (2021): 77–96; Peter J. Gentry, “Psalm 110:3 and Retrieval Theology,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 25, no. 3 (2021): 149–68; James M. Hamilton, Typology: Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns: How Old Testament Expectations Are Fulfilled in Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2022), 144–46.
6. Theologians recognizing prosopological exegesis as valid include Fred Sanders, The Triune God, New Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 226–31; Craig A. Carter, Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 191–224; J. V. Fesko, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption (Great Britain: Mentor, 2016), 95–106 (cited in Gentry “Psalm 110:3”, n7); Scott R. Swain, The Trinity: An Introduction (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 41–43, 78; Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, and Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2021), 194–96.
Ambiguity in Scripture and Prosopological Exegesis
While reading any text, there are times when the one spoken to, spoken of, or speaking can be unclear. As Bates explains, this was true in the ancient Greek theater, where sometimes it was unclear which character was speaking in the dialogue, leaving the actors to decide.[7] Similarly, there are times in Scripture where characters or dialogue are ambiguous. A prophetic text may outline a figure but not fully define it. Who is David’s “Lord”, for example, in Psalm 110 (cf. Mark 12:35–37)? Or who is Isaiah’s Servant (cf. Isa. 42:19; 44:21; 49:3; 49:5)? At other points—particularly in the Psalms and prophets—unmarked shifts in dialogue leave the speaker or addressee unclear (e.g., Isaiah 50:1–11; Hosea 9:1–17, Ps. 2:4–12, etc).[8] Such ambiguities are not uncommon in Scripture, and when confronted with them, readers search for a conclusion based on the cast of characters presented in the context. Broadly speaking, students of the Bible are rightly looking for a person who fits the text: a solution-by-person. In this respect, identifying those spoken to, spoken of, or speaking is a part of basic reading and exegesis.
But some in the early church practiced solution-by-person in a distinct way, “hearing” members of the Trinity or even the church in Old Testament dialogue.[9] This reading strategy has been called prosopological exegesis (prosōpon [πρόσωπον], “face”/“person”) and was often used when discussing the persons of the Trinity when using the Old Testament.[10] An Old Testament prophet, it was supposed, could slip into a role of Father, the Son, or others—similar to an actor putting on a mask in the ancient theater—and speak from an event in the past, present, or future (in Bates’s terminology, the theodrama). Prosopological exegesis emphasized a particular kind of unity between the New and Old Testaments, as well as the Son’s preexistence. It is this kind of interpretation that Bates and Pierce believe occurs in Hebrews 1:5, and to that analysis we now turn.
7. See Matthew W. Bates, The Hermeneutics of the Apostolic Proclamation: The Center of Paul’s Method of Scriptural Interpretation (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012), 192–94.
8. In Isaiah 50:1–3, for example, YHWH speaks to rebellious Israel, it would seem, but then shifts to another person speaking of YHWH in the third person (Isa. 50:10–11). Assumedly, this is the speech of the servant (Isa. 50:10)? In Hosea 9, the prophet’s indictment of Israel (Hos. 9:1–9) shifts suddenly to the first-person speech of YHWH (Hos. 9:10–17), then to addressing YHWH in the second person (Hos. 9:14), returns to the first-person (Hos. 9:15–16), and then, remaining in first person, speaks of God in the third person (Hos. 9:17).
9. The notion of what was “ambiguous” varied, as did the speakers assigned. See Justin Martyr’s (c100–160s AD) description in 1 Apology 36:1–2 and Augustine’s striking interpretation of Psalm 3.
10. The most accessible introductions for New Testament proposals can be found in Bates, Birth of the Trinity, 28–36; Pierce, Divine Discourse, 2020, 3–22. For more robust explanation, see Bates, Hermeneutics, 183–221.
Hearing God in Hebrews 1:5
Pierce contends that the author of Hebrews saw ambiguities in the dialogue of Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 and struggled to see how the title “son” in these texts could apply to a mere human king. As such, Pierce assigned the divine Son as the addressee—the one being spoken to.[11] As Pierce and Bates explain, this speech happened in eternity past—an eternal “today”—since Psalm 2:7 uses the past tense (“The Lord said to me”). As Jesus is described as eternal in the letter (Heb. 13:8) and uses the word “today” metaphorically (e.g. Heb. 3–4, 3:13, 13:8), this reading becomes more plausible and supports the doctrine of eternal generation.[12] We hear the Son’s words before the dawn of time, or so the argument goes.
Looking to Psalm 2:7, the dialogue does require some kind of solution-by-person. Before verse seven, the “I” is clearly YHWH (Ps. 2:4–5), but in verse seven, the “I” tells of what YHWH declared to him (Ps. 2:7–9).[13] Who, then, is the “I” of 2:7? The prosopological reading expressed above suggests that the psalmist took on the role of the divine Son and presented his direct speech; the words do not belong to a human figure from the time the text was written.
11. Pierce, “Hebrews 1,” 126–27.
12. Eternal generation is an orthodox doctrine which refers to distinctions between the Father and Son in the Godhead (cf. John 1:18; 5:26, Col 1:15). The Father is unbegotten, the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds. Together, these are called eternal relations of origin. Regarding eternal generation in Hebrews 1:5 see Pierce, “Hebrews 1,” 127–31. See also Bates, Birth of the Trinity, 62–71.
13. The Greek version of Psalm 2 seems to shift the person one verse earlier by using a passive verb “I was appointed king by him,” rather than “I have installed him” as in the Hebrew MT (though cf. tsk סכך (II) in HALOT, which suggests a Niphal pointing for Ps. 2:7). This point, however, does not significantly impact the present argument.
While a prosopological explanation seems possible at first, it is ultimately unconvincing for many reasons. First, it is unlikely that the author would conclude that a normal human could not be a “son of God” given his texts and the development of “sonship” under YHWH in the Old Testament (more below).[14] Secondly, a prosopological exegesis reading of 2 Samuel 7:14 seems problematic, as the speaker(s) and addressee are clear (YHWH through Nathan to David) and the remainder of the verse (“when he disobeys…”) doesn’t fit the obedient Son (cf. Heb. 5:8. Did the author of Hebrews believe that God stopped speaking to the Son mid-speech? Thirdly, regarding the larger argument of Hebrews 1, it seems obvious that the divine Son is superior to angels. The author does emphasize the Son’s divinity at points (e.g. Heb. 1:2–3, 10–12), but does a sole focus on the divine Son make best sense of the argument (esp. Heb. 1:3–4, 13)?
It is more likely that the author of Hebrews was putting his Old Testament together, reflecting on the nature of Davidic sonship. The author of Hebrews pairs Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 together tightly (“and again”), suggesting that they inform one another. Second Samuel 7:14, near the heart of YHWH’s promise to David of an unending royal line (2 Sam. 7:4–17), cements a Father-son relationship between YHWH and David’s offspring. The important point is that this event creates a two-fold sonship for the Davidic heir. On the one hand, he is a son of David, a biological descendant (e.g. Rom. 1:3). On the other hand, he is a son of YHWH—a son of God— representing Israel, which was also YHWH’s “son” (Exod. 4:22–23; Hos. 11:1; cf. Matt. 2:15).[15] Psalm 2, acknowledged in Acts 4:25 to have David as its author, reinforces this “son” language in line with YHWH’s promise.[16] As a Davidic son is anointed (installed) as king, he fulfills the role of God’s son.[17] It is this role that Jesus ultimately fulfilled as the anointed, everlasting, Davidic king-priest (e.g. Heb. 7:16; cf. Psalm 110).
14. Pierce does reflect on the use of “sons of God” regarding the angels in the Old Testament, which fits the argument of the first section of Hebrews, but still misses the depth of development of sonship regarding Israel and David. See Madison Pierce N., Divine Discourse in The Epistle to The Hebrews: An Encounter with a God Who Speaks (Dissertation, Durham, 2018), 43–44.
15. For further exposition on sonship in the Old Testament, see Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 455–58, 669–70, and notes on 920.
16. Note that the word for “anointed” in the Greek Psalm 2:2 is christos (Christ, Messiah).
17. See also R. B. Jamieson, The Paradox of Sonship: Christology in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2021), 112.
This understanding better explains the relationship between Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14, both within Hebrews and canonically. It illuminates the logic of how the Son can “inherit” a name, “become” greater than angels, and be “appointed” as heir and priest (Heb. 1:2, 4; 3:2, 5:5; 7:28; cf. Rom 1:3), while still being the divine Son (Heb. 1:2–3; 2:5–9; cf. Luke 1:31–33).
The author of Hebrews invites his readers to hear Psalm 2:7 in light of the Davidic covenant’s twofold human sonship—son of David and son of God—as fulfilled by God the eternal Son who took on flesh (cf. 2:9).[18] The Son as God was always exalted (Heb. 1:10–12), but is now also exalted in his human nature as Christ (e.g. Heb. 1:13).
Pierce finds it unlikely that Jesus became Son at his exaltation.[19] Yet when the Son inherits his “name” (i.e. office, cf. Rom 1:3–4) of sonship at his coronation, it doesn’t mean he wasn’t “Son” in some way beforehand. Indeed, Jesus is the promised son-king from his incarnation forward (Heb. 5:8; cf. Luke 2:9–14). It does mean, however, that he assumes a new aspect of that sonship as the human Messiah, something he did not possess before.
Being that the Son’s post-resurrection installation as the human Christ is in view, “today” is still metaphorical, emphasizing the present age (Heb. 1:2), but not located in eternity past.[20] Though one will find this reading among some of the Fathers, there was not universal agreement.[21]
18. One could expand on this Davidic son/king theme further through the likely allusion to Psalm 89:27 in Heb. 1:6, the use of Psalm 45:6–7 (note the address of the king as “God”!) in Hebrews 1:8–9 and Psalm 110:1 throughout (e.g. Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). For further reflection on the use of the Psalms in Hebrews and their Davidic import, see Schrock, “Reading the Psalms with the Church.”
19. Pierce, Divine Discourse, 2018, 42.
20. The use of “today” elsewhere in the letter is more specified than Pierce suggests. Elsewhere, Hebrews emphasizes the present “today” as the period between “these last days” of the Son (Heb. 1:2; cf. “this present age” in 9:9) and the arrival of the eschatological kingdom (Heb. 12:26–28; cf. 4:1). Therefore, while the use of “today” in 13:8 is indeed emphatic, it is not wholly relativized. See Pierce, Divine Discourse, 2018, 42; Pierce, “Hebrews 1,” 117, 130.
21. As Pierce notes, Augustine (fourth century AD) supported this interpretation in his Exposition of the Psalms. However, Theodore of Mopsuestia, one of his contemporaries, explicitly rejected it (see his commentary on Psalm 2). See also the useful collection of texts in Craig A. Blaising and Carmen S. Hardin, eds., Psalms 1-50, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 13–15.
Hearing God Right
This discussion brings us to an important aspect of hearing God rightly: hearing him as he chose to communicate. In his wisdom, the triune God decided to reveal his word progressively in space and time and through human authors. Through promise and pattern, anticipation and fulfillment, God revealed the divinely authorized categories and terms—Davidic sonship, for example—for understanding what he has spoken and done in Christ (e.g. Heb. 8:5; 9:23; 10:21). The better we understand those categories and how they developed through progressive revelation, the better we hear what God says in Scripture.[22] We want to hear God through all his inspired word, respecting the process he orchestrated to bring it about.
Reflection on the two natures of Christ—God the Son (eternal, divine) and the Son of David (temporal, human)—raises interesting questions about some of the texts applied to him. In my view, the organic connections within the Old Testament often help clarify the ways that biblical authors used the Scriptures they saw themselves continuing (e.g. 2 Pet. 3:16).[23] It helps us see the warrant for their interpretation of Scripture. Proposals for prosopological exegesis, on the other hand, while thought-provoking, have proved less convincing the more one interacts with them, and thus less suitable for grounding the doctrines of the faith.[24]
22. See the concise summary of these points in Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 39–47.
23. For excellent primers, see Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and Dynasty: A Biblical Theology of the Hebrew Bible, New Studies in Biblical Theology 15 (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2003); Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant; Hamilton, Typology.
24. Eternal generation, for example, has firm footing elsewhere (e.g. John 1:18. John 5:46; Col 1:15; etc.). None of the modern theologians who affirm prosopological exegesis as valid (see note above) base the doctrine of eternal generation primarily on Psalm 2:7; it is used as support. This was also true of Origen, who is considered the among the first to articulate it. See Lewis Ayers, “At the Origins of Eternal Generation: Scriptural Foundations and Theological Purpose in Origen of Alexandria,” in Retrieving Eternal Generation, ed. Fred Sanders and Scott R. Swain (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017), 117–31.
We want to hear God right. As the church has done for millennia, we hold not only the conclusions of our forebearers but also their methods accountable to Scripture. Later church councils like Nicaea would not follow every early church Father in every respect, and I believe this honored their legacy as defenders of Scripture. As Christians who love God, may we also grow as lovers of his word, helping each other hear better until we are all with the Speaker himself.
