Barton's Bible Study Notes

Introduction

In the previous chapter, the study of the Lord’s sonship and a believer’s adoption as a child of God began by looking at how the phrase, the Son of God, was used by the writers of the New Testament. It is evident that they used the phrase to mean that Jesus was Messiah. Although they were not saying anything about his deity, they certainly were not denying it, being firmly convinced of it. This phrase is a title relating to the Lord in his humanity, specifically, his position as Messiah, King of kings and Lord of lords.

Of all the passages that deal with the Lord’s sonship, perhaps the most central is Romans 1:3–4, a part of the salutation (1:1–7) of this letter to believers In Rome. A careful study of these verses is necessary for a proper understanding of this foundational passage. The salutation has, in accordance with the custom of that day, three parts: first, the declaration of the identity of the writer; second, the declaration of the identity of the recipients; and third, the greeting. Paul identifies himself in verses one through six. This is somewhat longer than is usual for Paul; however, he is writing to a place he has never visited. It is, therefore, fitting that he states more fully the authority behind his apostleship and its concerns.

He first states his name and his office as an apostle (1:1a). Then continues this identification by declaring the concern of his apostleship, the Gospel of God (1:1b–2), and the subject of that Gospel, Jesus Christ the Lord (1:3–4). His office as an apostle was received from the Lord Himself to the end that the Gentiles might bring glory to him, as they willingly become obedient to the Lord (1:5–6).

In describing the gospel to which he was set apart, the apostle Paul states the central concern or subject of that gospel in Romans 1:3–4, where he writes that it was “…concerning his Son, who was of the lineage of David physically, designated the Son of God powerfully in reference to the spirit of holiness from the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ the Lord.”¹Translation by the author The prepositional phrase, concerning His Son (περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ), connects either to the words immediately preceding it in verse two, in the holy scriptures, (ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις) or the words, the gospel of God, (εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ) found in verse one. If the former, then it is the Holy Scriptures that concern his Son. If connected with the words, the gospel of God, the gospel concerns his Son. While there is a difference in the emphasis, there is not much difference in the basic thrust of the text. Either his Son is the central concern of the gospel, or his Son is the central concern of those scriptures in which the gospel was promised. His refers back to God mentioned in verse one; God’s Son, therefore, is the central theme and concern of the gospel.

The prevalent view of the two descriptive statements is that they describe the human and divine natures of Christ.²Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans; W.H. Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1946); John A Witmer, “Romans,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament ed., ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983). If one takes this view, the first of these descriptive statements, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, is taken to be a reference to the Lord’s human nature. Likewise, in verse four, the second statement, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, is seen as a reference to his deity. If this were Paul’s intent, he is saying that the subject of the gospel is perfectly human, a descendant of David, and fully divine, as proven by the resurrection from the dead.

While one must hold unreservedly to the full deity and perfect humanity of the Lord, it is better to see Paul’s purpose as declaring Jesus to be the Messiah, the fulfillment of the promises made beforehand in the scriptures. Let it not be doubted or questioned that the Lord is fully and perfectly human and, at the same time, fully divine. This truth cannot be compromised. It is glimpsed in these verses, but only indirectly, for it is not the Apostle Paul’s intention to declare this truth. His purpose is to declare that the subject of the gospel is the person of the Messiah, that he is qualified both physically and spiritually, that he has been appointed to this office, and that he is, in fact, none other than Jesus Christ the Lord.

There are at least five lines of evidence from the text itself to support this in verses three and four:

1. The Son’s humanity and descent are traced back to King David and not to someone else.
2. The verb form usually translated as “declared” (ὁρισθέντος) actually means designated or appointed.
3. The phrase, the Son of God (υἱοῦ θεοῦ) was a common title for the Messiah.
4. The phase, according to the spirit of holiness (κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης) is best seen as a reference to his human nature and not his divine nature.
5. The attesting miracle of the resurrection points not to the Son’s power, which it should if it is to demonstrate his divine power, but to the Father’s power confirming his appointment of this one as King of kings.

The Son's Descent

In verse three, one finds the first of the two parallel statements, who was of the lineage of David physically (τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα). While this is translated as a relative clause in English, in the Greek text, it is an adjectival clause modifying the words, his Son (τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ). The Greek words τοῦ γενομένου translated who was, is an aorist middle articular participle from the verb γίνομαι, generally meaning to be or to become. This verb can indicate the idea of coming into being as well as the idea of a state of existence. On the other hand, the Greek verb, εἰμί, to be, indicates existence only. The participial form of the verb γίνομαι is used here as an adjective describing the Son. The aorist tense of the participle indicates that the event took place prior to the time of writing. By using this verb rather than the verb εἰμί, Paul is saying that this Son is one who came into being at a point in time past.

The reference to a beginning in this statement is very strong. Some translate this verb as was made and others as was born.³“was made” KJV, “was born” NEB, NKJV and NASV. The deity of the Lord is not in doubt. Paul is not saying he became God, as some would teach. The passage speaks of the human birth of the Lord and looks at his physical descent. As a man, he had a beginning, although, in his deity, he existed from all eternity.

One may note the contrast between his eternality as God and his beginning as a man in John 1:1 and 1:14. In the first verse of his gospel, John writes, “In the beginning was the Word…” (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος). John uses the imperfect form of the Greek verb εἰμί, which stresses existence as opposed to coming into being. This, in fact, could well be translated, in the beginning, the Word was existing. By contrast, John, in verse fourteen of this same chapter, states, “And the Word was made flesh” (καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο). Here he uses a form of the Greek verb γίνομαι, which stresses beginning or becoming. The Word, who already existed at the point of creation, became human at a point in time. This is precisely what Paul means when he states in Romans 1:3 that the Son was (or became) of the line of David. Although he existed as God, he became a man, a descendant of David.

The preposition Paul uses, ἐκ, translated “of,” can denote “origin as to family, race, city, people, district, etc.”⁴Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon Paul is stating the origin or beginning of the Lord as to his human descent. The noun he uses with this preposition is σπέρμα, from which the English word, sperm, is derived. It is translated as “seed” and may refer to that which is sown. A Greek noun ending in -μα often indicates the result of an action.⁵Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek, New ed. (Princeton, N.J: 1969), 43. In the human sphere this word denotes offspring, children or descendants. These are specifically the descendants of David, the king. The subject of the gospel is a royal descendant of David’s line.

Had it been Paul’s purpose only to present the Lord as fully human, he would not need to trace his lineage back to David. His humanity is not derived from David. It is derived ultimately from Adam and immediately from Mary, his mother. To state that the Lord was born of a woman would be sufficient for Paul’s argument for his humanity. This he does, for example, in Galatians 4:4.

Had Paul felt it necessary to trace the line of humanity back to some ancestor other than Mary in order to demonstrate the Lord to be fully human, why did Paul not trace it back to Adam himself? One should note the two Gospels which contain the Lord’s genealogies and compare them with their writers’ purpose or emphasis. Luke, in his genealogy of the Lord, goes back to Adam (Luke 3:23–38), while Matthew traces it back to Abraham and David (Matthew 1:1–16). Luke’s emphasis is to present the human side of the Lord, and therefore he traces the line back to Adam. Matthew’s emphasis is on the kingship, that is, the office of the Messiah, and therefore he traces it back to Abraham and David (see Matthew 1:1). In like manner, Paul is emphasizing not his humanity or deity, although these ideas are present, but his kingship. The Messiah must be a descendant of David. Therefore, the apostle Paul states that the Lord fulfilled this requirement, that he came into being of the lineage of David “in reference to the flesh.”

The words translated as “physically” or “according to the flesh” are a prepositional phrase consisting of the Greek preposition κατά and the accusative singular form of the noun σάρξ. This noun can mean:

1. The literal substance that covers the skeletal form, the flesh
2. It can refer to the whole physical body, including the skeleton.
3. The later idea is expanded then to mean the whole person or being
4. Finally, it comes to mean that which is human; human nature; or that which is related to purely human existence or life as opposed to that which is divine or of the Spirit.⁶Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, 750.

When this noun is used in the accusative case with the preposition κατά, the phrase has almost an adverbial force, the preposition being used to introduce that in reference to which something is true.⁷Arndt and Gingrich, 408. It can then be translated as “physically,” that is, in reference to the fleshly or physical body; or with another meaning of the noun, this phrase can be translated as “humanly,” that is, in reference to that which is human, by human effort, according to human standards. This phrase, used twenty-one times in the New Testament,⁸It is used in John 8:15; Romans 1:3, 4:1, 8:4, 5, 12, 13, 9:3, 5; 1 Corinthians 1:26, 10:18; 2 Corinthians 1:17, 5:16, 10:2, 3, 11:18; Galatians 4:23, 29; Ephesians 6:5; and Colossians 3:22. exhibits both of these meanings. Even in Romans itself, it is used in both ways.

When a writer speaks of ancestry, the emphasis is on physical descent or lineage, not the origin of human nature. For example, in Romans 9:3, Paul speaks of the people of Israel and calls them his kinsmen “according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα). They are not his kinsmen spiritually, but only by a physical relationship. They are not his kinsmen in reference to human nature, for, while both he and they have the old nature, Paul also has a new nature they did not have.

Likewise, a few verses later in 9:5, Paul, speaking of Israel again, states, “…from whom is the Christ according to the flesh….” Christ does not share the degenerate human nature of Israel. He is from Israel physically speaking; he is Jewish. This phrase, therefore, is to be understood to mean “physically” in these two instances of descent and also in Romans 1:3, where the descent of the Son from the lineage of David is in view.

The Lord is perfectly human. However, this perfection of humanity does not include the sin nature. While all men apart from the Lord possess it, it is not a necessary component of being human. One should remember that before the fall, Adam and Eve were perfectly human but without the fallen or sin nature. For the Lord to be tempted in all points as we are tempted, he had to have the same physical weaknesses and limitations of the human body that fallen humanity has. His perfect humanity included body, soul and/or spirit. These truths are found here, although they are not the main point of the apostle, for the Messiah was a man. It was necessary that he be one. First, the sacrifice must be a man to pay the debt of sin for humankind. Second, it was to man that God committed the rule of the earth. Only a man can be the rightful ruler (Genesis 1:26–28). Satan usurped man’s authority, but this authority will be restored to man again in the person of the God-man, Jesus Christ. He, as man, has assumed the position of Messiah. He has yet to take the kingdom, but it will come. He will defeat Satan and rule as King of kings and Lord of lords. Not only must he be human, but he must also be of the lineage of David. This, Paul declares, he fulfills!

The Son's Appointment

Having declared that the subject of the gospel has met the physical qualifications to be Messiah, namely his descent from King David, the Apostle now declares that the Lord has been appointed to that office being spiritually qualified. He states that he was designated the Son of God powerfully in reference to the spirit of holiness from the resurrection from the dead (τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν). This statement parallels to the one Paul has just made in verse three. It is an adjectival clause descriptive of the words, His Son. The verb form is an articular participle, the aorist passive of the verb ὁρίζω.

The primary question one must ask concerning this verb is how it ought to be translated. Although the lexical evidence does not support such a translation, for theological reasons, it has usually been translated as declared.⁹See NKJV, NASB, NIV and others. The theological issue is indeed a significant one, the deity of Jesus Christ! It is assumed that the phrase, the Son of God, is a reference to the deity of the Lord. If this is so, then clearly, it cannot be said that Jesus Christ was appointed or designated as the Son of God. He could not be appointed to be God. He always was God from all eternity! Thus the given meaning of the verb ὁρίζω, which is to appoint or designate, cannot be the meaning here. Translators, therefore, have opted to translate it as declared.¹⁰Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 19.

Many authorities, recognizing that this verb does mean to designate or appoint, try to avoid the supposed problem by taking the phrase, the Son of God in power, as a unit. It is therefore suggested that Paul is saying that God designated Christ to be the Son of God in power or the powerful Son of God. They mean that although he was always the Son of God (deity), he had not used all of this power up to this point in his human existence. His power had been veiled. In being designated the Son in power, he again is taking up his full majesty, power and glory.¹¹Griffith Thomas, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 45.

However, this view raises a troubling question. If the Lord had this power before the incarnation (And he did!) and laid aside its use for a while, could it truly be said that God appointed it to him again? It was his by his very nature. Divine power cannot be appointed to one who has it by his own nature, although he may not be exercising it.

A translator’s task in approaching God’s Word is to attempt to understand what the Spirit of God is saying. If the lexical meaning of a word is clear and certain, one ought to stay with this meaning and reevaluate thinking in other areas. One does not have the right to alter the clear meaning of the Word of God. It will not contradict itself. It is absolutely true that Christ is eternal God. That is not an issue! He could not have been constituted, appointed or elevated to the position of deity.

The basic meaning of the verb ὁρίζω is to separate or mark off boundaries. It then comes to mean to appoint, determine or designate someone or something.¹²G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1937), 323. Some lexicons do indeed suggest the meaning of “to declare,” but this meaning is suggested because of this particular passage. To use this lexical definition as support for this translation at this point is to use circular reasoning.

The verb ὁρίζω is used seven other times in the New Testament: Luke 22:22, Acts 2:23, 10:42, 11:29, 17:26, 17:31 and Hebrews 4:7. In every case, except here in Romans 1:4, this verb is translated as to fix, appoint, determine or predetermine in the NASV. In the NKJV, it is translated as to determine, designate or ordain in every case except here in Romans 1:4. It should be consistently translated as to appoint or designate here in Romans 1:4 as well. Therefore, the emphasis of the words, the Son of God, cannot be on the Lord’s deity! The supposed problem of appointing the Lord to deity disappears not by altering the clear meaning of the word ὁρίζω but by correctly understanding the reference of the phrase, the Son of God.

The aorist tense of the participle indicates that this appointment has been carried out prior to the time of Paul’s writing. The Lord has been designated or appointed; it is not currently being carried out, nor is it yet future. It has been accomplished. The passive voice is used, indicating that the subject of the Gospel was acted upon. The Lord did not elevate Himself to this position; he was appointed by someone else. The one appointing the Son is not mentioned in this passage, but it can be none other than God the Father.

Paul next states to what position this one was designated or appointed, namely, to be the Son of God (υἱοῦ θεοῦ). Although there is no definite article in the Greek text, the noun is still definite since this is a unique position or person.¹³A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934), 794. Thus, in English translations, the word “the” is correctly supplied. Paul does not say he was appointed as “a” Son of God, implying he was one of many who are or will be so designated; but rather, Paul says he was “the” Son of God, a unique, single, definite person and position.

The Son's Position

As has been covered in the first section, the question with these words is not how they are to be translated but to what they refer. All authorities agree that these words should be translated as “the Son of God.” Traditionally, this phrase has been taken to refer to the deity of the Second Person of the Godhead. However, from chapter 1, in studying how New Testament writers use this phrase in other passages, it is evident that it is a title referring to the Lord as Messiah and is not directly referencing his deity.

The Son's Spiritual Qualifications

Having stated that the Lord was designated or appointed the Son of God, the apostle Paul now completes his second descriptive statement in verse four of the subject of the Gospel with three prepositional phrases. All three are used adverbially in that they qualify or modify the verb designated. They answer the questions: in what manner, in reference to what, and when. The apostle states he was designated in power or powerfully, in reference to the spirit of holiness, and from the resurrection of the dead.

The first of these prepositional phrases states the manner in which he was appointed as the Son of God. Paul says he was designated in power (ἐν δυνάμει). The preposition ἐν has a wide variety of uses and meanings in Greek. In this passage, there are three major possibilities as to what the Apostle means when he uses the phrase, in power.

First, the preposition can indicate the means by which something is done or accomplished¹⁴Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, 260. In this case, the noun δυνάμει means the outward expression of power, a deed or an act of power. The phrase would be translated as, by an act of power. The meaning is that the Lord was designated the Son of God by an act of power. This act would be the resurrection from the dead. The problem with this view is that when δυνάμει means an act of power, it is most often used in the plural.¹⁵Arndt and Gingrich, 207. Here, it is used in the singular. While the resurrection does attest powerfully to God’s appointment of the Messiah, it was not that appointment.

Second, the preposition ἐν can indicate that which someone possesses or that with which someone comes or is accompanied.¹⁶Arndt and Gingrich, 258. In this case, the phrase would be translated with power, meaning that the Lord was appointed to be Messiah with or having power. This would not be a reference to the Lord’s own divine power but the power he would possess as a man, as the Messiah. He could not be appointed to possess His divine power; that is his by his nature. He could, however, be given, as a man, the right and the power to rule over all of creation.

Third, the preposition ἐν can indicate the manner in which something is done.¹⁷Arndt and Gingrich, 260. In this last case, the phrase has an adverbial force being translated as powerfully. Paul would be saying the Lord was powerfully appointed to be Messiah.

This writer prefers the last of these three possibilities, although the second also makes good sense.

The apostle Paul now declares by the second prepositional phrase that the Lord was designated as Messiah in reference to the qualification of holiness or in reference to the spirit of holiness (κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης). The preposition κατὰ in this phrase has the same meaning or sense that it had in the parallel phrase found in verse three. It means in reference to which or regarding which something is true. Paul is saying the designation of the Lord as Son of God is valid with respect to the spirit of holiness.

The question that one must deal with is not so much the translation of πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης but determining what is meant by the word spirit, a word occurring more than 380 times in the New Testament with a wide variety of meanings. Originally πνεῦμα, as generally with other Greek words ending in –μα designated a result of an action. In this case, the action is to blow or to breathe (πνέω), and the result is wind or breath. While this is the foundational significance of the word, it is used only twice in the New Testament in this sense; wind in John 3:8 and breath in 2 Thessalonians 2:8 (NASB).

Because the wind or breath are things that are real but invisible to human eyes, this word was used in reference to other things which are real but unable to be seen. Perhaps due to the close connection between breathing and human life, the word πνεῦμα came to represent that immaterial spirit of man which is real but invisible and which gives life to the human body. Since the spirit of man is seen to be the focus of his inner life, the center of his intellect, will and sometimes his higher emotions, the word comes to mean the attitude or disposition of a person. This, too, is invisible to the human eye.

The word is used in reference to other unseen beings apart from man, beings that have their existence on a plane other than the space-time continuum in which fallen humanity is limited. It is used in reference to those other created beings known as angels (Hebrews 1:7) or demons (Matthew 10:1). It is also used of the uncreated being of God (John 4:24). However, when John states, “God is spirit,...” it must be recognized that he is not stating that God is divine, but only that God does not exist on a physical, material level as do we. Angels are also spirits, but they are not divine! While both God and angels are spirit, the essence of their beings is infinitely different.

The word is used most often specifically of the Third Person of the Godhead, usually called the Spirit or the Holy Spirit.¹⁸Arndt and Gingrich, 680–685.

Those that hold the view that Romans 1:3–4 speaks of the human and divine natures of the Lord understand the phrase the spirit of holiness to be a reference to his divine nature just as they see the flesh to be a reference to his human nature. But this is highly doubtful since the word πνεῦμα is not used to refer to the divine nature.¹⁹Those that advocate the view that spirit here refers to the divine nature often point to 1 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 9:14 and 1 Peter 3:18 as other passages where it is so used. Without dealing with these passages in detail, it must be said that it is much better to understand spirit in 1 Peter 3:18 to refer to the human spirit of our Lord as opposed to His flesh, His physical body. In 1 Timothy 3:16 and Hebrews 9:14, it either refers to our Lord’s human spirit or the Holy Spirit. In these three passages, it makes little sense to understand spirit to refer to the divine nature.

Writers of scripture often contrast the spirit to the flesh. On examining these contrasts, it will be found that the word spirit is used to refer to the immaterial aspect of man as opposed to that which is material or to refer to the Third Person of the Trinity as opposed to man as a physical, sinful, material being. For example, Paul makes the first contrast in 1 Corinthians 5:5 and the second in Romans 8:4–16 and Galatians 5:16–25. In no instance is the contrast between divine nature and human nature.

In Romans 1:3–4, Paul does not use the terms flesh and spirit to contrast the Holy Spirit with the humanity of the Lord. This is evident from the context and from the description Paul uses of the spirit. The context itself admits to no contrast between the Lord and the Spirit of God or between the Lord’s efforts and work and those of the Holy Spirit. Neither does Paul use his usual descriptive qualification of the Spirit of God. Instead of the adjective holy (ἅγιος), he uses the genitive form of the noun holiness (ἁγιωσύνη). Paul uses this noun only two other times (2 Corinthians 7:1 and 1 Thessalonians 3:13), and in neither case is this a reference to the Holy Spirit. If Paul were referring to the Holy Spirit in Romans 1:4, one would have expected him to use the term Spirit without any qualification or with the adjective holy. In that he did not, this seems to be an indication that he was deliberately being careful not to mislead his readers. Some authorities, in holding that this does refer to the Holy Spirit, state that this phrase means the Lord was declared to be divine through the Spirit “This declaration was made through (lit., “in accord with”) the Spirit of Holiness. This is the Holy Spirit, and not, as some have suggested, Christ’s human spirit.”²⁰John A Witmer, “Romans,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983), 440. However, the Greek preposition, κατά, while it does mean in accord with, this is in the sense of in reference to which or regarding which something is true. This is the same meaning it has in the parallel statement back in verse three. It does not designate the agent or means by which something is done as was suggested above.

Therefore, the word spirit in this verse does not signify the movement of air, the Holy Spirit or another created immaterial being apart from man. It refers then to the human spirit either in the sense of the immaterial part or aspect as opposed to the physical body or in the sense of an attitude or disposition. There are arguments for both cases, and the evidence seems to be somewhat divided. One might argue that this refers to the human spirit as opposed to the body. πνεῦμα used here in contrast to σάρξ in verse 3 is a strong argument for Paul’s using it in this sense. On the other hand, when one studies those passages in which πνεῦμα is used with an adjective or some other word denoting a quality or characteristic, it seems that the word means attitude or disposition.²¹Romans 11:8, 2 Corinthians 4:13, Galatians 6:1 and Ephesians 1:17.

However, this does not pose much of a difficulty for the translator. In either case, the emphasis in the phrase is not on the word spirit but on the quality or characteristic of the holiness of that spirit. If Paul is using πνεῦμα in the sense of the immaterial aspect of man as opposed to the physical body, then the genitive ἁγιωσύνης is an attributive genitive. The word in the genitive case states the attribute or characteristic of the noun it qualifies. Paul’s meaning would be a spirit that is characterized by the quality of holiness.

On the other hand, if Paul is using spirit in the sense of an attitude or disposition, the genitive is a genitive of apposition. Holiness, the noun in the genitive, stands loosely in apposition to the noun it qualifies. It would refer to the specific attitude or disposition of holiness.

In either case, the stress is on holiness rather than spirit. The Messiah was required not just to have a human spirit, but he must be holy as well. It must not be doubted that the Lord had a human spirit. One must reject the error of Apollinarianism, a heresy that attributed to the Lord a human body but a divine soul and/or spirit, which was rightly rejected by the early church. Those who had this view held that the Lord was human in regard to his body but divine in regard to his spirit, declaring that his divine nature took the place of his soul and/or spirit. This view makes the Lord less than fully human. In holding the word spirit in Romans 1:4 to be a reference to the divine nature, an opening is made, perhaps unwittingly or unintentionally, for those who would teach the heresy of Apollinarianism.

The Old Testament clearly shows that the Messiah would be holy. It refers to him as the Holy One (Psalm 16:10) and speaks of his work of establishing righteousness upon the earth (Isaiah 11:1–5). He is likewise designated as holy in the New Testament (Mark 1:24; Luke 1:35, 4:34; Acts 4:27 and 30). In Acts 2:27 and 13:35, first Peter and then Paul quote Psalm 16:10 in reference to the Lord calling him the Holy One. In Acts 3:14, speaking to Israel, Peter accuses them of rejecting their Holy One. These references at least indicated that the nation of Israel regarded the term “the Holy One” to refer to the Messiah. The Apostle Paul in Romans 1:3–4 states that not only does the Lord meet the physical requirement of being of David’s lineage, but he has been appointed as Messiah, meeting the qualification of holiness.

The requirement of holiness for those in authority is sadly overlooked or belittled in the present day. How often does a voter, in considering those running for office or positions of authority, consider the qualification of holiness? Qualifications are often ranked in terms of training, experience, native ability, popularity or whether or not the candidate agrees with the voter’s position on an issue, but seldom in terms of an individual’s personal holiness! However, this requirement is crucial. For a government to be morally strong and establish a morally upright society, the very leaders themselves must be moral, righteous and holy. As the leaders, so go the people. Government will fail in its responsibilities if those in it have no moral character. In the establishment of God’s kingdom upon the earth, the King of kings must meet the requirement of holiness or else this kingdom will ultimately fail. The Apostle states that the Lord meets this requirement, that the kingdom will be perfectly righteous, just and holy, for he is the Holy One!

The Son's Resurrection

The third prepositional phrase to be considered in the Apostle’s statement regarding the designation of the Lord as Messiah tells when this occurred. Paul states that the Lord was designated as the Son of God from the resurrection of the dead (ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν). The Greek preposition ἐκ or ἐξ is used in many ways. There are three main possibilities at this point.

First, the preposition may introduce the cause or reason, which is a presupposition for something.²²Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, 234.If this is the sense here, the phrase would be translated as because of the resurrection of the dead, and Paul would be saying that reason or basis for the Lord’s designation as Messiah is his resurrection. While such a translation is possible on grammatical and lexical grounds, it is doubtful that Paul had this in mind. The basis of his appointment seems to be his fulfillment of the standards and requirements, both physical and spiritual, for this position and his election by the Father. His personal righteousness seems to be part of that basis, not only for his resurrection but also for his appointment.

Second, the preposition can introduce the means by which something is done.²³H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, (Toronto: Macmillan, 1955), 103. In this case, one would translate the phrase by the resurrection of the dead (NASB and NKJV). Paul would be saying then that the instrument by which God the Father designated the Lord as Messiah is the act of his resurrection.

Third, the preposition may introduce the time when something began.²⁴Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon, 235. If this is the sense Paul intends here, then the phrase would be translated from the resurrection of the dead. Accordingly, Paul would be saying the Lord was designated as Messiah at his resurrection. The strongest argument against this view is that the Lord claimed to be the Messiah before his death and resurrection. Numerous passages may be produced that state or imply that he was Messiah, the Son of God, prior to his resurrection.

Either of these last two possibilities could be the sense intended by Paul. While the use of the preposition may differ, the end result seems to be very similar. If the resurrection were the means by which the Father officially proclaimed the Lord to be Messiah, then this action marked the official beginning of his reign. If his reign officially began at the point of the resurrection and if this miracle marked God’s approval of his person and work, then it can be seen in a sense as God’s inauguration of his Chosen One.

Regarding the objection that the Lord was Messiah prior to this point, it can be said that while the Lord was always the Messiah in a genuine sense, it is also true that he did not exercise the kingly authority and prerogatives of that position. He was the king-designate, crown prince, and sovereign-elect before his official inauguration. In the kingship of Israel, a king was not seen as officially coming into the special father-son relationship until his official inauguration. While he might be spoken of as king following the death of his father and prior to his inauguration as sovereign, he was not officially such. Consider the example of King David. Prior to Saul’s death, he was the chosen one of God, the king-elect. He was chosen by God for this position, although someone else occupied the throne. Many regarded him as their king, even though Saul still reigned. So it was with the Lord. He was the promised one, and he is spoken of as Messiah, although the official appointment had not yet come. At a point in his earthly ministry, the Lord offered Himself to the nation as king. They rejected this offer and crucified him. However, God the Father accepted him and resurrected him declaring him at that time to be the Messiah, the Chosen One. It is to be noted that even though he has been appointed to be Messiah, the coronation ceremony has yet to take place. That will take place in the throne room of heaven following the rapture of the Church, prior to the Lord’s second coming.

Psalm 2, a messianic psalm, is a key passage in the designation of the Lord as Messiah or the Son of God. It is prophetic of the coming Messiah. In verse seven, the Messiah speaks and says, “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.’” This verse is quoted three times in the New Testament; twice by the writer of Hebrews (Hebrews 1:5 and 5:5) and once by Paul, as recorded by Luke in Acts 13:33. In Hebrews, the Psalm is quoted in reference to the superiority of the Messiah (The Son) as compared to angels. In Acts 13:33, the apostle Paul addresses Jewish listeners in a synagogue of Pisidian Antioch. His purpose is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ, that he is God’s fulfillment of the promises made to Israel (Acts 13:23 and 32–33). In verses 30–33, one reads:

13:30	But God raised Him from the dead;
13:31	and for many days He appeared to those who came up with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem, the very ones who are now His witnesses to the people.
13:32	And we preach to you the good news of the promise made to the fathers,
13:33	that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘You are My Son; today I have begotten You.’

The apostle states that God had fulfilled these promises in that (or when) he raised up the Lord. Then the text states, “...as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘Thou art My Son; Today I have begotten Thee.’” The apostle Paul connects this decree in Psalm 2 with the resurrection of Jesus Christ, stating that God fulfilled the promises of the Messiah at that time or in that event. If this were an eternal decree made before time existed, then Paul would not have quoted it in reference to the promises being fulfilled to Israel. These promises were not fulfilled in eternity past.

However, if this is a decree made at the resurrection designating the Lord as Messiah, thus fulfilling the promises to Israel, then it makes perfect sense and fits the context nicely. God fulfilled his promise to Israel to give them a Messiah when he raised Jesus Christ from the dead. At this point, God declared to him, “You are My Son; this day I have begotten You.” God is not speaking here of the eternal generation of the Son (a human invention not found in scripture), nor is God speaking of the physical generation through Mary. God is declaring that the Lord, in his humanity, has officially become his adoptive Son, thus officially appointing him to be the Messiah.

Therefore in Romans 1:4, when Paul states that he was designated as the Son of God from the resurrection of the dead, he means that his official messiahship begins at this point. Although it had a beginning, it will have no end. His reign is eternal. Paul did not serve a sovereign whose power and influence would be cut off by death; he served one whose reign began at his resurrection following his death. His power and influence would never end.

The term resurrection (ἀνάστασις) refers not just to the resurrection of someone who had died and been restored to life, as was the case with Lazarus when the Lord raised him from the dead (John 11). It also refers to receiving a new, perfect, immortal, glorified body. The Lord is still perfectly human and fully divine in the resurrected state. As a human, he is body, soul and/or spirit. His glorified body is a literal, physical body. Many today claim and teach that he was only resurrected in spirit, a heretical view to be outrightly and immediately rejected. Scriptures teach that it was his body (σῶμα) that was resurrected.

A minor issue is sometimes seen in the use of the phrase of the dead. These words are a translation of the Greek word νεκρῶν, which is a genitive masculine plural form of the adjective meaning dead. The masculine plural form is used most often as a noun referring to those who have died, that is, the dead.²⁵Arndt and Gingrich, 536. The genitive case carries several different ideas. There are two possibilities as to how it is used in this passage.

First, the genitive may be an objective genitive, and the phrase would then be translated as the resurrection of the dead, meaning the resurrection of those who were dead to new life. Secondly, the genitive may be a genitive of separation. In this case, the phrase would be translated as the resurrection from among those who are dead.

It is sometimes pointed out that if a writer intends to say the resurrection of those who are dead to new life, they use the simple genitive, νεκρῶν. See Matthew 22:31, Luke 14:14 and 1 Corinthians15:12, 13 and 21. On the other hand, if they wished to convey the idea of resurrection out of or from among those who are dead, they use the preposition ἐκ with the adjective νεκρῶν. See Luke 20:35, Acts 4:2 and 1 Peter 1:3. It is, therefore, claimed that Paul is not speaking in Romans 1:4 of Christ’s personal resurrection from among the dead to life again.

While it is acknowledged that this does seem to be a general principle, it is not inviolable; there are exceptions. Writers do not always follow this rule. For example, in Acts 26:23, speaking to King Agrippa, Paul says, “that the Christ was to suffer, and that by reason of His resurrection from the dead He would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.” He uses the same phrase here as in Romans 1:4, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν. If Paul were following the general rule, he would be saying that Christ would be the first to proclaim light both to the Jewish peoples and to the Gentiles because of the resurrection of those who were dead. However, this makes little sense. Almost certainly, Paul is saying that Christ is first because of his own resurrection. If Paul uses the simple genitive as a genitive of separation here in Acts, this is how he uses it in Romans 1:4 as well. Paul means the personal resurrection of Christ from among those who were dead.

Another point should be brought out concerning the phrase from the resurrection of the dead. Its presence and use argue against the commonly held view that the words, Son of God, are a reference to his deity. If one holds this common view, then they will translate the Greek phrase ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν as by means of or because of the resurrection from the dead. The phrase will be understood to mean the Lord was declared (shown to be) God because of or by means of his resurrection, the resurrection proving his deity.

While this may sound quite reasonable, it is not entirely consistent with the doctrine of the kenosis, which holds that Christ voluntarily gave up the use of specific divine attributes during his first advent, namely, omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. If this is so, the resurrection does not attest directly to the Son’s divinity but the Father’s. The Lord did not raise himself from the dead; he did not exercise his own divine power in the resurrection. The Father raised him from the dead.

Two verses are often cited to support the position of Christ’s raising himself, exercising his own divine power, John 2:19 and 10:17–18. The first records the Lord saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” That he is speaking of his body is certain from verse twenty-one. The second passage again records the Lord speaking, “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” (NKJV)

More passages may be found, however, to support the idea that the Father raised the Lord from the dead: Acts 2:24, 32, 3:15, 26, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40, 13:30, 33, 34, 37, 17:31; Romans 4:24, 8:11, 10:9; 1 Corinthians 6:14, 15:15; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Galatians 1:1, Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 1 Peter 1:21. Obviously, one position is not true simply because more passages state it than another position, for scripture does not contradict itself. How does one put all the passages together? One way that it is commonly done is to say both were involved in the resurrection; both used their divine power. It is much better, however, to understand scripture’s explanation of these verses. John is not contradicting the rest of the Word of God. The apparent problem disappears when the entire context of these passages is considered.

In the first passage cited, one must realize that although Christ will raise (and did raise) the temple of his body, it was not done by exercising his own divine power or on his own authority. He is acting on the Father’s authority and using the Father’s power. One has but to read John 5:19–30, where the Lord Himself states that he does nothing of Himself. What he does, he does on the authority and by the power of the Father. Acts 2:22 states that God performed signs, wonders and miracles through the Lord. Luke 5:17 declares that God’s power was available for him to use. Therefore, when John records the Lord saying he will raise up the temple of his body, one must understand that the Lord will do so by using the power of God. God will work through him.

In the second passage, the word translated in the NKJV (ἐξουσία) means the authority or the right to do something rather than the ability to do it. The Lord is stating that he has the authority to lay his life down and take it back up again. This he was commanded to do by the Father. He was not acting upon his own authority but the Father’s. Christ exercised the authority and the power of the Father during his earthly ministry; therefore, scripture rightly emphasizes that it was the Father who resurrected the Lord from the dead.

The Father’s resurrection of the Lord indirectly does attest to his divinity, for it demonstrates the Father’s power and his approval of the Lord. It validates the Lord’s claims about Himself and his work. It proves he is the Christ, and if he is the Christ, then he is mighty God (Isaiah 9:6) from eternity past (Micah 5:2).

Conclusion

Paul has stated then in Romans 1:3–4 that the Lord is the Messiah, that he physically meets the requirements, being a descendant of David, and that he has been powerfully designated from the point of the resurrection as such, having fulfilled the spiritual requirement of holiness. He now finishes the statement by stating his name and title, Jesus Christ our Lord (Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν). These words are in simple apposition to the words his Son (τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ) at the beginning of verse three. One may leave out the two intervening adjectival clauses descriptive of the Son in verses three and four and have the resulting statement make good sense. Paul says the gospel concerns “His Son...Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Roman’s 1:3–4 is the key passage concerning the Lord’s sonship in the New Testament. Unfortunately, in misunderstanding the phrase, The Son of God, many have missed rightly understanding this passage. While the Lord is indeed wholly God and completely human, the two natures being united perfectly in one being, that is not the central idea of these verses. Paul’s purpose was to declare that subject of the gospel he proclaimed was the Messiah, the Christ, the Son of God. He met the physical requirements of being a descendant of David and the spiritual requirement of holiness. As such, he was officially appointed to this office at or by his resurrection from the dead by God the Father.

There are also key passages in the Old Testament which lay the foundation for the Lord’s sonship. These, too, must be considered if one is to accurately grasp what it means to be the Son of God or to be a child of God. These passages include 2 Samuel 7 (The Davidic Covenant), Psalm 2, and Psalm 89, which will be examined in the next chapter.