An Exposition Of Romans 1:1-7 With Special Emphasis On Paul’s Doxological Christology

By Michael Emadi

Michael Emadi is a M.Div. student at The Midwest Center for Theological Studies (http://www.mctsowensboro.org), Owensboro, KY.

The Epistle to the Romans has been called the greatest letter ever written. The opening four verses themselves provide a well of deep theological and Christological water from which the reader may drink. Paul opens his epistle in the usual manner, but then immediately proceeds to scale the Christological mountain until he reaches the Christo-climactic pinnacle in verse four. The Apostle does not merely speak of a resurrected Messiah; no, he speaks of One who was “declared” to be the Son-of-God-in-power, raised to an existence no longer of frailty and weakness but to a sovereignty and power commensurate with his post-resurrection position as “Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). Geerhardus Vos comments:

According to Rom. i. 1-4, while the identical Jesus who had been buried rose from the grave, yet it was by no means the same Jesus in the endowment and equipment of his human nature. Not only a new status had been acquired through the resurrection: new qualities amounting to a reconstructed adjustment to the future heavenly environment had been wrought in Him by the omnipotent power of God: He had been determined (declared effectually) the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.[1]

In the opening verses of Romans, one cannot help but notice the centrality of Jesus Christ in the gospel that Paul was set apart to proclaim. He cannot hold back from declaring the wonder of the Savior, so that his salutation contains an impressive amount of Christological truth. This article will examine the opening seven verses of Romans. May the glory of the Christ, about whom Paul could not stop writing, be exalted in the pages that follow.

“Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, a called apostle, set apart for the gospel of God.” Thus begins the lengthiest greeting in all of Paul’s letters. We will begin by examining the three descriptions that the author gives of his identity in these opening words. From there we will move on to examine Paul’s gospel and then end with a brief look at the addressees and at Paul’s greeting to the saints in Rome.

The Author: Paul

In the ancient world, letters customarily began with a declaration of the author’s identity and of the identity of those to whom they were written. Paul follows the pattern of his day; yet in this letter he deviates from the normal greeting and provides a more elaborate description of who he is and what his relationship is to the gospel. Perhaps the reason for this is that Paul had yet to visit the Christians in Rome. And yet as we move to examine the three that designations Paul uses for himself, it is imperative to note that from the very beginning the letter is not about Paul. It is about his God. “In all three phrases the crucial thing is not who Paul is, but whose Paul is.”[2]

1. Paul’s Master

Paul’s introduces himself as a δοῦλος, “a slave” or “a servant.” This imagery draws from his Jewish heritage where great OT saints were declared not to be their own masters but slaves and servants of YHWH, the living God. Abraham (Gen. 26:24; Psa. 105:6,42), Moses (Exod. 4:10; 14:31; Num. 12:7-8; Deut. 34:5; Josh. 1:1-2,7,13,15; 2 Kings 21:8), David (2 Sam. 3:18; 7:5,8; 1 Kings 8:25-26; Psa. 132:10; Is 37:35), and the prophets (2 Kings 9:7; 21:10; Isa. 20:3; Jer. 26:5; Dan. 9:10; Amos 3:7; Zech. 1:6) were all declared to be the servants of the Lord. Even the nation of Israel as a whole is said to be the servant of YHWH (Isa. 43:10). Paul has no reservation in acknowledging his servitude to Christ Jesus. “This high conception of dependence upon and commitment to the Lord the apostle here applies to his service of the Lord Jesus Christ and indicates that he has no hesitation in placing Christ Jesus in the position of ‘the Lord’ in the Old Testament.”[3]

Paul is a slave Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ “of Christ Jesus.”[4] Would not this phrase strike some of Paul’s original readers as unintelligible? It was only 25-30 years before the writing of this letter that Jesus was publicly crucified, put to death by the hands of a Roman governor named Pontius Pilate. How then can Paul declare that he continues to be the slave of a dead man? By his own testimony and the testimony of hundreds of others, this Christ who died, also rose again and still lives. For this reason, Paul recognizes that his life is not his own but he has been purchased, he is owned by Another. “For you have been bought with a price: therefore, glorify God in your body” (1 Cor. 6:20). Right from the beginning we see that this is no ordinary letter. The subject is not Paul but Paul’s Lord and Master – his risen Savior.

2. Paul’s Appointment

Paul not only describes himself as a servant of the Lord but also as κλητὸς ἀπόστολος “a called apostle.” ᾿Απόστολος does not here have the wider meaning of “messenger” (John 13:16) or “missionary” (Rom. 16:7), but rather the narrower meaning that applied to the Twelve. “The title carries a stronger sense, marking Paul as among that unique group appointed by Christ himself to have the salvation-historical role as the ‘foundation’ of the church (Eph. 2:20).”[5] Paul further defines his apostleship by describing himself as a κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, a called apostle, i.e., a divine appointment put Paul into this office. On the road to Damascus, where Paul first encountered the risen Lord, Jesus said to him, “But arise, and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you” (Acts 26:16). Paul later declares that his apostleship was not given to him by men but God, saying that he is “an apostle, not from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead” (Gal. 1:1). By saying this, Paul means that he is not writing as a private individual but that the authority by which he speaks is the authority of God. Paul does not speak on behalf of himself, but on behalf of and with the authority of One far greater than he. He is the servant of the risen Lord and has been peculiarly called by Him to be His apostle, to stand in His place and to declare “good news” to the world.

3. Paul’s Purpose

Paul also says that he is ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον Θεοῦ, “set apart for the gospel of God.” This “setting apart” may allude to the fact that God had prepared Paul, even before he was born, to bring His gospel to the world. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul writes, “But when He who had set me apart (ὁ ἀφορίσας με), even from my mother’s womb” (Gal. 1:15), words very reminiscent of the prophet Jeremiah’s appointment (cf., Jer. 1:5). John Piper comments:

In the very first verse of this great book we taste some of the magnitude of God's inscrutable wisdom which Paul worships in 11:33-36 (“Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!”). God did not leave anything to chance in the founding of his church through the writing of his apostles: He set him apart before birth; he purchased him by the death of his Son; he called him effectively on the Damascus road.[6]

However, this phrase may also just be a further definition of “called.” John Murray notes that the separation mentioned here refers “to the effectual dedication that occurred in the actual call to apostleship and indicates what is entailed in the call.”[7] In either case the focus is not on what Paul has done but on what has been done to Paul. The very man who breathed threats against the Way (Acts 9:2) was now dedicated to the global proclamation of its truth. Murray continues on to say that “no language could be more eloquent of the decisive action of God and of the completeness of Paul’s resulting commitment to the gospel.”[8]

Every description that Paul uses of himself in this first verse actually points away from him to One who is far greater. God ultimately stands behind the words of the epistle to the Romans. God Himself, His gospel, everything that He has done for us in Christ—these things are the subject of this letter. “The three terms, δοῦλος, ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος, all serve to emphasize the essentially Scriptural doctrine that human ministers, even Apostles, are but instruments in the hand of God, with no initiative or merit of their own.”[9]

The Gospel

1. Origin of the Gospel

When Paul here speaks of the gospel of God, the genitive Θεοῦ (“of God”) appears to emphasize the divine origin and character of the gospel to which Paul had been separated. It is God’s gospel. He is the source. “The apostles did not invent it; it was revealed and entrusted to them by God.”[10] Leon Morris is exactly right, when he says:

God is the most important word in this epistle. Romans is a book about God. No topic is treated with anything like the frequency of God. Everything Paul touches in this letter he relates to God. In our concern to understand what the apostle is saying about righteousness, justification and the like we ought not to overlook his tremendous concentration on God. There is nothing like it elsewhere.[11]

Paul also says that it was this gospel ὁ προεπηγγείλατο, “which He promised beforehand.” Two points can be considered from this clause.

First, as James Dunn says, “the force of the middle voice may be to emphasize the subject of the promise—‘which God promised,’ ‘which he promised on his own behalf.’”[12] Second, this gospel is no novelty. The gospel that concerns His Son was promised beforehand. Christianity is not a new religion devised by Paul and his followers. Rather it is the proclamation of the fulfillment of promises found in the OT. It is the declaration that “the fullness of time” (Gal. 4:4) has come and that the promise of the future Messiah has been fulfilled.[13]

The gospel, which Paul was sent to preach, was the same system of grace and truth, which from the beginning had been predicated and partially unfolded in the writings of the Old Testament…The advent, the character, the work, the kingdom of the Messiah, are there predicted, and it was therefore out of the Scriptures that the apostles reasoned, to convince the people that Jesus is the Christ.[14]

There is an essential continuity that exists between the Old and the New Testaments. Jesus Himself attested to the fact that the OT Scriptures bore witness of Him (John 5:39; Luke 24:27, 44). The gospel of God that He promised beforehand in the OT is the same gospel that is proclaimed in the NT.

2. Attestation of the Gospel

Paul notes the means and the record of the gospel’s attestation.

The means of its attestation: διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ, “through his prophets.” The gospel that God promised beforehand was attested by His prophets. The prophets mentioned here are not merely those who held the prophetic office (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, etc.) but refer as well to men like Moses (Deut. 18:15) and David (Acts 2:30). All of the authors of the OT are here considered in the words τῶν προφητῶν (the prophets). Paul, however, does not leave the noun unqualified but adds the word αὐτοῦ (his). The addition of this personal pronoun may be to emphasize that these prophets were not acting on their own behalf but were in fact the mouthpiece for Another. Dunn notes that “His prophets (unusual in the NT) may also reflect Paul’s concern to emphasize God’s personal involvement in and authority behind the prophetic hope.”[15]

The record of its attestation: ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις, “in the Holy Scriptures.” The gospel that came from God, which was promised beforehand through His prophets, was recorded “in the Holy Scriptures.” Elsewhere in this letter Paul calls the Scriptures τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ (“the oracles of God,” 3:2). These were an identifiable group of writings. Paul here describes them as ἁγίαις (“holy”), because they come from Him who is the thrice holy God of heaven. God has spoken in His word–the Holy Scriptures–let us then hear the Word that He speaks.

3. The Substance of the Gospel: His Son

Verses 3 and 4 comprise not only the substance of the gospel of God that God the Father proclaimed beforehand, but also the substance of Paul’s opening greeting. The precise construction of the parallels in vv. 3 and 4, combined with the Apostle’s use of unusual words and phrases, have led some scholars to conclude that this was an early creed or hymn of the church. If this is true, then how glorious it would have been to hear the voices of the early Christians who unashamedly proclaimed this magnificent Savior and who had such high thoughts of Him.

In order better to show the literary parallelism of these verses, consider the following:

περί τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ

τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα,

τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν

᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν
concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord

who has come/born from the seed of David according to the flesh

who was appointed Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness from the resurrection of the dead

Here we see that vv. 3 and 4 actually contain “bookends.” The first bookend, “concerning His Son,” opens the way for the description of Christ that comprises vv. 3 and 4. The second bookend, “Jesus Christ our Lord” (which is in apposition to “His Son”), closes the text.

Consider the first “bookend”: περί τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, “concerning His Son.” The gospel of God concerns the promise that the Father made regarding His Son. That Paul begins here is important. Jesus Christ is here spoken of as God’s Son prior to His manifestation in human flesh. He was the Father’s Son before He was the son of David. John Murray notes that:

The most natural interpretation of verse 3 is that the title ‘Son’ is not to be construed as one predicated of him in virtue of the process defined in the succeeding clauses but rather identifies him as the person who became the subject of this process and is therefore identified as the Son in the historical event of the incarnation.[16]

Later Paul will write, “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh”

(Rom 8:3). God sent His Son to take on human flesh. Thus, the Son existed as the Son of God before He assumed human nature. So when Paul says that he was “set apart for the gospel of God which was promised beforehand….concerning His Son,” he is talking about the divine, pre-existent, eternal Son. In this verse then, there is a clear juxtaposition of the divine and human natures of Christ. This is important for interpreting the phrase τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει (“appointed Son of God in power”) in v. 4.

What follows may be described as the two phases or two states of Christ’s ministry: the state of His humiliation–in lowliness and weakness (v.3), and the state of His Exaltation–in power (v. 4).

Phase 1–the humiliation of the Son, τοῦ γενομένου, “who was born.”[17] This phrase focuses on the fact that the eternal Son of God took on human flesh. The verb γίνομαι is not the usual word for “to give birth,” although it can have this meaning in certain contexts. Some argue on the basis of its usage in Gal. 4:4 (“born of a woman, born under the law”) that it should be similarly translated here. Douglas Moo, however, suggests that perhaps the more general term is used here to imply that “more than a simple ‘birth’ was entailed in the ‘becoming’ of the Son; a change in existence also took place.”[18] Thus, perhaps Paul uses γίνομαι (“become”) rather than γεννάω[19] (“give birth to”) to emphasize that the Son “became” man rather than that he was born. Murray concludes:

Hence, even in verse 3, the Saviour is not viewed merely as human, though it is the assumption of human nature that is reflected on when he is said to have been born. Jealousy for the eternal sonship of Christ does not eclipse the apostle’s jealousy for the historical beginning of which the Son was the subject, and neither does the emphasis upon the historical in any way prejudice the reality of the eternal sonship. Here we have unmistakable emphasis upon the coexisting aspects of our Lord’s person as the incarnate Son, and of particular significance is the fact that this emphasis is already clearly enunciated in verse 3 before ever we come to the contrast expressed in verse 4.[20]

Paul also says that the Son of God has come ἐκ σπέματος Δαυὶδ, “of the seed of David.” Here he refers to both Jesus’ human nature and His Messianic identity. As to His humanity, He was from the seed of David. Verse 3, then, provides a juxtaposition of Jesus’ full deity (He is the eternal “Son of God”) with His full humanity (He is “from the seed of David”). And yet this phrase also has in view the Messianic prophecies of the OT, particularly that of 2 Sam. 7:12ff. (cf., Psa. 89:3-4; Isa. 11:1-5; Jer. 23:5). This phrase proclaims the fulfillment of these prophecies in the person of Jesus the Christ. Matthew opens his Gospel with this very fact: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David” (Matt. 1:1).

But what is meant by the phrase κατὰ σάρκα, “according to the flesh”? When applied to Christ in the NT, σάρξ (flesh) speaks of His human nature in its entirety (Jn. 1:14; 6:51; Rom. 8:3; 9:5; Eph. 2:14; Col. 1:22; 1 Tim. 3:16; Heb. 5:7; 10:20; 1 Pet. 3:18; 4:1; 1 Jn. 4:1; 2 Jn. 7) and not to its merely physical elements to the exclusion of the non-physical aspects of His humanity. It includes both “a true body and a reasonable soul.” Moo notes also that there is an emphasis here on the “transitory, weak, frail nature”[21] of such human existence. It is the Christ in a state of humiliation, i.e., having emptied Himself by taking the form of a slave and being made in the likeness of men, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to death on a cross (Phil. 2:7-8). However, this state of humiliation would not last forever.

Phase 2–the exaltation of the Son. In our attempt to understand this verse as it parallels v. 3 several questions must be examined. First, what is the meaning of ὁρισθέντος, “who was appointed”? Second, does the prepositional phrase ἐν δυνάμει (“in power”) modify υἱοῦ θεοῦ (“Son of God”) or the participle ὁρισθέντος (“who was appointed”)? Third, what is the meaning of κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (“according to the spirit of holiness”) and how does it parallel κατὰ σάρκα (“according to flesh”)?

First, what is the meaning of ὁρισθέντος, “who was appointed”? The verb ὁρίζω means “to mark out the boundary, to decree, to appoint, or to designate.”[22] In the Septuagint it is used for “marking out” boundaries (Num. 34:6; Josh. 13:27; 15:12; 18:20; 23:4). In the NT, however, it plainly has the meaning of “to appoint, to determine, or to fix” (cf., Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Heb. 4:7). Paul here says God the Father does the “appointing” and Jesus is “appointed” Son of God by the resurrection from the dead. But does this indicate that Jesus was not the Son of God prior to His resurrection? Not when we remember that the subject of vv. 3-4 is the eternal Son. Since Christ is the pre-existent, eternal Son of God, the “appointing” noted in v. 4 has to indicate something other than a change in being or a change in His relationship with the Father. And yet Paul does speak of Christ becoming something that He was not before. As Moo points out, “it is the Son who is ‘appointed’ Son. The tautologous nature of this statement reveals that being appointed Son has to do not with a change in essence—as if a person or human messiah becomes Son of God for the first time—but with a change in status or function.”[23]

Second, does the prepositional phrase ἐν δυνάμει (“in power”) modify υἱοῦ θεοῦ (“Son of God”) or the participle ὁρισθέντος (“who was appointed”)? If this phrase modifies “to appoint,” it means that Jesus was “appointed with power to be the Son of God.” This would seem to point to the intimate the evidential value of His being raised from the dead, as that which points to Him as being the Son of God. On the other hand, if it modifies “Son of God,” the verse will read that He “was appointed Son-of-God-in-power,” that is, by His resurrection from the dead, Christ was invested with a new power that He did not possess as Mediator prior to His resurrection. The need to distinguish between this occurrence of “Son of God” with the previous expression (in v. 3, “His Son”) strongly supports the view that “in power” modifies “Son of God.” Upon His resurrection, Christ entered a higher rank of Sonship in which His power is gloriously displayed as the One whom God has made both Lord and Christ. William Hendriksen, commenting on this fact, writes:

As has already been pointed out, from all eternity he was the Son of God, but during his period of humiliation his power, in its fullest degree, was, as it were, hidden from view. By means of his glorious resurrection his investiture with power not only was enhanced but also began to shine forth in all its glory. The expression here used reminds us of Peter’s statement, made in a very similar context, namely, ‘Without a shadow of doubt, therefore, let all the house of Israel be assured that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified’ (Acts 2:36). The statement did not imply that before his resurrection Jesus was not Lord and Christ. It meant that the power, majesty, and glory of his exalted office was now beginning to shine forth in all its augmented brilliance.[24]

Jesus is the Messianic king who now reigns over the world. All authority has been given to Him in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18), and He will reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet and death is finally abolished (1 Cor. 15:25-26). He is the powerful Son of God who works out His purposes through His Spirit and church. To Him be the glory both now and forever, amen.

Third, what is the meaning of κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (“according to the spirit of holiness”) and how does it parallel κατὰ σάρκα (“according to flesh”)? Admittedly, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (“according to the spirit of holiness”) is a difficult phrase, since it is used only here in the NT and objections arise in every interpretation. In general, there are three views of the meaning of this verse and of how it functions as a parallel with κατὰ σάρκα (“according to the flesh”). Moo’s excellent summary is helpful at this point:

The first understands “flesh/spirit” to suggest a contrast between Jesus’ human and divine natures. It is because of Jesus’ human descent that he is “seed of David” and because of “the divine nature, or Godhead, that dwelt in Jesus Christ” he is the Son of God. While having a respectable pedigree, this interpretation suffers from fatal objections. Not only must it take horizon to mean “demonstrate” or “manifest,” which we have seen to be unlikely, but it also gives to “spirit” a connotation unexampled elsewhere in Paul. 

The second interpretation avoids the latter problem by understanding “spirit of holiness” as the obedient, consecrated spirit that Jesus manifested throughout his earthly life. The contrast in vv. 3-4 is that between the outward and physical, by virtue of which Jesus is qualified as “seed of David,” and the inward, spiritual perfection, which qualifies Jesus to be the Son of God in power. While suffering from fewer difficulties than the first, this interpretation is open to the objection that it does not give to the “flesh/spirit” antithesis the meaning it most often has in Paul. 

The contrast of “flesh” and “Spirit” is part of Paul’s larger salvation-historical framework, in which two “aeons” or eras are set over against one another: the old era, dominated by sin, death, and the flesh, and the new era, characterized by righteousness, life, and the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit. The third interpretation of the contrast takes its starting point from this framework and is thereby to be preferred. In Jesus’ earthly life (his life in “the realm of the flesh”), he was the Davidic seed, the Messiah. But while true and valuable, this does not tell the whole story. For Christians, Jesus is also, in the “realm of the Spirit,” the powerful, life-giving Son of God. In Christ the “new era” of redemptive history has begun, and in this new stage of God’s plan Jesus reigns as Son of God, powerfully active to bring salvation to all who believe (cf. 1:16). The major objection to this interpretation is that “spirit of holiness” is never used of the Holy Spirit in the NT; indeed, the phrase is found only here in biblical Greek. However, the Semitic-flavored expression may reflect traditional language. As is usual in Paul, the inauguration of this new age is attributed to Christ’s resurrection.[25]

From what we have considered thus far, the most likely interpretation is not that “according to the flesh” and “according to the spirit of holiness” depicts a contrast between the human and divine natures of Jesus but the two Christological phases. “According to the flesh” defines the phase that came about through Christ being born “of the seed of David.” “According to the spirit of holiness” defines the phase that came about “from the resurrection of the dead.” Paul describes this new phase into which the resurrected Christ entered in Eph. 1:19b-23. “These are in accordance with the working of the strength of his might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all” (cf., Acts 2:36; Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Pet 3:21-22). Murray notes that “by his resurrection and ascension the Son of God incarnate entered upon a new phase of sovereignty and was endowed with new power correspondent with and unto the exercise of the mediatorial lordship which he executes as head over all things to his body, the church.”[26] By the resurrection, Christ, the last Adam, became a life-giving spirit (1 Cor. 15:45). In 2 Cor. 3:17, Paul writes, “Now the Lord is the Spirit”–the word “Lord” here referring to Christ. Of this Murray writes:

The only conclusion is that Christ is now by reason of the resurrection so endowed with and in control of the Holy Spirit, that without any confusion of the distinct persons, Christ is identified with the Spirit and is called “the Lord of the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18). Thus, when we come back to the expression “according to the Spirit of holiness,” our inference is that it refers to that stage of pneumatic endowment upon which Jesus entered through his resurrection.[27]

There are amazing parallels between the clauses of vv. 3 and 4: γενομένου (“who was born”)—ὁρισθέντος (“who was appointed”); κατὰ σάρκα (“according to the flesh”)—κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (“according to the spirit of holiness”); ἐκ σπέματος Δαυὶδ (“of the seed of David”)—ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν (“from the resurrection of the dead”). However, in using these expressions, Paul is not referring to two co-existing states within the make up of the Savior or to a contrast between a time when Jesus was not the Son of God and a time when He was, but rather to two successive stages in His life. The relative weakness and frailty of His pre-resurrection state, in which His power was, as it were, veiled before men, is contrasted with His post-resurrection state, in which He is endowed with pneumatic power and His triumphant δύναμις (“power”) is revealed in His post-resurrection lordship. Bavinck’s comments here are pertinent:

To be sure, the Spirit of holiness was already dwelling in Christ before his resurrection; in fact, from the moment of his conception, for he was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), was filled with the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:1), received him without measure (John 3:34)…But this glory which Christ possessed inwardly, was not able to reveal itself outwardly. He was flesh, and because of the weakness of the flesh he was put to death on the cross (2 Cor. 13:4). But in death he laid aside this weakness, and severed every connection with sin and death. God, who, for our sake, delivered up to death his own Son, also raised him from death, through his Spirit, who, as Spirit of holiness, dwells in Christ and in all believers (Rom. 8:11). He raised him in order that from that moment on he would no longer live in the weakness of the flesh but in the power of the Spirit.[28]

The phrase ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (“Jesus Christ our Lord”) forms the closing bookend of vv. 3-4. This phrase stands in apposition to “His Son” (v. 3). Thus, we can read: “which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures concerning His Son, . . . Jesus Christ our Lord.” And yet it is only after Paul’s brief Christological explanation that He reveals who God’s Son is. This is no desultory designation. The title reflects the entirety of Paul’s Christology. The name “Jesus” stands as the historical identity of the incarnate God-Man who entered creation to be what His name connotes–Savior. The title “Christ” refers back to the Messiah of the OT, of whose coming the prophets had foretold and who alone can carry out the official work of the Anointed One. “Lord” speaks of that lordship by which He sovereignly reigns and rules over all things, exercising all authority in heaven and on earth as He takes His rightful and exalted position at the right hand of the Father. It is to this powerful reigning King, Jesus Christ, that we belong. Paul writes that Jesus Christ is our Lord. May we exult in the fact that our Savior is both Lord and Christ and that for those who are in Him there is no condemnation (Rom. 8:1).

4. The Apostle of the Gospel

Paul says that “through [Jesus Christ our Lord] we received grace and apostleship,” i.e., through His mediation. Paul’s use of the first person plural (“we received”) seems best explained as an editorial plural. Since he no where mentions the other apostles in this letter, it is unlikely that “we” includes more than Paul himself.

Paul says that he received κάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν, “grace and apostleship.” There are two ways this may be taken. First, if this is an instance of hendiadys,[29] Paul is speaking of “the grace of apostleship” or “the gift of apostleship.” The other option is that each word has a separate emphasis. In this case, κάριν (“grace”) would refer to the general unmerited favor of God: “the kindness of God manifested to the apostle in his conversion and vocation. ‘Through whom we received grace, favor in general, and specially, the apostleship.’”[30]

Paul also says that he received grace and apostleship “for the purpose of bringing about the obedience of faith.”[31] One’s interpretation of this phrase is dependent on how the genitive πίστεως (“of faith”) is understood. Three explanations usually are offered. First, πίστεως is an objective genitive and therefore might be understood as “obedience to the faith,” the word “faith” referring to a particular body of beliefs. Second, πίστεως is an epexegetical genitive with the phrase being understood as “the obedience which consists of faith” or “the obedience which is faith.” Third, πίστεως is a genitive of source and could thus be taken as “the obedience that comes from faith.” It does not seem that Paul intends to speak of obedience to a particular set of doctrines at this point in his letter and so option one appears the least likely. Instead, the genitive is probably used to encompass the sense of options two and three. Both of these things (faith and the obedience that comes from faith) are the goals of Paul’s ministry. He does not seek one to the exclusion of the other. Paul’s message was a call to heed the gospel and believe in Christ. Yet this was only the initial act. Paul’s call included submission to the lordship of Christ as a life-long commitment. Thus obedience to the lordship of Christ is intimately connected to faith, “both as an initial, decisive step of faith and as a continuing ‘faith’ relationship with Christ. In light of this, we understand the words ‘obedience’ and ‘faith’ to be mutually interpreting: obedience always involves faith, and faith always involves obedience.”[32]

5. The Scope of the Gospel

Through Jesus Christ Paul received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, “among all the Gentiles.” The gospel of God to which Paul had been set apart was not to be confined to a proclamation to the Jews only but was to go out to the Gentiles as well. Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, will later write to the Ephesians reminding them of the former state in which they lived:

Therefore, remember, that formerly, you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called ‘Uncircumcision’ by the so-called ‘Circumcision’ which is performed in the flesh by human hands–remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ…So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household. (Eph. 2:11-13, 19)

6. The Goal of the Gospel

The prepositional phrase ὑπερ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ (v. 5) forms something of a climax. What was the ultimate reason for Paul’s desire to bring about the obedience of faith among the Gentiles? It was “for His [Jesus Christ’s] name,” i.e., for the sake of the glory and honor of the name of the risen Lord. Paul’s goal was not merely to see sinners saved, and it was not merely to obey the commission that he had received. He preached the gospel where Christ had not yet been named ultimately because of his intense passion for the glory of Christ. In John’s third epistle we read that the early Christians “went out for the sake of the Name” (v. 7). What name? The same name that Paul so zealously sought to honor–“the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil. 2:9-11). The intense theology of the opening four verses of Romans and Paul’s missionary endeavors toward the spreading of this theologically rich gospel here finds its highest goal. Partaking intellectually of the Christological banquet of vv. 3 and 4 is not the end. Theology is not the ultimate goal of revelation. Theology is merely a means to something greater–theology is the means to doxology. Missions is not the ultimate end either. Missions is the means used to teach the peoples of this world a theology that leads to doxology. Therefore, missions is a means to doxology. Paul himself concludes the theologically saturated first 11 chapters of this epistle with a doxology:

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen. (11:33-36)

7. The Fruit of the Gospel

Paul numbers the Roman Christians among the Gentiles to whom he minsters the gospel: ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “among whom you are also called of Jesus Christ.” The believers in Rome were evidence that the proclamation of the gospel, as it went forth with the power of the Holy Spirit, bears fruit. Paul describes these believers as “called of Jesus Christ.” Previously he had used this term to describe his own divine call to the apostolic office. Now he uses it to describe these Christians as divinely called, not to be apostles, but effectually called by the Father into the fellowship of His Son. They are the “called of Jesus Christ” in the sense that they belong to Him.

The Addressees

Paul now concludes the salutation that he began in v. 1 by identifying those to whom he is writing: πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν ῾Ρώμῃ, “to all who are in Rome.” He does not now distinguish between believers but includes all Christians at Rome, whether Jews or Gentiles. He also describes them as ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ (“beloved of God”) and κλητοῖς ἁγίοις (“called saints”). Again note that this letter deals with God and what He has done for His people in and through Christ. God is the actor in the phrase “beloved of God,” for He is the One who loves. God is the actor in the phrase “called saints,” for He is the One who calls. Thus in these descriptions of the Christians in Rome, Paul again emphasizes not what they have done but what God has done for them.

The Greeting

1. Components of the Greeting

The form of salutation that Paul uses here is common among his letters: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνή, “grace to you and peace.” Paul first speaks of grace. Robert Haldane’s comments are worth quoting:

Grace is uniformly placed first in order, because it is the source whence peace and all the blessings of salvation flow. Grace is the free unmerited favour of God to sinners in the plan of salvation. Grace and peace are joined together, because they are inseparable. God communicates all blessings to those to whom he gives grace, and to none besides; for whatever does not proceed from grace is not a blessing. It is to the praise of His grace that God exercises mercy, and brings those who were His enemies into a state of peace with him. Grace differs from mercy, as it regards the unworthiness, while mercy regards the sufferings, of its objects. 

Grace or favour is spoken of in Scripture in three points of view: either as the unmerited favour of God towards men, as existing in Himself; or as manifested in the Gospel, which is called the Gospel of the grace of God; or in its operation in men. Every part of redemption proceeds on the footing of grace. It originates in the grace of God, and flows, in its first manifestations and in all its after acts, from the same unceasing fountain, in calling, adopting, regenerating, justifying sanctifying, strengthening, confirming grace, - in one word, it is all of grace.[33]

Paul further adds “peace” to his salutation. John Murray notes that:

The Pauline concept of “peace” cannot be understood except on the background of the alienation from God which sin has involved. Hence “peace” is the reconstituted favour with God based upon the reconciliation accomplished by Christ. The basic meaning is indicated in 5:1, 2. It is only as we appreciate the implications of alienation from God and the reality of the wrath which alienation evinces that we can understand the richness of the biblical notion of peace as enunciated here by the apostle. Peace means the establishment of a status of which confident and unrestrained access to the presence of God is the privilege. And peace with God cannot be dissociated from the peace of God which keeps the heart and mind in Christ Jesus (cf. Phil. 4:7).[34]

2. The Source of Grace and Peace

The intended benediction of grace and peace, Paul says, is ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” All the blessings of grace and peace have their origin in both God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. By the sheer conjoining of these names, the apostle has provided yet more proof of the deity of Christ. If Jesus Christ was not God, “He could not without impiety be thus joined with, or invoked along with, the Father to impart blessings, of which God alone is the author.”[35]

Thus Paul ends his opening salutation on the note with which he began. This is not a letter about Paul but about Paul’s God and Savior. The rich Christology of these first seven verses permeates the rest of the letter, making it a deep well of divine water for those who thirst after Christ. And yet, as was noted above, Paul does not provide the Christians in Rome theology for theology’s sake but for the purpose of leading them to doxology. And so it is quite apropos that Paul ends this letter with the following words:

Now to Him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith; to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen. (Rom. 16:25-27)

Notes

1. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994), 209.
2. John Piper, The Author of the Greatest Letter Ever Written, sermon preached at Bethlehem Baptist Church on 26 April 1998. Available at http://www.desiringgod.org.
3. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), 1:2.
4. The manuscript support for Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ is confined to p46 (4th century papyri), B (4th century uncial), 81 (11th century minuscule) and some Vulgate and Armenian mss as well as a few early church fathers. On the other hand, the support for ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ is more extensive. The NA27 lists the following witnesses: p26, a, A, G, Ψ, 33, 1739, 1881, M, b, d, vgcl, sy, Irlat v.l. Ambst. While the external evidence seems to point to the reading ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, the internal evidence seems to suggest the opposite. Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 41 states: Unlike the rest of the NT authors, who prefer ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ to Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (47 times to 7), Paul prefers the order Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ (80 times to 25). This significant difference in word order suggests that…Paul uses Χριστός as a title with important theological meaning: “the Messiah, Jesus.” But there may be further significance to the order. Paul tends to use “Christ Jesus”—rather than “Jesus Christ”—in two contexts: in descriptions of his apostolic services (as here) and after the prepositions εἰς (“into”) or ἐν (“in”), to denote his characteristic motif of incorporation into Christ. The change of order could also be the result of scribes trying to alter the form to image the order found in the verses that immediately follow (cf., 1:4, 7, 8).
5. Moo, 41.
6. Piper, The Author of the Greatest Letter Ever Written.
7. Murray, 1:3.
8. Ibid.
9. William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, The Epistles to the Romans, in The International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark Limited, 1971), 5.
10. John Stott, Romans (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 48.
11. Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1988), 40.
12. James D.G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8 (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 10.
13. Murray, 1:4, says: When Paul says ‘promised afore’ he does not mean to suggest that the disclosures given of old pertained exclusively to that which would be fulfilled and become effective in the fullness of time. This supposition would be inconsistent with what we shall find later on, especially in chapter 4. The gospel was efficacious for those who received it in the form of promise. Nevertheless, the promise feature of the Old Testament revelation must be fully appreciated and it is upon the distinction between promise and fulfillment that the accent falls in this instance.
14. Charles Hodge, The Epistle to the Romans (reprint ed., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983), 17.
15. Dunn, 10. Dunn says that it “may also be a continuing echo of the familiar OT phrase, ‘his/my (God’s) servants (δοῦλοι) the prophets,’ which lies in part behind Paul’s opening self-designation.”
16. Murray, 1:5.
17. NASB.
18. Moo, 46.
19. A few manuscripts contain the word γεννωμένου, seemingly as an attempt to overcome the relative imprecision of γενομένου.
20. Murray, 1:8.
21. Moo, 47.
22. Cleon L. Rogers Jr. and Cleon L. Rogers III, The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 315.
23. Moo, 48.
24. William Hendriksen, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 1:42-43.
25. Moo, 49-50.
26. Murray, 1:11.
27. Murray, 1:11.
28. H. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Kampen, 1918), 3:488-489, as quoted in Hendriksen, 43.
29. A figure of speech in which one concept is expressed by the use of two nouns connected by “and.” “Hendiadys” means one by means of two.
30. Hodge, 21.
31. Here the preposition εἰς indicates purpose.
32. Moo, 52.
33. Robert Haldane, An Exposition of Romans (Mac Dill AFB, FL: MacDonald Publishing Company, 1958), 34.
34. Murray, 1:16.
35. Haldane, 36.