Eternal Son, Davidic Son, Messianic Son: An Exposition of Romans 1:1–7

By David J. MacLeod

[David J. MacLeod is Dean of the Division of Biblical Studies, Emmaus Bible College, Dubuque, Iowa, and Associate Editor of The Emmaus Journal.]

In the profoundly moving book, War and Peace, by Leo Tolstoy, one of the most memorable passages describes the night at Russian headquarters, October 11, 1812, when a messenger brought to General Kutuzov, the old commander-in-chief, the first news of Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow. After years of awful strain and agony, the tidings sounded too good to be true. The envoy finished his report and then waited for orders in silence. Kutuzov tried to speak, but not a word would come. Finally the old man turned to where the icons stood against the wall. Suddenly and unrestrainedly he cried in a trembling voice, “Lord! My Creator! Thou hast heard our prayer. Russia is saved. I thank Thee, O Lord.” And then he burst into tears.[1]

The envoy of the gospel of Jesus Christ is charged with tidings more moving and more wonderful by far. If this message is fantasy, then there is no hope for humanity anywhere. If the message is true, then there is deliverance not just for Russia, but for the whole world.[2] The apostle Paul was an envoy of the gospel, and he was gripped by his calling and the message he was commissioned to bring. He traveled from one end of the Roman Empire to the other with the gospel, and as he went, people were delivered from their sins, churches were founded, leaders were instructed, the needy were comforted, and the disorderly were rebuked. The effects of his work are seen in every continent on earth. Cultures have been transformed, and human society shows the imprint of the message of this great apostle. What was this message that drove him, that gave him a vision and a song? He summarized it in the opening words of his greatest letter, the letter to the Roman Christians (written in the winter of a.d. 56–57). In the opening verses of the epistle Paul presented a humble-minded assessment of his calling (v. 1), his deep appreciation of his message (vv. 2–6), and his warmhearted interest in his readers (v. 7).

Paul’s Humble-Minded Assessment of His Calling (v. 1)[3]

The Author

The salutation of the Epistle to the Romans is one of the apostle’s classic statements on the person and work of the Savior whom he preached.[4] Bousset called it, “the monumental Introduction of the Epistle to the Romans.”[5] To understand Paul’s message and gain insight into the underlying causes of his success in proclaiming it, it is imperative to ponder this passage.[6]

In his salutation Paul followed the conventional form of letters in antiquity. Such letters began with the writer’s name, stated the name of the recipient(s), and gave a word of greeting. Although Paul used this common formula, he changed everything by his Christian expansions. Paul’s Jewish name was Saul (Acts 13:9), but he adopted his Roman name Paul (Παῦλος). It was common in New Testament times for Hellenistic Jews to have Gentile names alongside their Jewish names. Paul probably used his Gentile name to facilitate his travels throughout the empire-a common practice in those days.[7] In his opening sentence he spoke of his relationship to three things: his Master, his spiritual gift or office, and his work.[8]

His Master. There is much truth to the assertion that a proper self-understanding is necessary for a healthy, vital spiritual life. Paul was a man who knew exactly what his calling in life was, and this gave direction to everything he did.[9] He was “a bond-servant of Christ Jesus” (δοῦλος Χριστοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ).

The translation “bond-servant” blunts the impact this word δοῦλος would have had on the Roman readers. It is the word meaning “slave.”[10] The Romans and Greeks prided themselves on their freedom and looked down on slaves. A Greek would never speak of himself as the slave of any ruler or god. But Paul’s thinking here is influenced by the Old Testament. There the servants of the Lord were often called by this term. To be a “servant of the Lord” was honorable (e.g., Gen. 18:3; 2 Sam. 7:19; Amos 3:7).[11] By using this term Paul revealed at the outset what he thought of Jesus Christ. It is evident that he viewed being a servant of Yahweh (the Lord) and a servant of Jesus Christ as one and the same thing.[12] “To be [a slave] is terrible in the abstract,” says Moule. “To be ‘Jesus Christ’s [slave]’ is Paradise, in the concrete.”[13] The key to Paul’s “self-image” is not self-absorption, the undoing and downfall of many modern psychologized believers. Rather, it is servanthood, and specifically servanthood to Christ.

His office. Paul’s designation of himself as a slave is one of great humility. His second designation, the description of his office,[14] is one of great authority.[15] He was “called as an apostle” (κλητὸς ἀπόστολος). The word “called” (κλητός, a verbal adjective and timeless in force) is significant. The phrase “apostle by God’s call” in the New English Bible catches the force of the expression.[16] Paul was not self-appointed. He had not gained his office by arrogant, ambitious, and presumptuous efforts. God had called him.

Not every Christian is an apostle by God’s call, but every Christian is called of God (Rom. 8:28). At the base of a healthy Christian self-perspective is the knowledge that God has chosen the believer and has gifted him and has placed him where He wants him.[17] A believer needs to exercise his or her gift with a sense of divine calling.

An apostle was one who had seen the risen Christ (Acts 1:22), who had been directly commissioned by Him (2 Cor. 11, 12; Gal. 1:1), who received revelation from Him and wrote under divine inspiration (1 Cor. 2:10; Gal. 1:11–12), and who had authority among all the churches (Acts 5:1–11; 2 Cor. 11:28).[18] The apostles planted the Christian message wherever the Master led them all over the empire. When Paul said that he was an apostle, he was affirming that he was an authoritative representative of Jesus Christ.[19] Paul was not sharing a “few thoughts” with his readers that are no more or less valuable than the thoughts of others. As the voice of Christ to His church, Paul was speaking the truth of God.

Paul, then, was an apostle by divine appointment. At the heart of his “self-perception was the fact that his lifework was God’s doing. What a comfort—what a motivation!”[20]

His work. In Paul’s next phrase he spoke of his work. He had been “set apart for the gospel of God” (ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ). No doubt Paul had in mind here his experience on the Damascus Road, which determined the course of his life (Acts 9:6, 15).[21] His phrase is not negative; he was “set apart” to something, not from something. Incidentally this verb ἀφορίζω is related to the word from which the Pharisees derived their name (“separated ones”). The word “gospel” (εὐαγγέλιον) should be translated “good news,” or “announcement of good news.”[22] To summarize verse 1, Paul’s threefold description of his work hammers away at one note: initiative in ministry comes from God (cf. Heb. 5:4). It is His message, and it is He who sends His messengers.[23]

Paul’s Deep Appreciation of His Message (vv. 2–6)

The Roots of the Gospel (v. 2)

As soon as Paul mentioned the gospel in verse 1, he focused on its contents, which are summed up in Christ. Then as soon as he mentioned Christ, he went on a tangent to describe Him. What began as a salutation in a letter became a marvelous Christological hymn.

The first thing Paul said of the gospel is that “while it is good news, it is not new news.”24 It was “promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures.” The Old Testament prophets foretold both the preaching of the gospel and its contents (Isa. 40:9; 52:7; 61:1; Mic. 4:2; Hab. 2:4).

In Romans 1:3–4 Paul mentioned two historical facts of paramount importance. The prophets spoke of One who would be born of the seed of David (Ps. 89:36; Jer. 23:5), and they spoke of One who would be raised from the dead (Pss. 2:7; 16:10; cf. Acts 2:25–32; 13:32–37). The gospel, then, represents “not a break with the past, but a consummation of it.”25 It was promised in the Scriptures and is part of God’s unchanging purpose. Martin Luther in his characteristically rugged way said that Christianity “is not the result of a blind accident or of a fate determined by the stars, as many empty-headed people have arrogantly assumed, but [is the result of] God’s definite plan and deliberate predetermination.”[26]

The Bible available to the early Christians was the Old Testament. As his Master had done on the Emmaus Road, Paul delighted to go to Moses and all the prophets and expound to his listeners the things concerning Christ (Luke 24:27). To paraphrase the couplet of Augustine, “The New is in the Old contained, the Old is by the New explained.”[27]

A “Hymn” About the Gospel (vv. 3–4)[28]

The Apostle had something to sing about, and he now quoted a verse of a hymn,[29] possibly a chorus[30] well known to his readers,[31] or, more probably, a chorus that he himself had composed earlier or that he composed on the spot using phrases that were commonplace among the earliest Christians.[32] Preachers today use traditional or commonplace expressions when they quote from the Apostles’ Creed or a well-known hymn, or when they summarize the gospel using King James English.[33]

Paul probably used certain stock expressions or phrases (such as “of the seed of David,” “Son of God,” and “resurrection from the dead”) to demonstrate to his Roman readers that he was one with them in embracing the Christian gospel.[34] In any case the apostle’s ruling idea in the section is clear. The passage is a “celebration of the glory of Christ.”[35]

The good news is about God’s preexistent Son.[36] The hymn is introduced with the phrase “concerning His Son” (περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ).[37] The phrase “who was born” (τοῦ γενομένου) suggests that He was already the Son of God before His birth as a man.[38] This is an important point. The gospel message concerns One who came from God. Therefore the word “Son” in this context refers to Christ’s divine nature. He participated in the nature of His Father. Christ was not just a man; He was (and is) the eternal Son of God who was born into this world. Christ’s divine preexistence was often affirmed by Paul (1 Cor. 8:6; 10:4; Phil. 2:6; 2 Cor. 8:9; Col. 1:15–17).[39]

He was born as the messianic Son of David. When God the Son was born into this world, He “was born of a descendant of David” (τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ). The incarnation of the Son of God is so traditional that many Christians may seem bored when someone speaks of it. Yet it should inspire awe in every believer.

The expression “seed of David” draws one’s attention to the majestic destiny of Christ.[40] The Davidic descent of the Lord Jesus is an essential part of Paul’s gospel (15:12; 2 Tim. 2:8) just as it was of Jesus’ own message (Mark 12:35–37). When David wanted to build a temple for God, the prophet Nathan told him that the Lord would not allow this. Yet Nathan also told the king that the Lord had promised to establish the kingdom of David’s son. In fact God would adopt David’s Son as His own and establish His kingdom forever (2 Sam. 7:9–17; Ps. 89:1–4, 18–29).[41] Sometime before Christ was born the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and promised her a son. Gabriel added that Mary’s child was the “son” of the Davidic Covenant, that is, He would be the one to sit on David’s throne and reign over Israel (Luke 1:31–33).

Jesus told His disciples that He would one day sit on a glorious throne, and they would share in His reign with positions of authority over the tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). After Christ’s death and resurrection the apostle Peter said that Jesus had to be raised from the dead so that He might one day sit on David’s throne (Acts 2:30). Today in heaven He sits at His Father’s right hand waiting for the time when this will take place (Heb. 10:12–13; cf. Rev. 3:21). Peter later said that Christ must remain in heaven until “the period of restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21), a period always associated in the Jewish mind with the restoration of the Davidic kingdom (Acts 1:6). Later in Romans (11:26) Paul wrote of a yet-future day when God will send His “Deliverer” and “all Israel will be saved.”[42] So Jesus did not leave behind His Davidic descent at His ascension. His coming messianic rule as the Son of David is part of His glorious destiny.[43]

Paul’s reference to Jesus as the “seed of David” means He was the “Messiah designate.” The early Christians said in wonder and worship, “Messiah (i.e., the anointed Son of David) died for our sins” (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3). While the Jews viewed the death of the Son of David as a scandal, the early Christians saw from the Old Testament that Messiah needed to die in order for the Old Testament promise of salvation to be fulfilled (Acts 2:23; 8:32–35).[44]

The phrase “according to the flesh” (κατὰ σάρκα)[45] may be rendered “as a man” or “so far as His human nature is concerned.”[46] In other words “Son of David” is a valid description of Him so far as His human nature is concerned. But there is another element to His person, namely, His deity.[47]

He was appointed as the messianic Davidic Son of God. Four facts need to be noted regarding Jesus’ appointment as the Son of God.

First is the meaning of His appointment. Most modern translations (e.g., KJV, NASB, NEB, NIV) read “declared the Son of God” (τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ). But this translation is incorrect because the verb (ὁρίζω) means “to appoint,” “constitute,” or “install.” This is its meaning in all other New Testament uses (Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Heb. 4:7). Though most commentators agree that the word means “to appoint” or “to install,”[48] others continue to translate the phrase “declared the Son of God.”[49] They reason that because Christ has always been the Son of God, how could He be “made” or “appointed” the Son of God at His resurrection? As Stifler says, “His resurrection powerfully asserted [or proved] His Sonship.”50 New Testament usage, however, clearly indicates that the term here means “to appoint.”

The problem is that traditionally commentators have assumed that Paul was contrasting the human and divine natures of the Son of God in verses 3–4, 51 that is, the title “seed of David” points to His humanity, and the title “Son of God” points to His deity. But that is a mistake. Rather, Paul was contrasting two stages in the historical process of Jesus’ first coming: the incarnate and the glorified stages. Verse 3 speaks of His earthly stage of humiliation and weakness, and verse 4 speaks of His present state of exaltation and power.52 Verse 3 speaks of Christ’s earthly life when Jesus appeared as the Davidic Messiah, and verse 4 speaks of His post-resurrection existence.[53]

The solution to the problem54 is that the title “Son of God” is used in two different ways in verses 3 and 4. In verse 3 the title “Son” is used of His divine Sonship (also called His eternal Sonship or His essential Sonship). He was always the divine Son of God. In verse 4, however, the title “Son of God” is used of His messianic Sonship. It is an acquired Sonship.[55] In verse 4 the title “Son of God” refers not to the Lord’s deity but to a transformation in His humanity. Verses 3 and 4 are not contrasting His two natures. They are unfolding the two stages of His incarnate existence.

Verse 4 must be read in light of Nathan’s promise to David that God would adopt David’s son as His own.[56] David’s son would become God’s Son (Ps. 2:7, 12; Acts 2:36; 4:26–28; 5:31; 10:42; 13:33). At His resurrection Jesus of Nazareth of the family of David became the Son of God in this messianic sense. “You are My Son, today I have begotten You” (Ps. 2:7).[57] In Romans 1:3 the title “Son” is used of Christ’s essence; He always was the Son of God. In verse 4 it is used of His office; He became the Son of God at His resurrection. At His resurrection, then, Jesus, the Son of David, was “appointed” or “installed” or “enthroned” as God’s Son.[58] At His resurrection Jesus is “not just declared to be the Son of God: He was actually instituted Son of God”[59] in this messianic and Davidic sense.[60]

A second fact regarding Jesus’ appointment is the resurrection as the occasion of His appointment. “By the resurrection from the dead” (ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν) should probably be translated “because of the resurrection,” or “in virture of the resurrection,” or “on the ground of the resurrection.”[61] Paul did not say “His resurrection from the dead.” Instead he used a stereotyped expression meaning “the resurrection of those who are dead,” that is, the general resurrection of the last day. Paul probably did this to convey two thoughts. First, Christ’s resurrection is the evidence that the redeeming work has been accomplished with the full approval of the Father (4:25). Second, Christ’s resurrection is the beginning of the resurrection of the dead. He is “the first fruits of those who are asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20).[62] The resurrection, then, is “a thrilling testimony to a finished work and at the same time a stirring call to hope.”[63]

Methodist minister W. E. Sangster (1900–1960) was with his daughter one Easter near the end of his life. He was unable to speak, so he wrote her a note: “It is terrible to wake up on Easter morning and have no voice with which to shout, ‘He is risen!’—but it would be still more terrible to have a voice and not want to shout.”[64]

A third fact to note is the authority of His appointment. Jesus was “appointed Son of God with power” (υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει).[65] The Son of David has been installed as the Son of God with power and great authority. His postresurrection existence is in marked contrast to His earthly life of weakness (“according to the flesh”). “His Sonship in power is, then, a reference to the authority He possesses by virtue of His exaltation. Almost imperceptibly Sonship begins to merge into Lordship.”[66]

A fourth fact is the endowment of His appointment. The phrase “according to the Spirit of holiness” (κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης) is a Semitic idiom[67] referring to the Holy Spirit.[68] At His resurrection Christ was endowed with new power for the exercise of His mediatorial lordship over His church. “By reason of the resurrection He is so endowed with and in control of the Holy Spirit that… He is called ‘the Lord of the Spirit’ (2 Cor. 3:18).”[69] The preresurrection and postresurrection states are contrasted by the investiture with power that took place at His resurrection.[70] When Christ ascended into heaven, God the Father gave Him the Holy Spirit to give to His people (Acts 2:33). Christ sent the Holy Spirit to give them life and indwell them (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 15:45). Jesus Christ is with His people by means of the Spirit. The Spirit is the means by which He imparts His saving and sanctifying power.[71] The outpouring of the Holy Spirit proves the enthronement of Jesus as the Son of God in power.[72]

The New Testament speaks of three stages in Christ’s relationship to the Holy Spirit.[73] In the first stage Christ is conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). In the second stage (at His baptism) He became the uniquely anointed Man of the Spirit (Luke 3:22; 4:18; Acts 10:38). Yet this second stage was characterized by humiliation and weakness. He performed His miracles in dependence on the Spirit’s power.[74] In the third stage (His resurrection and exaltation) He became Lord of the Spirit (Acts 2:33).

In summary the good news is about Jesus Christ. The final words of verse 4, ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (“Jesus Christ our Lord”)[75] summarize the points of the hymn. “Jesus Christ” is the historical title; it speaks of the time of His humiliation. “Our Lord” is the official title;[76] it speaks of His exaltation. He is now Lord over His church, and in the future He will be the judge of all humankind.

The Aim of the Gospel (vv. 5–6)

Through his risen and exalted Lord Paul received “grace and apostleship” (δι᾿ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καί ἀποστολήν). This is the first use of the word “grace” (χάρις) in the Book of Romans. Some say that Paul was speaking of two distinct things, namely, apostleship and grace.[77] Grace is God’s undeserved or unmerited favor by which Paul was saved and called into fellowship with Christ. Paul never forgot that he was saved by grace (1 Cor. 15:10; Gal. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:13–16; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5–7).

Others take the phrase to mean “the grace (i.e., the divine gift) of apostleship.” Paul was given the gift of apostleship. It was undeserved by human merit. This view is preferable.[78] Paul’s topic at this point was not his salvation. Rather, he was giving a simple statement of his authority in respect to the Gentile world.[79] Later in the epistle (12:6) Paul spoke of “gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.”

The aim of Paul’s ministry was to bring about “the obedience of faith” (εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως) among the Gentiles. The expression “obedience of faith” has been understood in a variety of ways.[80] It is best translated “the obedience which consists of faith.”[81] Paul was not saying that faith plus obedience are necessary for salvation. Instead he was affirming that the one act of obedience that brings salvation is faith. “Believe and you have it,” said Luther.[82] The essence of obedience for the sinner hearing the gospel is to respond to the message of good news with faith.

In verse 6 Paul wrote, “among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ” (ἐν οἷ̑ς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χρίστου). The “called” are those who have been invited to come to Christ and have responded in faith.

Paul’s Warmhearted Interest in the Romans (v. 7)

Paul closed his monumental introduction by expressing his desire that God’s “grace” (undeserved favor) and “peace” (i.e., unrestrained access to the presence of God after alienation)[83] may be the experience of the Romans. Three observations about this verse are in order. First, there is no racial or class discrimination in Paul’s message. Though his commission was to the Gentiles (v. 5), his greeting was to “all who are beloved of God in Rome,” that is, all believers in Rome, whether Jews or Gentiles.

The phrase “in Rome” (ἐν Ῥώμῃ) is a reminder that these Christians lived in the capital of universal paganism, material wealth, military might, immeasurable worldliness, flagrant and indescribable sin. Descriptions by the great historians (Tacitus, Seutonius, Juvenal, Martial) demonstrate that Rome had a deadly atmosphere for a regenerate heart—deadly in its vice, deadly in its magnificence, and deadly in its philosophy. Nevertheless there in Rome were the “beloved of God.”[84]

Second, the addressees are “called as saints” (κλητοῖς ἁγίοῖς). Augustine pointed out that Paul did not say they were “called to be saints”; nor did Paul write they were “called because [they were] saints.” Rather he said they are “saints because called.” The term “saint” is a positional term, meaning to be set apart for God’s use. A saint is a believer in Jesus Christ—someone separated from the world’s values and consecrated wholly for God’s use.[85] Third, Paul treated God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as equal in power, wisdom, and authority. He used one preposition (ἀπό) to join the persons together (ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου ᾿Λησοῦ Χρίστου). The Father and the Son are equal. Paul used “God” as the personal name of the first person of the Trinity, namely, the Father, and “Lord” is the personal name of Christ in distinction from the Father and the Spirit. These names serve to distinguish the persons of the Trinity but they do not subtract deity from Christ or lordship from the Father.[86]

Conclusion

The opening words of the salutation of Romans offer a practical lesson to Christian leaders in Paul’s humble-minded assessment of himself. He was a “slave of Jesus Christ.” And like Paul, all believers are chosen of God to be His envoys in this world.

Contemporary writers have said some strange things of Jesus. John Crossan called Him “a Mediterranean Jewish peasant.”[87] To John Meier He is “a marginal Jew.”[88] To others He is a sage offering countercultural wisdom, an itinerant cynic philosopher, a prophet of social change, a man of the Spirit, or a deluded eschatological prophet.[89] However, Paul called Him “the Son of God,” “the seed of David,” and “Jesus Christ our Lord.” God the Son took on a human nature and became the Son of David. As the Davidic Son He has been installed as the messianic Son of God in the place of universal lordship.

Notes

1. Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace, trans. Constance Garnett (New York: Modern Library, n.d.), 955–56. For this summary the writer is indebted to James S. Stewart, Heralds of God: A Practical Book on Preaching (New York: Scribner’s, 1946), 58.
2. Stewart, Heralds of God, 58.
3. The main headings of this outline are adapted from D. Stuart Briscoe, Romans, Communicator’s Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1982), 19.
4. Thomas R. Schreiner says it is “the longest and most theologically complex of all the Pauline openings” (Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998], 31).
5. Wilhelm Bousset, quoted by Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, “The Christ That Paul Preached,” in The Person and Work of Christ (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1950), 73.
6. S. Lewis Johnson Jr., “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” Bibliotheca Sacra 128 (April-June 1971): 122.
7. This, at least, is the view of Origen and others. See C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1975), 1:48–50. Cranfield, adopting a different view, argues that Paul probably possessed the three names (tria nomina) characteristic of a Roman citizen. He would have had a praenomen or personal name, a nomen or clan name, and a cognomen or family name. In addition he might have had a signum or supernomen, that is, an unofficial, informal name. Cranfield suggests that Paul was his cognomen (family name) and Saul his signum.
8. Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 123; cf. James M. Stifler, The Epistle to the Romans (Chicago: Moody, 1960), 23.
9. R. Kent Hughes, Romans: Righteousness from Heaven (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1991), 16–17.
10. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 259–60.
11. Cf. E. H. Gifford, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (London: John Murray, 1886), 53; C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), 16; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 36–37; and James G. D. Dunn, Romans 1–8, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1988), 7–9.
12. Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 123.
13. H. C. G. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans (1928; reprint, Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1975), 11.
14. Significantly the term “office” is never used in New Testament discussions of church order, even though there were numerous Greek words for it, including ἄρχων, τιμή, τέλος, λειτουργία (Eduard Schweizer, Church Order in the New Testament, trans. Frank Clarke [London: SCM, 1961], 171–76). Apostleship is actually described as a spiritual gift, and it stands first among them (1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 4:11). The designation “office” is nevertheless appropriate in that the apostles wielded plenipotentiary authority among the churches.
15. John R. W. Stott, “God’s Gospel,” in Believing and Obeying Jesus Christ: The Urbana 79 Compendium, ed. John W. Alexander (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1980), 30.
16. Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 123–24.
17. Hughes, Romans: Righteousness from Heaven, 17.
18. For further discussion of the New Testament apostolate see K. H. Rengstorf, “ἀπόστολος,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel and Friedrich Kittel, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 407–47; Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Apostles Before and During Paul’s Time,” in Apostolic History and the Gospel, ed. W. Ward Gasque and Ralph P. Martin (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 287–303; Robert D. Culver, “Apostles and the Apostolate in the New Testament,” Bibliotheca Sacra 134 (April-June 1977): 131-43; and R. W. Herron Jr., “The Origin of the New Testament Apostolate,” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 101-31.
19. It should be noted that unlike some of his other epistles (1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:1–2; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; Philem. 1) the Epistle to the Romans mentions no cosenders in the salutation. Although Timothy was with him when he wrote Romans, Paul did not mention him here (cf. 16:21). Perhaps this was in order to stress his distinctive authority as the apostle to the Gentiles (Schreiner, Romans, 32).
20. Hughes, Romans: Righteousness from Heaven, 17.
21. Gifford, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, 53.
22. For the Old Testament and pagan backgrounds of the term see Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:55.
23. Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 125.
24. Ibid., 126.
25. Franz J. Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Harold Knight (Cleveland: World, 1961), 36.
26. Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, vol. 25 of Luther’s Works, ed. Hilton C. Oswald (Concordia: St. Louis, 1972), 145–46.
27. Augustine’s couplet reads, “In Novo Testament patet [In the New Testament the things are patent or clear]; Quae in Vetare latet [which in the Old Testament are latent or obscure].” See Barnhouse, Man’s Ruin: Romans 1:1–32, 31–32.
28. The literature on Romans 1:3–4 is extensive. Almost three decades ago Martin Hengel said that more had been written at that time on those two verses than about any other New Testament verses (The Son of God, trans. J. Bowden [London: SCM, 1976], 59). In addition to the commentaries on Romans see Warfield, “The Christ That Paul Preached,” 73–90; Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 120–34; Oscar J. F. Seitz, “Gospel Prologues: A Common Pattern?” Journal of Biblical Literature 83 (1964): 262-68; Bernardin Schneider, “Κατὰ Πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (Romans 1:4),” Biblica 48 (1967): 359-87; James D. G. Dunn, “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans 1:3–4, ” Journal of Theological Studies 24 (1973): 40-68; Vern S. Poythress, “Is Romans 1:3–4 a Pauline Confession After All?” Expository Times 87 (1975–1976): 180-83; Paul Beasley-Murray, “Romans 1:3f: An Early Confession of Faith in the Lordship of Jesus,” Tyndale Bulletin 31 (1980): 147-54; and Ferdinand Hahn, The Titles of Jesus in Christology (New York: World, 1969), 246–53. See also Hengel’s own comments in The Son of God, 59–66.
29. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 45. To classify verses 3 and 4 as a hymn is admittedly speculative. Most scholars today classify the verses as an early Christian creed. Two observations are in order. First, to classify the section as a creed is also speculative and seems to “push back into apostolic times a rigidity of formulation characteristic only of the second and later centuries” (Poythress, “A Pauline Confession,” 182). Second, when pushed to distinguish a creed or confession from a hymn, Rudolf Bultmann offered length as the chief distinction (Ralph P. Martin, “Hymns in NT,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 789).
30. The following elements of a hymn are found here. First, and most important, the clauses are arranged in an obvious parallelism, with three antithetical elements: (a) τοῦ γενομένου is parallel to τοῦ ὁρισθέντος, (b) ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ is parallel to υἱοῦ θεοῦ, and (c) κατὰ σάρκα corresponds to κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης. The parallelism has led to the suspicion that the passage has been honed by repetition and made memorable for worship. Second, the hymn writer used a combination of relative and participial clauses. Third, and least important, is the view of some that a number of expressions in the verses are not characteristically Pauline (John Ziesler, Paul’s Letter to the Romans [Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989], 60).
31. Many scholars today hold the view that Paul included pre-Pauline elements in the hymn or creed (e.g., Archibald M. Hunter, Paul and His Predecessors, rev. ed. [London: SCM, 1961], 24–28; Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, trans. K. Grobel [New York: Scribners, 1955], 1:49; and Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980], 10). The supposed pre-Pauline elements in the hymn (or creed) include the following: (1) The parallelism of the clauses, with the combination of participial and relative clauses, is characteristic of fixed formulas. (2) The verses use σάρξ and πνεῦμα in a non-Pauline way. (3) The phrase τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ involves adoptionist rather than preexistence Christology. (4) It contains expressions that are not characteristic of Paul such as “the Son of God with power … according to the Spirit of holiness.” (5) The passage mentions the Davidic descent of Jesus, which was not of interest to Paul. (6) The hymn makes no mention of the Cross, which is surprising in that the Cross is so central to Paul’s theology (see Dunn, “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit,” 40). These arguments are rejected for the following reasons. First, the use of stock Christian phrases should be expected from a major leader of the early church, a man who probably coined a number of the phrases. Second, the expression “according to the flesh” is used here in a sense similar to its use in Romans 4:1; 9:3, 5; and Ephesians 6:5. Even though the expression “according to the Spirit of holiness” occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, that is no reason to argue that Paul is not the originator of the phrase. Third, the term “Son of God” is used in a twofold sense that is found elsewhere in the New Testament (Heb. 1:1–4) and includes a Christology that embraces both preexistence and enthronement. There is no reason to call it pre-Pauline. Fourth, to say that the words “the Son of God with power … according to the Spirit of holiness” are not characteristic of Paul is to assume that the great apostle was incapable of saying something only once in his letters. Fifth, Paul did mention Jesus’ Davidic descent elsewhere (Acts 13:22–23; Rom. 15:12; 2 Tim. 2:8). Furthermore in this epistle Paul manifested a great interest in Israel and her future, and he well knew that this involved a Davidic king. “There is no suggestion here of embarrassment over Jesus’ Davidic origin” (Schreiner, Romans, 40). Sixth, the Cross was important to Paul, but that does not mean that he must have mentioned it here. There is no reason why he could not be the composer of this hymn. (See also Poythress, “Is Romans 1:3–4 a Pauline Confession After All?” 180–83.)
32. James M. Scott concluded, “It is in no way certain that Rom. 1:3b–4 contains a Pre-Pauline creed” (Adoption as Sons of God: An Exegetical Investigation into the Background ofΥΛΟΘΕΣΛΑin the Pauline Corpus [Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1992], 229–36). Christopher G. Whitsett likewise suggests that “the evidence of Paul’s overall command of the material in 1:3–4 tips the scales against authorship other than Paul’s” (“Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Messianic Exegesis in Romans 1:3–4, ” Journal of Biblical Literature 119 [2000]: 680).
33. Poythress, “A Pauline Confession,” 180.
34. Ibid., 181.
35. Warfield, “The Christ That Paul Preached,” 82.
36. Hunter (Paul and His Predecessors, 25) divides the clauses as follows: Concerning His Son, 1. Who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 2. Who was appointed Son of God with power according to the Holy Spirit, 3. As a result of the resurrection of the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord.
37. Whitsett argues that the prepositional phrase “concerning His Son” (v. 3a) modifies not the “gospel of God” (v. 1c), but the “holy Scriptures” (v. 2), which immediately precedes it. “Paul is doing messianic exegesis” (“Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Messianic Exegesis in Romans 1:3–4, ” 674).
38. Dunn, on the other hand, denies Christ’s ontological preexistence and deity (“Jesus—Flesh and Spirit,” 58–60). Romans 1:3 clearly assumes His preexistence as does 8:3, where Paul wrote that God sent His own Son to be a sin offering (C. E. B. Cranfield, “Some Comments on Professor J. D. G. Dunn’s Christology in the Making with Special Reference to the Evidence of the Epistle to the Romans,” in The Glory of Christ in the New Testament, ed. L. D. Hurst and N. T. Wright [Oxford: Clarendon, 1987], 269–71). As Cranfield notes, the phrase “concerning His Son” controls the two following participial clauses and implies that “the One who was born of the seed of David was already Son of God before” (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:58; see also Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, Anchor Bible [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 233).
39. F. L. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, trans. A. Cusin and T. W. Chambers, rev. ed. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1883), 77.
40. Warfield, “The Christ That Paul Preached,” 81. Dunn shows a flawed understanding of Paul (and biblical theology in its grand sweep) when he says that Paul viewed the formula “born of the seed of David” as a “dangerously defective and misleading half-truth” (“Jesus—Flesh and Spirit,” 51).
41. David may very well have thought that the promise would be fulfilled in Solomon. “It is important to note that each living successor to David’s throne was clothed in the large, magnificent, purple mantle of the messianic vision attached to the house of David” (Bruce K. Waltke, “A Canonical Process Approach to the Psalms,” in Tradition and Testament: Essays in Honor of Charles Lee Feinberg [Chicago: Moody, 1981], 14). Those elements in the promise to David that present David’s son as anything less than ideal (e.g., 2 Sam. 7:14, “when he commits iniquity”) are the historical eggshells of the covenant that fell away when the ultimate Son of David appeared (ibid., 16).
42. On the Davidic Covenant see George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884), 1:313–19; O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980), 229–69; and Thomas Edward McComiskey, The Covenants of Promise: A Theology of the Old Testament Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 21–30 and passim.
43. William Manson seems to imply this when he defines κατὰ σάρκα as “the earthly life” of Jesus (“Notes on the Argument of Romans [Chapters 1–8],” in New Testament Essays, ed. A. J. B. Higgins [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1959], 153).
44. Hengel, The Son of God, 61.
45. Κατά here should be translated “with respect to” (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 513). Barrett has “in the sphere of the flesh” (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 18).
46. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:60. On the wide range of nuances in the New Testament usage of σάρξ see Dunn, “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit,” 46–60.
47. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:60; and Warfield, “The Christ That Paul Preached,” 85.
48. For example C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 57; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 1:9; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 13; Fitzmyer, Romans, 235; Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 129; K. L. Schmidt, “ὁρίζω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 5 (1967), 453; and Leslie C. Allen, “The Old Testament Background of (προ-) ὁριζειν in the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 17 (1970): 104-5.
49. William G. T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (New York: Scribners, 1879), 9; Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, rev. ed. (1886; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 19; William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, International Critical Commentary, 5th ed. (Edinburgh: Clark, 1902), 7–8; Morris, Romans, 45; and Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 723.
50. Stifler, The Epistle to the Romans, 25.
51. For example Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 19–20; and Warfield, “The Christ That Paul Preached,” 82–84, 88.
52. George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 2nd ed. (1889; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1974), 77; Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1930; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 155 n. 10; Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 132–33; Moisés Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews,” Westminster Theological Journal 39 (1976): 63-64. Manson writes, “The antithetic terms ‘flesh’, ‘spirit’ do not divide His substance but unfold the economy of His manifestation” (“Notes on the Argument of Romans,” 153).
53. Manson, “Notes on the Argument of Romans,” 153. Whitsett has argued that Paul was not relating two chronological stages in Jesus’ messianic career. “Reading 1:3–4 together with 15:8–9a and 15:12 suggests that Paul alludes less to two stages than to two aspects of Jesus’ messiahship: confirming God’s faithfulness (i.e., to Israel), and glorifying God among the nations” (“Son of God, Seed of David: Paul’s Messianic Exegesis in Romans 1:3–4, ” 681). It is more accurate to say that the two passages (1:3–4 and 15:8–9, 12) are complementary. The aspects of Jesus’ messianic work described in 15:8–9 are the outcome of the sequence of events described in 1:3–4.
54. At least three other solutions to this problem have been proposed. One view is that at His resurrection Christ was proven to be the eternal Son of God. By using the translation “declared” advocates of this view seek to safeguard the eternal Sonship of Christ. A second view is that at His resurrection the man Jesus was adopted as God’s Son. Proponents argue that Paul was using a pre-Pauline confessional formula, which affirmed that Jesus received the dignity of divine Sonship at His resurrection and exaltation (C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, Moffatt New Testament Commentary [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1932], 5; Käsemann, Romans, 10, 12; cf. Poythress, “A Pauline Confession,” 180–83). This view is rejected for three reasons: (a) it confuses the adoptionist language of the Bible with that of later centuries, (b) the assertion that verses 3–4 are pre-Pauline is largely speculative, and (c) it is evident from verse 3 that Paul viewed Christ as the Son of God before His birth. A third view is that at His resurrection Christ was appointed Son-of-God-in-power (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:9; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:62; Dunn, Romans 1–8, 14; Fitzmyer, Romans, 235; and Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 128, 130). In other words Paul was contrasting Christ’s being Son of God in apparent weakness during His earthly life with His present status as Son of God with power and authority. As Godet noted, however, the antithesis in verses 3–4 is between the Son of David and the Son of God, not between the Son of God in weakness and the Son of God in power (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 79).
55. C. F. D. Moule has observed that from the days of Jesus and the disciples the title Son has been invested “with a highly complex, multivalent set of associations” (The Origins of Christology [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977], 31). The New Testament uses the title Son of God in at least three ways: (a) essential or eternal Sonship, which refers to Jesus’ sharing the very nature of God, or divine essence, from eternity; (b) official or messianic Sonship, which addresses His function or office as Messiah and does not refer to His nature (2 Sam. 7:14; Matt. 16:16; Mark 14:61; Luke 1:32; Rom. 1:4; Heb. 1:5); (c) incarnational Sonship, in which the origin of Christ’s human nature is attributed to the Fatherhood of God (Luke 1:35; 3:38; cf. Matt. 1:20–21). See Geerhardus Vos, The Self-Disclosure of Jesus, ed. J. G. Vos (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954), 141–42, 191–93; William Kelly, An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark (London: C. A. Hammond, 1934), 184; idem, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke, ed. E. E. Whitfield (London: Alfred Holness, 1914), 26–27; idem, Lectures on the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Ephesians (London: G. Morrish, n.d.), 8; and idem, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews (London: T. Weston, 1905), 14–15.
56. The term “adoption” was incorrectly used by the adoptionists of the second and eighth centuries. They taught that Jesus was a man who became God by adoption. Evangelicals rightly reject this ancient heresy. The New Testament teaches that Christ is the eternal Son of God. Yet in His human nature He is the messianic Son. God the Son took a human nature and in that human state as David’s son, in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam. 7:12–14; Ps. 89:26–28), He was adopted as God’s Son. Jesus is not only the eternal Son; He is also the messianic Son (H. F. Vos, “Adoptionism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], 13–14; and Zane C. Hodges, “Hebrews,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983], 781).
57. James Denney wrote, “Here the resurrection day, strictly speaking, is the birthday of the Son of God; sonship is a dignity to which He is exalted after death” (“St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans,” in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed. W. Robertson Nicoll [London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1903; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970], 2:586).
58. Silva, “Perfection and Eschatology,” 63–64; and Poythress, “A Pauline Confession,” 180–83.
59. Beasley-Murray, “An Early Confession of Faith,” 151–52. He adds, “Christ’s sonship here [in v. 4] is to be understood in functional rather than ontological terms.” However, in verse 3 “Son” is to be understood in ontological rather than functional terms. To assert that Paul spoke of functional/messianic Sonship in verse 4 should not therefore be construed as a denial of eternal Sonship in verse 3. As Moo notes, “It is the Son who is ‘appointed’ Son” (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 48).
60. Followers of Witness Lee, who hold with the Greek Orthodox Church to a view of salvation by theosis or deification, argue that the human nature of Jesus was deified at the time of His resurrection and they cite Romans 1:3–4 as evidence (editors’ note, Affirmation and Critique [January 2000], 2–3). However, the change in Jesus described by Paul is official, not ontological. Jesus Christ, in His manhood, assumed the messianic office of Son of God. In His divine nature He always was the Son of God. The ontological deification of His human nature is simply not found here.
61. The preposition ἐκ has been taken in two ways. One is a temporal sense, that is, the resurrection marked the beginning of the exalted life of Christ (e.g., Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:62). The other is a causal sense, that is, the resurrection produced an immense transformation in the person of Christ (Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 80; and Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Römer, 4th ed. [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966], 39).
62. Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans, trans. C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1949), 49–51; and Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 47.
63. Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 130.
64. Horton Davies, Varieties of English Preaching 1900–1960 (London: SCM, 1963), 206–7.
65. The phrase ἐν δυνάμει has been taken in two ways: (a) adverbially as qualifying ὁρισθέντος, that is, it refers to the fact that Christ was raised by the power of God (Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 9; and Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 79); or (b) adjectivally as modifying υἱοῦ θεοῦ, that is, in His present state Christ has power and authority (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:62).
66. Johnson, “The Jesus that Paul Preached,” 130.
67. In addition to the interpretation offered here three other views of κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης have been proposed. (1) Some have argued that the phrase refers to the Lord’s divine nature (e.g., Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 20; Warfield, “The Christ That Paul Preached,” 81–90; and W. E. Vine, The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1948], 9). This view fails for two reasons. First, as already noted, the participle ὁρισθέντος means “appointed,” not “declared.” It cannot be said that Jesus was appointed by virtue of His divine nature. He was eternally God’s Son with respect to His divine nature (Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 131). Second, the phrase “the Spirit of holiness” is closely related to the phrase “by the resurrection from the dead.” The phrase must refer in some way to His human nature, for only in respect to His human nature was He raised from the dead (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:11). (2) Others have argued that πνεύμα refers to Christ’s human nature (e.g., Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 9). Most proponents of this second view say that “spirit” refers to Christ’s human disposition (Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 80; H. A. A. Kennedy, The Theology of the Epistles [London: Duckworth, 1919], 69; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans [Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1936], 37; and Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 132). Proponents say this meaning (i.e., “disposition”) of πνεῦμα follows the pattern of other expressions in Romans such as “spirit of bondage” (πνεῦμα δουλείας) and “spirit of adoption” (πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας) in 8:15. In short, the phrase “expresses the spirit of holiness which dominated all His thoughts and actions” (Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 132). Godet calls it “the principle of holy consecration which had marked all His activity here below” (Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 80). As argued above, however, verses 3–4 mark stages in the historical process of Jesus’ experience. Verse 3 describes the stage of His earthly ministry, and verse 4 describes the stage of His heavenly ministry. This second view places a reference to Christ’s earthly experience in a verse that deals with His postresurrection exaltation. (3) Others come much closer to the view proposed in this article, by concurring that πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης refers to the Holy Spirit (e.g., Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 46). They say that Paul was speaking of the power of the Holy Spirit shown in Jesus’ resurrection. He was raised κατά (“according to”), that is, by the power of the Holy Spirit. However, two observations are in order. First, the Father, not the Holy Spirit, is usually designated as the One who raised Jesus. Second, διά with the accusative would have more clearly expressed this third view (H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Epistle to the Romans, trans. J. C. Moore and E. Johnson, 6th ed. [New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884], 34).
68. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 18–19; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:10–12; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 46; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:63–64; F. F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 69; and Schreiner, Romans, 43–44.
69. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:11.
70. Ibid., 1:10–12.
71. Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor, An Analysis of the Greek New Testament (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1979), 2:457.
72. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, 69.
73. Cf. Dunn, “Jesus—Flesh and Spirit,” 66.
74. William Kelly, An Exposition of the Two Epistles to Timothy, 3rd ed. (London: C. A. Hammond, 1948), 74–75.
75. The phrase Λησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν stands in apposition to τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτου in verse 3 (Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:65).
76. The titles “Lord” and “Christ” are concerned with function and status rather than with essential nature. See I. Howard Marshall, “The Divine Sonship of Jesus,” Interpretation 21 (1967): 102.
77. Sanday and Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 11; Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 21; and Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:13.
78. The expression χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν is a hendiadys, that is, a complex idea expressed by two words connected by a copulative.
79. Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 133. See also John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul to the Romans and Thessalonians, trans. R. MacKenzie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 17; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:66; and Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, 70.
80. Seven interpretations have been suggested for the expression “obedience of faith” (ὑπακοὴν πίστεως). (1) “Obedience to the faith,” that is, obedience in the sense of accepting the faith as the body of doctrine. However, the phrase does not have the article “the” before the word “faith.” (2) “Obedience to the authority of faith.” (3) “Obedience to God’s faithfulness as tested in the gospel.” (4) “The obedience which faith works.” (5) “Obedience which faith demands,” or “the obedience required by faith,” as opposed to the obedience demanded or required by the Law (Matthew Black, Romans, New Century Bible [London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1973], 38). (6) “Believing obedience,” that is, “obedience which is the product of faith.” (D. B. Garlington, “The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans,” Westminster Theological Journal 52 [1990]: 201-24; and Schreiner, Romans, 35). (7) “The faith which consists of obedience.”
81. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:13; Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1:66; and Johnson, “The Jesus That Paul Preached,” 133. Grammatically the noun “faith” (πίστεως) is an appositional genitive, that is, the word in the genitive case (“faith”) expresses the content of the obedience.
82. Martin Luther, quoted by Frederick Dale Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 253.
83. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:16.
84. Moule, The Epistle to the Romans, 20.
85. Gifford, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, 57; and Alan F. Johnson, Romans: The Freedom Letter, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1984), 1:23.
86. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:16–17.
87. John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper, 1991).
88. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1991).
89. See the discussion of various modern theories in Ben Witherington III, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1995).