Bible Commentaries

3. concerning his Son, &c.] The connexion is with the close of Romans 1:2 : the “promise through the prophets” was “concerning the Son of God.” In the Gr., the order of words in this verse and the next is peculiar and emphatic: concerning His Son, who was made [lit. who came to be, who became] of the seed of David according to the flesh; who was marked out as the Son of God, in power, according to the Spirit of holiness, in consequence of the resurrection of the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

of the seed of David] The N. T. begins with this assertion (Matthew 1:1), and almost closes with it (Revelation 22:16). In 2 Timothy 2:8, St Paul, at the close of his ministry, again recites it as a foundation-truth.

according to the flesh] Flesh-wards, i.e. “on the side of His manhood.” This is said in contrast to the next words, “declared to be the Song of Solomon of God.” Cp. Romans 9:5 for an important parallel, where the full significance of the title “Son of God” appears. For another use of the phrase “according to the flesh,” see Romans 4:1.

Concerning His son

Connect with promised afore. Christ is the great personal object to which the promise referred.

Concerning his Son (περ του υιου αυτου). Just as Jesus found himself in the O.T. (Luke 24:27; Luke 24:46). The deity of Christ here stated. According to the flesh (κατα σαρκα). His real humanity alongside of his real deity. For the descent from David see Matthew 1:1; Matthew 1:6; Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:27; John 7:42; Acts 13:23, etc.

return to '

Romans 1:3 f. περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ: the subject of the Gospel of God is His Son. For the same conception, see 2 Corinthians 1:19 : ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ γὰρ υἱὸς Χ. Ἰ. ὁ ἐν ὑμῖν διʼ ἡμῶν κηρυχθείς. Taken by itself, “the Son of God” is, in the first instance, a title rather than a name. It goes back to Psalm 2:7; the person to whom it is applied is conceived as the chosen object of the Divine love, God’s instrument for accomplishing the salvation of His people. (Weiss.) The description which follows does not enable us to answer all the questions it raises, yet it is sufficiently clear. “The Son of God” was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. For γενομένου, cf. Galatians 4:4; for David, 2 Timothy 2:8, where, as here, the Davidic descent is an essential part of the Pauline Gospel. That it was generally preached and recognised in the primitive Church is proved by these passages, as well as by Hebrews 7:14 and the genealogies in Matthew and Luke; yet it seems a fair inference from our Lord’s question in Mark 12:35 ff. that for Him it had no real importance. Those who did not directly see in Jesus one transcendently greater than David would not recognise in Him the Saviour by being convinced of His Davidic descent. This person, of royal lineage, was “declared Son of God, with power, according to the spirit of holiness, in virtue of resurrection from the dead”. The word ὁρισθέντος is ambiguous; in Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31, it is used to describe the appointment of Christ to judge the living and the dead, and is rendered in A.V. “ordained”. If to be Son of God were merely an office or a dignity, like that of judge of the world, this meaning might be defended here. There is an approximation to such an idea in Acts 13:33, where also Paul is the speaker. “God,” he says, “has fulfilled His promise by raising up Jesus; as it is written also in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.” 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. But in view of passages like Galatians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 8:9, Php 2:5 f., it is impossible to suppose that Paul limited his use of Son of God in this way; even while Jesus lived on earth there was that in Him which no connection with David could explain, but which rested on a relation to God; the resurrection only declared Him to be what He truly was—just as in the Psalm, for that matter, the bold words, This day have I begotten Thee, may be said to refer, not to the right and title, but to the coronation of the King. In virtue of His resurrection, which is here conceived, not as from the dead (ἐκ νεκρῶν), but of the dead (ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν—a resurrection exemplifying, and so guaranteeing, that of others), Christ is established in that dignity which is His, and which answers to His nature. The expression κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης characterises Christ ethically, as κατὰ σάρκα does physically. Not that it makes the sonship in question “ethical” as opposed to “metaphysical”: no such distinctions were in the Apostle’s thought. But the sonship, which was declared by the resurrection, answered to (κατὰ) the spirit of holiness which was the inmost and deepest reality in the Person and life of Jesus. The sense that there is that in Christ which is explained by his connection with mankind, and that also which can only be explained by some peculiar relation to God, is no doubt conveyed in this description, and is the basis of the orthodox doctrine of the two natures in the one Person of the Lord; but it is a mistake to say that that doctrine is formulated here. The connection of the words ἐν δυνάμει is doubtful. They have been joined to ὁρισθέντος (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:4 : ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως θεοῦ): declared to be Son of God “by a miracle,” a mighty work wrought by God; and also with υἱοῦ θεοῦ = Son of God, not in humiliation, but “in power,” a power demonstrated by the gift of thè Spirit and its operations in the Church. “Jesus, Messiah, Our Lord,” summarises all this. “Our Lord” is the most compendious expression of the Christian consciousness. (A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, 398 ff.) “The whole Gospel of Paul is comprehended in this historical Jesus, who has appeared in flesh, but who, on the ground of the πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, which constitutes His essence, has been exalted as Christ and Lord.” (Lipsius.)

Romans 1:3-4.[286] We must, with Lachmann and Tischendorf, set aside the view which treats τοῦ γενομένου.… νεκρῶν, and Romans 1:5-6, as parentheses, because we have to deal with intervening clauses which accord with the construction, not with insertions which interrupt it. See Winer, p. 526 [E. T. 707].

περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ] “Hoc refertur ad illud quod praecessit εὐαγγέλιον; explicatur nempe, de quo agat ille sermo bona nuntians,” Grotius. So, also, Toletus, Cajetanus, Calvin, Justiniani, Bengel, Flatt, Reiche, Köllner, Winzer, Baumgarten-Crusius, Krehl, Umbreit, Th Schott, Hofmann, and others. But it may be objected to this view, on the one hand, that περί is most naturally connected with the nearest suitable word that precedes it; and on the other that, εὐαγγ., frequently as it is used with the genitive of the object, nowhere occurs with περί in the N. T.;[287] and still further, that if this connection be adopted, the important thought in Romans 1:2 appears strangely isolated. Therefore, the connection of περί with Ὃ ΠΡΟΕΠΗΓΓ. is to be preferred, with Tholuck, Klee, Rückert, Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Philippi, van Hengel, Ewald, Mehring, and others, following Theodoret; so that the great personal object is introduced, to which the divine previous promise of the gospel referred; consequently, the person concerning whom was this promise of the future message of salvation. God could not (we may remark in opposition to Hofmann’s objection) have previously promised the gospel in any other way at all than by speaking of Christ His Son, who was to come and to be revealed; otherwise his προεπαγγέλλεσθαι εὐαγγέλιον would have had no concrete tenor, and consequently no object.

ΤΟῦ ΓΕΝΟΜΈΝΟΥ down to νεκρῶν describes under a twofold aspect (ΚΑΤᾺ) the exalted dignity of Him who had just been designated by τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ: (1) ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, He entered life as David’s descendant; (2) κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσ., He was powerfully instated as Son of God by His resurrection. Nevertheless Ὁ ΥἹῸς ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ, in the words ΠΕΡῚ ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΑὐΤΟῦ (not ΑὙΤΟῦ), is not by any means to be taken in the general, merely historical theocratic sense of Messiah (Winzer, Progr. 1835, p. 5 f.; comp also Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 424; and Pfleiderer, l.c[289]), because this is opposed to the constant usage of the Apostle, who never designates Christ as υἱὸς Θεοῦ otherwise[290] than from the standpoint of the knowledge which God had given to him by revelation (Galatians 1:16) of the metaphysical Sonship (Romans 8:3; Romans 8:32; Galatians 4:4; Colossians 1:13 ff.; Php 2:6 ff. al[291]); and the hypothesis of a modification having taken place in Paul’s view (Usteri, Köllner; see, on the other hand, Rückert) is purely fanciful. Here also the υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is conceived in the metaphysical sense as He who had proceeded out of the essence of the Father, like Him in substance (not, as Baur thinks, as organ of the Spirit, which is the purer form of human nature itself), and is sent by Him for the accomplishment of the Messianic counsel. But since it was necessary for this accomplishment that He should appear as man, it was necessary for Him,—and these essential modal definitions are now added to the υἱοῦ τοῦ αὐτοῦ,—as a human phenomenon, (1) to be born κατὰ σάρκα, and indeed of the seed of David,[292] and yet (2) to be actually instated κατὰ πνεῦμα, as that which, although from the time of His birth in appearance not different from other men (Php 2:7; Galatians 4:4), He really was, namely the Son of God. These two parallel clauses are placed in asyndetic juxtaposition, whereby the second, coming after the first, which is itself of lofty and honourable Messianic significance, is brought out as of still greater importance. See Bernhardy, p. 448; Dissen. a[293]. Pind. Exc. II., de Asynd. p. 275. Not perceiving this, Hofmann fails to recognise the contrast here presented between the two aspects of the Son of God, because Paul has not used κατὰ πνεῦμα δε ὁρισθέντος in the second clause.

ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ] in respect of flesh; for the Son of God had a fleshly mode of being on earth, since His concrete manifestation was that of a materially human person. Comp Romans 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 3:18; Php 2:7; Romans 5:15; 1 Corinthians 15:21; 1 Timothy 2:5. To the ΣΆΡΞ belonged in the case of Christ also, as in that of all men, the ΨΥΧΉ as the principle of the animal life of man; but this sensuous side of His nature was not, as in all other men, the seat and organ of sin. He was not ΣΑΡΚΙΚΌς (Romans 7:14), and ΨΥΧΙΚΌς (1 Corinthians 2:14), in the ethical sense, like all ordinary men, although, in virtue of that sensuous nature, he was capable of being tempted (Hebrews 2:18; Hebrews 4:15). Although in this way His body was a ΣῶΜΑ Τῆς ΣΑΡΚΌς (Colossians 1:22), yet He did not appear ἘΝ ΣΑΡΚῚ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς, but ἘΝ ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ ΣΑΡΚῸς ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς (Romans 8:2). With reference to His fleshly nature, therefore, i.e. in so far as He was a materially-human phenomenon, He was born (γενομένου, comp Galatians 4:4), of the seed (as descendant) of David, as was necessarily the case with the Son of God who appeared as the promised Messiah (Jeremiah 23:5; Psalm 132:11; Matthew 22:42; John 7:42; Acts 13:23; 2 Timothy 2:8). In this expression the ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυΐδ is to be understood of the male line of descent going back to David (comp Acts 2:30, ἘΚ ΚΑΡΠΟῦ Τῆς ὈΣΦΎΟς), as even the genealogical tables in Matthew and Luke give the descent of Joseph from David, not that of Mary;[297] and Jesus Himself, in John 5:27 (see on that passage), calls Himself, in contradistinction to His Sonship of God, son of a man, in which case the correlate idea on which it is founded can only be that of fatherhood. It is, therefore, the more erroneous to refer ἐκ σπ. Δαυ. to Mary (“ex semine David, i.e. ex virgine Maria,” Melancthon; comp also Philippi), especially since Paul nowhere (not even in Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4) indicates the view of a supernatural generation of the bodily nature of Jesus (Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 328; Rich. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol. p. 140 ff.; Pfleiderer, l.c[299]), even apart from the fact that the Davidic descent of the mother of Jesus can by no means be established from the N. T. It is the more unjustifiable, to pronounce the metaphysical divine Sonship without virgin birth as something inconceivable[300] (Philippi).

There now follows the other, second mode in which the Son of God who has appeared on earth is to be contemplated, viz. with reference to the spirit of holiness, which was in Him. The parallelism between κατὰ σάρκα and ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ἉΓ., apparent even in the position of the two elements, forbids us to understand ΚΑΤᾺ ΠΝ. ἉΓΙΩΣ. as denoting the presupposition and regulative cause of the state of glorious power ascribed to the Son of God (Hofmann). In that case Paul must have used another preposition, conveying the idea on account of, perhaps διά with the accusative (comp the ΔΙΌ, Php 2:9), in order to express the thought which Hofmann has discovered, namely, that the holiness of His spirit, and therefore of His life, was to make His divine Sonship a state of glorious power. Regarding the view taken of ἐν δυνάμει in connection with this, see the sequel. ἉΓΙΩΣΎΝΗ, in Paul’s writings as well as in the Sept. (in Greek authors and in the other writings of the N. T. it does not occur), invariably means holiness (2 Corinthians 7:1; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; Psalm 96:6; Psalm 97:12; Psalm 144:5), not sanctification (as rendered by the Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, and many others, including Glöckler and Schrader). So also in 2Ma 3:12. The genitive is the gen. qualitatis (Hermann, a[302] Viger. pp. 887, 891; Kühner, II. 1, p. 226), and contains the specific character of the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ. This ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ἉΓΙΩΣ. is, in contradistinction to the ΣΆΡΞ, the other side of the being of the Son of God on earth; and, just as the ΣΆΡΞ was the outward element perceptible by the senses, so is the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ the inward mental element, the substratum of His ΝΟῦς (1 Corinthians 2:16), the principle and the power of His INNER life, the intellectual and moral “Ego” which receives the communication of the divine—in short, the ἔσω ἄνθρωπος of Christ. His ΠΝΕῦΜΑ also was human (Matthew 27:50; John 11:33; John 19:30)—altogether He was an entire man, and the Apollinarian conception is without support in the N. T. teaching—but it was the seat of the divine nature belonging to His person; not excluding the specialty of the latter (in opposition to Beyschlag, Christol. pp. 212, 231), but being rather that which contained the metaphysical υἱότης Θεοῦ, or—according to the Johannine type of doctrine—the seat and the organ of the ΛΌΓΟς, which became flesh in the human person of Jesus, as also of the fulness of the Holy Spirit which bore sway in Him (John 3:34; Acts 1:2; 2 Corinthians 3:17). Consequently the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ of Christ, although human (comp Pfleiderer), was exalted above all other human spirits, because essentially filled with God, and thereby holy, sinless, and full of divine unpolluted life, as was no other human πνεῦμα; and for this reason His unique quality is characterized by the distinguishing designation πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, i.e. spirit full of holiness. This purposely-chosen expression, which is not to be abated to the studium sanctitatis (van Hengel), must, seeing that the text sets forth the two sides of the personal nature of Christ, absolutely preclude our understanding it to refer to the πνεῦμα ἅγιον,[304] the third person of the divine Trinity, which is not meant either in 1 Timothy 3:16, or in Hebrews 9:14. Nevertheless, the majority of commentators, since Chrysostom, have so explained it; some of them taking it to mean: “secundum Sp. S. ei divinitus concessum” (Fritzsche; comp Beza, Calixtus, Wolf, Koppe, Tholuck, and others);[306] some referring it to the miraculous working of the Holy Spirit (Theodoret), or to the bestowal of the Spirit which took place through Christ (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Luther, Estius, Böhme, and others). Since the contrast between σάρξ and ΠΝΕῦΜΑ is not that between the human and the divine, but that between the bodily and the mental in human nature, we must also reject the interpretation which refers the words to the divine nature (Melancthon, Calovius, Bengel, and many others); in which case some take ἁγιωσύνη as equivalent to ΘΕΌΤΗς (Winzer); others adduce in explanation of ΠΝΕῦΜΑ the here irrelevant ΠΝΕῦΜΑ Ὁ ΘΕΌς, John 4:24 (Beza, Winzer, Olshausen, Maier, Philippi); others take the expression as substantially equivalent to the Johannine ΛΌΓΟς (Rückert; comp Reiche, “the principle of His higher essence”), and thus have not avoided an Apollinarian conception. The correct interpretation is substantially given by Köllner, de Wette, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald (also in his Jahrb. 1849, p. 93), and Mehring. Comp Hofmann (“spirit which supposes, wherever it is, a condition of holiness”), and also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 49, who nevertheless understands the divine nature of Christ as also included.[309]

ὁρισθέντος] The translation of the Vulgate, qui praedestinatus est, based on the too weakly attested reading προορισθέντος (a mistaken gloss), drew forth from old writers (see in Estius) forced explanations, which are now properly forgotten. ὉΡΊΖΕΙΝ, however, with the double accusative, means to designate a person for something, to nominate, to instate (Acts 10:42; comp Meleager in the Anthol. xii. 158, 7 : σὲ θεὸν ὥρισε δαίμων), nor is the meaning different here.[311] For although Christ was already the Son of God before the creation of the world, and as such was sent (Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4), nevertheless there was needed a fact, by means of which He should receive, after the humiliation that began with His birth (Php 2:7 f.), instating into the rank and dignity of His divine Sonship; whereby also, as its necessary consequence with a view to the knowledge and conviction of men, He was legitimately established as the Son. The fact which constituted instatement was the resurrection, as the transition to His δόξα; comp on Acts 13:33; and ἘΠΟΊΗΣΕ in Acts 2:36. Inaccurate, because it confounds that consequence with the thing itself, is the gloss of Chrysostom: δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος, κριθέντος; and that of Luther: “shewn.” Umbreit’s rendering is erroneous: “separated,” namely from all men.

ἐν δυνάμει] Not: through omnipotence (Umbreit), but: mightily (Luther), forcibly; for this installation of the Son of God as Son of God was a work of divine power, which (see what follows) was accomplished by means of the resurrection from the dead. Thus commanding power, divinely-energetic and effectual, forms the characteristic quality, in which the ὁρισμός took place. On ἘΝ, as paraphrase of the adverb (Colossians 1:29; 2 Thessalonians 1:11), see Bernhardy, p. 209. ἘΝ ΔΥΝ. is not, with Melancthon, Schoettgen, Pareus, Sebastian Schmid, and others, including Paulus, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi, Mehring, Holsten, Hofmann, and Pfleiderer, to be connected with ΥἹΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ (as the mightily powerful Son of God); for it was here of importance to dwell, not on a special predicate of the Son of God,[313] but, in contradistinction to the ἘΚ ΣΠΕΡΜ. ΔΑΥ. ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ, upon the divine Sonship in itself; of which Sonship He was indeed the hereditary possessor, but yet needed, in order to become instated in it with glorious power, resurrection from the dead. Thus, however, ἐν δυνάμει, even when rightly connected with ὉΡΙΣΘ., is not, with Chrysostom and Theophylact, to be taken as “per virtutem, i. e. per signa et prodigia” (Calovius, comp Grotius); nor with Fritzsche: vi ei datâ; for Paul himself defines the how of the mighty ὁρισμός by: ἘΞ ἈΝΑΣΤ. ΝΕΚΡῶΝ. This, namely, was the causal fact, by virtue of which that ὁρισμός was accomplished; for by the resurrection of Christ, God, who raised Him up (comp 2 Corinthians 13:4), accomplished in point of fact His instating declaration: Thou art my Son, this day, etc., Acts 13:33. Paul might accordingly have written διά, but ἘΚ is more expressive of the thought that Christ in virtue of the resurrection, etc. On ἐκ, used of causal issuing forth, see Buttmann’s neut. Gr. p. 281; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 550 f. The temporal explanation, since or after (Theodoret, Erasmus, Luther, Toletus, and others, including Reithmayr; comp Flatt, Umbreit, and Mehring), is to be rejected, because the raising up of Jesus from the dead was itself the great divine act, which, completed through the majesty of the Father (Romans 6:4), powerfully instated the Son in the Son’s position and dignities; hence it was also the basis of the apostolic preaching, Acts 1:22; Acts 2:24 ff; Acts 13:30; Acts 17:31 f., Acts 26:23; Romans 4:24; 1 Corinthians 15:3 ff. We are not to take the expression ἐξ ἀναστ. νεκρ., as is often done, for ἘΞ ἈΝΑΣΤ. ἘΚ ΝΕΚΡ., the second ἘΚ being omitted for the sake of euphony: but it must be viewed as a general designation of the category (νεκρῶν, see on Matthew 2:20): through resurrection of the dead, of which category the personal rising of the dead Jesus was the concrete case in point. Comp Acts 17:32. So, also, de Wette, Hofmann; comp Philippi, who however, following Erasmus and Bengel, introduces also the idea, foreign to this passage, that our resurrection is involved in that of Christ.

The following Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is in apposition to ΤΟῦ ΥἹΟῦ ΑὐΤΟῦ in Romans 5:3; not necessary in itself, but in keeping with the fulness of expression throughout this opening portion of the Epistle, which exhibits a character of majesty particularly in Romans 1:3-4.

Observe, further, that the exhibition of the holy and exalted nature of Christ in our passage serves to express the high dignity of the apostolic office. Of diversities in faith and doctrine in Rome regarding the person of Christ there is not a trace in the whole Epistle.[319]

[286] Comp. Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 502 ff.

[287] Hofmann erroneously thinks that Paul could not have added the object of his divine message otherwise than by περί. He would have only needed to repeat the εἰς εὐαγγέλιον with rhetorical emphasis, in order then to add the object in the genitive (τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀ.). Comp. Dissen. ad Dem. de cor. p. 315.

[289] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[290] Comp. Gess, v. d. Pers. Christi, p. 89 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 309.

[291] l. and others; and other passages; and other editions.

[292] But at the same time the idea of “an accommodation to the Jewish-Christian mode of conception” (Holsten, z. Ev. Paul. u. Petr. p. 427), is not to be entertained. Paul gives the two main epochs in the history of the Son of God, as they actually occurred and had been already prophetically announced.

[293] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[297] In opposition to Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfüll. II. p. 49 (comp. the Erlangen Zeitschr. 1868, 6, p. 359 f.), who generalizes the sense of the words in such away as to convey the meaning that Christ appeared as one belonging to the collective body which traces its descent back to David. But in fact it is simply said that Christ was BORN of the seed of David. The reading γεννωμένου (in min., and MSS. used by Augustine) is a correct gloss; and Hofmann himself grants (heil. Schrift N. T., in loc.) that γίγνεσθαι ἐκ here signifies descent by birth. And even if γενομένου be taken as meaning: who appeared, who came (comp. on Mark 1:4; Php 2:7; so Ewald), still the genetic relation to the σπέρμα of David remains the same. He came κατὰ σάρκα of the seed of David, and that in no other way than through His birth. This remark holds good also against other obscure evasions to which Hofmann resorts in his Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 113; in his heil. Schr. N. T. he adheres substantially to his earlier view (“come of the race which called itself after David, because tracing its descent to his ancestry”). No, the σπέρμα of David is nothing else than his semen virile, out (ἐκ) of which, transmitted (comp. ἀπό, Acts 13:23) through the male line from γενεὰ to γενεά (Matthew 1:6 ff.), at length the Son of God κατὰ σάρμα—Christ, the David’s son of promise—was born. See besides, against Hofmann, Rich. Schmidt, l.c.—Because Christ was ἐκ σπέρματος of David, He might also Himself be called σπέρμα of David, in the same way as He is called in Galatians 3:16 σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ; and He is so called Matthew 1:1. Comp. further on ἐκ σπέρματος, in the sense of fatherhood, Soph. O. C. 214: τίνος εἶ σπέρματος.… πατρόθεν.

[299] .c. loco citato or laudato.

[300] This opinion rests on a premiss assumed ǎ priori, on an abstract postulate, the propriety of which it is impossible to prove. Comp. on Matthew 1:18, note.

[302] d refers to the note of the commentator or editor named on the particular passage.

[304] This is called in the Test. XII. Patr. p. 588, πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, in so far as it produces holiness.

[306] Comp. also Zeller in the theol. Jahrb. 1842, p. 486. In his view (2 Corinthians 3:17), the πνεῦμα is the element of which the higher personality of Christ consists. According to Baur, Paulus II. p. 375, it is the Messianic spirit, the intrinsic principle constituting the Messiahship of Christ. According to Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 425, it is in itself a transcendent pneumatic force, which produces the ἁγιωσύνη, a radiance of the divine πνεῦμα ἅγιον.

[309] A more accurate and precise definition of the idea may be found in Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 313; also Rich. Schmidt, p. 105 f.; Pfleiderer in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1871, p. 169, 503 f.

[311] But not in the sense: destined to become something, as Hofmann thinks; nor generally, in the sense: qui destinatus est, but rather: qui constitutus est (was instated). For otherwise the aorist participle would be unsuitable, since it must necessarily indicate an act following the γενομένου, etc.; whereas the divine destination would be prior to the birth. Consequently, were that sense intended, it must have been, as in Acts 10:42, ὡρισμένου.

[313] As if only a change of His attributes was concerned, or the transition into the full reality of the divine Sonship (Pfleiderer). The question concerned the installation of the Son of God as such, as it were His enthronisation, which had not taken place previously, but was accomplished by the resurrection with a mighty power. By means of the latter He received—as the Son of God, which from the beginning and even in the days of His flesh He really was—a de facto instatement, which accomplished itself in a way divinely powerful. What accrued to Him thereby, was not the full reality (see Romans 8:3; Galatians 4:4), but the full efficiency of the Son of God; because He was now exalted above all the limitations of the state of His κένωσις (Philippians 2; 2 Corinthians 8:9); comp. e.g. Romans 6:9; Romans 11:33 f.; Romans 5:10; 2 Corinthians 13:4; and numerous other passages. The Son was now the κύριος πάντων, had the name above every name, etc, etc.

[319] Comp. Gess, von d. Pers. Chr. p. 56.

Romans 1:3-6. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ — The gospel is good news from God, concerning the coming of his Son to save the world. The Son of God, therefore, is the subject of the gospel, as well as its author: who was made — Gr. του γενομενου, who was, or, who was born, as the word also properly signifies; of the seed of David according to the flesh — That is, with regard to his human nature. Both the natures of our Lord are here mentioned; but the human is mentioned first, because the divine was not manifested in its full evidence till after his resurrection. And declared — Gr. του ορισθεντος, determinately marked out; the word signifies, to fix the boundaries of a thing, and consequently to make it appear what it is; to be the Son of God — In a peculiar sense, in a sense in which no creature, man or angel, is or can be his Son; see Hebrews 1:2-12; according to the Spirit of holiness — His holy, spiritual, divine nature. “The phrase, κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης, according to the Spirit of holiness,” says Mr. Locke, “is here manifestly opposed to κατα σαρκα, according to the flesh, in the foregoing verse,” and so must mean his divine nature; “unless this be so understood, the antithesis is lost.” With power — Powerful evidence, or in the most convincing manner; by the resurrection from the dead — That is, by his own resurrection, not by his raising others. Jesus being put to death as a blasphemer, for calling himself the Christ, the Son of the blessed, God would not have raised him from the dead, if he had been an impostor; especially as he had often foretold his own resurrection, and appealed to it as a proof of his being the Son of God, John 2:19. His resurrection, therefore, was a public testimony, borne by God himself, to the truth of our Lord’s pretensions, which put the matter beyond all doubt. By whom we — I and the other apostles; have received grace — Enlightening, pardoning, and sanctifying grace; and apostleship — The apostolical commission to preach grace, and salvation by grace, to Jews and Gentiles. Some, by grace and apostleship, understand the grace, or favour of apostleship. But that rendering is not literal; and it is certain that Paul did receive grace to enlighten his mind, pardon his sins, and subdue his heart to the obedience of Christ, and fit him for the ministry of the gospel, before he received the apostolical commission, whenever we suppose that commission to have been dated. For obedience to the faith among all nations — That is, that all nations may embrace the faith of Christ; for his name — For his sake, out of regard to him, or on account of his being the Son of God. For name may here signify the character of Christ, as the Song of Solomon of God, and Saviour of the world. This name Paul was appointed to bear, or publish, before the Gentiles and kings, and the children of Israel, Acts 9:15; and it is on account of this name or character, that all men are bound to obey him. Among whom — The nations brought to the obedience of faith; are ye — Romans; also — But the apostle gives them no pre-eminence above others; the called of Jesus Christ — Invited by him into the fellowship of his gospel, and a participation of all its invaluable blessings.

Romans 1:3. According to the flesh— That is, with regard to his human nature. Both the natures of our Saviour are mentioned in this and the following verse. This too regards the Jew, and puts him in mind that Jesus, whom Paul preached, was of the royal stock, whence they expected the Messiah would spring. See Taylor and Locke

return to '