Romans 1:4

And declared - In the margin, “determined.” Τοῦ ὁρισθέντος Tou horisthentos. The ancient Syriac has, “And he was known to be the Son of God by might and by the Holy Spirit, who rose from the house of the dead.” The Latin Vulgate, “Who was “predestinated” the Son of God,” etc. The Arabic, “The Son of God destined by power special to the Holy Spirit,” etc. The word translated “declared to be” means properly “to bound, to fix limits to,” as to a field, to determine its proper limits or boundaries, to “define,” etc. Act 17:26, “and hath determined the bounds of their habitation.” Hence, it means to determine, constitute; ordain, decree; i, e. to fix or designate the proper boundaries of a truth, or a doctrine; to distinguish its lines and marks from error; or to show, or declare a thing to be so by any action. Luk 22:22, “the Son of man goeth as it was determined, as it was fixed; purposed, defined, in the purpose of God, and declared in the prophets. Act 2:23, “him being delivered by the determinate counsel, the definite. constituted will, or design, of God. Act 11:29; Heb 4:7, “he limiteth a certain day,” fixes it, defines it. In this sense it is clearly used in this place. The act of raising him from the dead designated him, or constituted him the Son of God. It was such an act as in the circumstances of the case showed that he was the Son of God in regard to a nature which was not “according to the flesh.” The ordinary resurrection of a man, like that of Lazarus, would not show that he was the Son of God; but in the circumstances of Jesus Christ it did; for he had claimed to be so; he had taught it; and God now attested the truth of his teaching by raising him from the dead.

The Son of God - The word “son” is used in a great variety of senses, denoting literally a son, then a descendant, posterity near or remote, a disciple or ward, an adopted son, or one that imitates or resembles another; see the note at Mat 1:1. The expression “sons of God,” or “son of God,” is used in an almost equal latitude of signification. It is:

(1) Applied to Adam, as being immediately created by God without an earthly father; Luk 3:38.

(2) It is applied to saints or Christians, as being adopted into his family, and sustaining to him the relation of children; Joh 1:12-13; 1Jo 3:1-2, etc. This name is given to them because they resemble him in their moral character; Mat 5:45.

(3) It is given to strong men as resembling God in strength; Gen 6:2, “The sons of God saw the daughters of men,” etc. Here these men of violence and strength are called sons of God, just as the high hills are called hills of God, the lofty trees of Lebanon are called cedars of God, etc.

(4) Kings are sometimes called his sons, as resembling him in dominion and power, Psa 82:6.

(5) The name is given to angels because they resemble God; because he is their Creator and Father, etc., Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Dan 3:25.

But the name the “Son of God” is in the New Testament given by way of eminence to the Lord Jesus Christ. This was the common and favorite name by which the apostles designated him. The expression “Son of God” is applied to him no less than 27 times in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and 15 times in the Epistles and the Revelation The expression my Son, and his Son, thy Son, etc. is applied to him in his special relation to God, times almost without number. The other most common appellation which is given to him is “Son of man.” By this name he commonly designated himself. There can be no doubt that that was assumed to denote that he was a man, that he sustained a special relation to man, and that he chose to speak of himself as a man. The first, the most obvious, impression on the use of the name “Son of man” is that he was truly a man, and was used doubtless to guard against the impression that one who manifested so many other qualities, and did so many things like a celestial being, was not truly human being.

The phrase “Son of God” stands in contrast with the title “Son of man,” and as the natural and obvious import of that is that he was a man, so the natural and obvious import of the title “Son of God” is that he was divine; or that he sustained relations to God designated by the name Son of God, corresponding to the relations which he sustained to man designated by the name Son of Man. The natural idea of the phrase, “Son of God,” therefore is, that he sustained a relation to God in his nature which implied more than was human or angelic; which implied equality with God. Accordingly, this idea was naturally suggested to the Jews by his calling God his Father; Joh 5:18, “But said also that God was his Father, “making himself equal with God.” This idea Jesus immediately proceeded to confirm; see the note at Joh 5:19-30. The same idea is also suggested in Joh 10:29-31, Joh 10:33, Joh 10:36, “Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest: “because I said I am the Son of God?” There is in these places the fullest proof that the title suggested naturally the idea of equality with God; or the idea of his sustaining a relation to God corresponding to the relation of equality to man suggested by the title Son of man.

This view is still further sustained in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Rom 1:1-2, “God hath spoken unto us by His Son.” He is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, Rom 1:3. He is higher than the angels, and they are required to worship him, Rom 1:4-6. He is called “God,” and his throne is forever and ever, Rom 1:8. He is “the Creator of the heavens and the earth,” and is immutably the same, Rom 1:10-12. Thus, the rank or title of the “Son of God” suggests the ideas and attributes of the Divinity. This idea is sustained throughout the New Testament. See Joh 14:9, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;” Rom 1:23, “That all men shall honor the Son even as they honor the Father;” Col 1:19, “It hath pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” Col 2:9, “For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily:” Phi 2:2-11; Rev 5:13-14; Rev 2:23. It is not affirmed that this title was given to the second person of the Trinity before he became incarnate; or to suggest the idea of any derivation or extraction before he was made flesh. There is no instance in which the appellation is not conferred to express his relation after he assumed human flesh. Of any derivation from God, or emanation from him in eternity, the Scriptures are silent. The title is conferred on him, it is supposed, with reference to his condition in this world, as the Messiah. And it is conferred, it is believed, for the following reasons, or to denote the following things, namely.

(1) To designate his unique relation to God, as equal with him, Joh 1:14, Joh 1:18; Mat 11:27; Luk 10:22; Luk 3:22; 2Pe 1:17, or as sustaining a most intimate and close connection with him, such as neither man nor angels could do, an acquaintance with his nature Mat 11:27, plans, and counsels, such as no being but one who was equal with God could possess. In this sense, I regard it as conferred on him in the passage under consideration.

(2) It designates him as the anointed king, or the Messiah. In this sense it accords with the use of the word in Psa 82:6. See Mat 16:16, “Thou art “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Mat 26:63, “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether “thou be the Christ, the Son of God.” Mar 14:61; Luk 22:70; Joh 1:34; Act 9:20, “he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.”

(3) It was conferred on him to denote his miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Luk 1:35, “the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, therefore διό dio also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the “Son of God.”

(It is readily admitted, that on the subject of the “eternal Sonship” very much has been said of an unintelligible kind. Terms applicable only to the relation as it exists among people have been freely applied to this mystery. But whatever may be thought of such language as “the eternal generation,” “the eternal procession,” and “the subordination” of the Son; the doctrine itself, which this mode of speaking was invented to illustrate, and has perhaps served to obscure, is in no way affected. The question is not, Have the friends of the doctrine at all times employed judicious illustration? but, What is the “Scripture evidence” on the point? If the eternal Sonship is to be discarded on such grounds, we fear the doctrine of the Trinity must share a similar fate. Yet, those who maintain the divinity of Christ, and notwithstanding deny the eternal Sonship, seem generally to found their objections on these incomprehensible illustrations, and from thence leap to the conclusion that the doctrine itself is false.

That the title Son of God, when applied to Jesus, denotes a natural and not merely an official Sonship, a real and not a figurative relation; in other words, that it takes origin from the divine nature, is the view which the Catholic Church has all along maintained on this subject: no explanation which falls short of divinity will exhaust the meaning of the title. Christ is indeed called the Son of God on account of his miraculous conception; “That holy thing,” said the angel to the Virgin, “which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of the Highest.” But the creation of Adam, by the immediate power of God, without father or mother, would constitute him the Son of God, in a sense equally or even more exalted than that in which the title is applied to Jesus, if the miraculous conception were allowed to exhaust its meaning. Nor will an appeal to the resurrection of Christ serve the purpose of those who deny the divine origin of the title, since that is assigned as the evidence only, and not the ground of it.

The Redeemer was not constituted, but declared or evidenced to be, “the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead.” In the search for a solution short of divine Sonship, recourse is next had to the office of Christ as Mediator. Yet though the appellation in question be frequently given in connection with the official character of Jesus, a careful examination of some of these passages will lead to the conclusion, that “though the Son of God hold the office, yet the office does not furnish the reason or ground of the title.” The name is given to distinguish Jesus from all others who have held office, and “in such a way as to convince us that the office is rendered “honorable” by the exalted personage discharging its duties, and not that the person merits the designation in virtue of the office.” “When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman,” etc. “God so loved the world that he gave his “only begotten Son,” etc. Now the glory of the mission in the first of these passages, and the greatness of the gift in the second, is founded on the original dignity of the person sent and given. But if the person derive his title from the office only, there would seem to be comparatively little grandeur in the mission, and small favor in the gift. The passages quoted would more readily prove that God had bestowed favor on Jesus, by giving him an office from which he derived so much “personal dignity!”

The following are some of the passages in which the appellation “Son of God” is found connected with the office of Christ. “These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, (an official term signifying “anointed Saviour”), the Son of God;” “He answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ (the official designation) is the Son of God;” “Whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” Now it is reasonable to suppose, that these declarations and confessions concerning the person of Christ, contain not only an acknowledgment of his official character, but also of his personal dignity. “Thou art Jesus the Christ,” is the acknowledgment of his office, and “thou art the Son of God,” is an acknowledgment of his natural dignity. The confession of the Ethiopian eunuch, and of Peter, would be incomplete on any other supposition. It should be borne in mind also, that the question of Christ to Peter was not, What office do ye suppose I hold? but, “Whom say ye that I am?” See Haldane on Rom 1:4.

If, then, the miraculous conception, the resurrection, and the office of Christ, do not all of them together exhaust the meaning of the appellation, we must seek for its origin higher still - we must ascend to the divine nature. We may indeed take one step more upward before we reach the divine nature, and suppose, with Professor Stuart and others, that the name denotes “the complex person of the Saviour,” as God and man, or in one word, “Mediator.” Comment on Heb. Exe. 2. But this is just the old resolution of it into official character, and is therefore liable to all the objections stated above. For while it is admitted by those who hold this view, that Christ is divine, it is distinctly implied, that the title Son of God would not have been his but for his office.

In the end therefore we must resolve the name into the divine nature. That it implies equality with God is clearly proved in this commentary. So the Jews understood it, and the Saviour tacitly admitted that their construction was right. And as there is no equality with God without divinity, the title clearly points to such a distinction in the Godhead as is implied in the relative terms, Father and Son. Indeed it is not easy to understand how the doctrine of the Trinity can be maintained apart from that of the eternal Sonship. If there be in the Godhead a distinction of persons, does not that distinction belong to the nature of the Godhead, independent of any official relations. Or will it be maintained, that the distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, arises entirely from the scheme of redemption, and did not exist from eternity? We may find fault with Dr Owen, and others, who speak of a “hypostatical subordination of persons in the Godhead.” Prof. Stuart, Com. Heb. Exe. 1. Yet, the distinction itself, through we cannot explain it, “must” be allowed to exist.

The remaining evidence of the eternal Sonship may be thus stated.

1. Christ is called God’s “own Son,” his “beloved,” and “well beloved,” and “only begotten Son.’ So strong and special adjuncts seem intended to prevent any such idea as that of figurative Sonship. If these do not express the natural relationship, it is beyond the power of language to do it. Moreover, correct criticism binds us to adopt the natural and ordinary signification of words, unless in such cases as plainly refuse it,

2. In a passage already quoted, God is said “to have sent forth His Son to redeem us,” etc. And there are many passages to the same effect, in which is revealed, not only the pre-existence of Christ, but the capacity in which he originally moved, and the rank which he held in heaven. “God sent forth his Son,” implies that he held that title prior to his mission. This at least is the most obvious sense of the passage, and the sense which an ordinary reader would doubtless affix to it. The following objection, however, has been supposed fatal to this argument: “The name Son of God is indeed used, when speaking of him previous to his having assumed human nature, but so are the names of Jesus and the Christ, which yet we know properly to belong to him, only as united to humanity.” It is readily allowed that the simple fact of the name being given prior to the incarnation proves nothing of itself. But the case is altered when this fact is viewed in connection with the difficulty or impossibility of resolving the Sonship into an official relation. No such difficulty exists in regard to the terms “Jesus” and “Christ,” for they are plainly official names, signifying “anointed Saviour.”

3. Rom 1:3-4. If in this passage we understand the apostle to declare, that Christ was of the seed of David, according to his human nature, the rule of antithesis demands, that we understand him next to assert what he was according to his divine nature, namely, the Son of God.

The views given in this Note are those adopted by the most eminent orthodox divines. The language of the Westminster divines is well known; “The only Redeemer of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ, who being the eternal Son of God, of one substance etc.” “Larger Catechism.” Mr. Scott “is decidedly of opinion, that Christ is called the only Son of God in respect of his divine nature.” Commentary, Heb 1:3-4.” The late Principal Hill, in his Theological System, having exposed what he deemed erroneous views on this subject, adds, “there is a more ancient and a more exalted title to this name (Son of God), which is inseparable from the nature” of Christ. “3rd edition, vol. i., page 363.)”

With power - ἐν δυνάμει en dunamei. By some this expression has been supposed to mean in power or authority, after his resurrection from the dead. It is said, that he was before a man of sorrows; now he was clothed with power and authority. But I have seen no instance in which the expression in power denotes office, or authority. It denotes physical energy and might, and this was bestowed on Jesus before his resurrection as well as after; Act 10:38, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit, and with power; Rom 15:19; 1Co 15:43. With such power Jesus will come to judgment: Mat 24:30. If there is any passage in which the word “power” means authority, office, etc., it is Mat 28:18, “All power in heaven and earth is given unto me.” But this is not a power which was given unto him after his resurrection, or which he did not possess before. The same authority to commission his disciples he had exercised before this on the same ground, Mat 10:7-8. I am inclined to believe, therefore, that the expression means “powerfully, efficiently;” he was with great power, or conclusiveness, shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. Thus, the phrase “in power” is used to qualify a verb in Col 1:29, “Which worketh in me mightily,” “Greek,” in power, that is, operating in me effectually, or powerfully. The ancient versions seem to have understood it in the same way. “Syriac,” “He was known to be the Son of God by power, and by the Holy Spirit.” “AEthiopic,” “Whom he declared to be the Son of God by his own power, and by his Holy Spirit,” etc. “Arabic,” “Designated the Son of God by power appropriate to the Holy Spirit.”

According to the spirit of holiness - κατά πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης kata pneuma hagiōsunēs. This expression has been variously understood. We may arrive at its meaning by the following considerations.

(1) It is not the third person in the Trinity that is referred to here. The designation of that person is always in a different form. It is “the Holy Spirit,” the Holy Ghost, πνεῦμα ἅγιον pneuma hagion, or τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον to pneuma to hagion; never “the spirit of holiness.”

(2) It stands in contrast with the flesh; Rom 1:3, “According to the flesh, the seed of David: according to the spirit of holiness, the Son of God.” As the former refers doubtless to his human nature, so this must refer to the nature designated by the title Son of God, that is, to his superior or divine nature.

(3) The expression is altogether unique to the Lord Jesus Christ. No where in the Scriptures, or in any other writings, is there an affirmation like this. What would be meant by it if affirmed of a mere man?

(4) It cannot mean that the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, showed that Jesus was the Son of God by raising him from the dead because that act is no where attributed to him. It is uniformly ascribed either to God, as God Act 2:24, Act 2:32; Act 3:15, Act 3:26; Act 4:10; Act 5:30; Act 10:40; Act 13:30, Act 13:33-34; Act 17:31; Rom 10:9; Eph 1:20, or to the Father Rom 6:4, or to Jesus himself Joh 10:18. In no instance is this act ascribed to the Holy Spirit.

(5) It indicates a state far more elevate than any human dignity, or honor In regard to his earthly descent, he was of a royal race; in regard to the Spirit of holiness, much more than that, he was the Son of God.

(6) The word “Spirit” is used often to designate God, the holy God, as distinguished from all the material forms of idol worship, Joh 4:24.

(7) The word “Spirit” is applied to the Messiah, in his more elevated or divine nature. 1Co 15:45, “the last Adam was made a quickening Spirit.” 2Co 3:17, “now the Lord (Jesus) is that Spirit.” Heb 9:14, Christ is said to have offered himself through the eternal Spirit. 1Pe 3:18, he is said to have been “put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit.” 1Ti 3:16, he is said to have been “justified in the Spirit.” In most of these passages there is the same contrast noticed between his flesh, his human nature, and his other state, which occurs in Rom 1:3-4. In all these instances, the design is, doubtless, to speak of him as a man, and as something more than a man: he was one thing as a man; he was another thing in his other nature. In the one, he was of David; was put to death, etc. In the other, he was of God, he was manifested to be such, he was restored to the elevation which he had sustained before his incarnation and death, Joh 17:1-5; Phi 2:2-11. The expression, “according to the Spirit of holiness,” does not indeed of itself imply divinity. It denotes that holy and more exalted nature which he possessed as distinguished from the human. What that is, is to be learned from other declarations. “This expression implies simply that it was such as to make proper the appellation, the Son of God.” Other places, as we have seen, show that that designation naturally implied divinity. And that this was the true idea couched under the expression, according to the Spirit of holiness, appears from those numerous texts of scripture which explicitly assert his divinity; see Joh 1:1, etc., and the note on that place.

By the resurrection from the dead - This has been also variously understood. Some have maintained that the word “by,” ἐξ ex, denotes after. He was declared to be the Son of God in power after he rose from the dead; that is, he was solemnly invested with the dignity that became the Son of God after he had been so long in a state of voluntary humiliation. But to this view there are some insuperable objections.

(1) It is not the natural and usual meaning of the word “by.”

(2) It is not the object of the apostle to state the time when the thing was done, or the order, but evidently to declare the fact, and the evidence of the fact. If such had been his design, he would have said that previous to his death he was shown to be of the seed of David, but afterward that he was invested with power.

(3) Though it must be admitted that the preposition “by, ἐξ ex,” sometimes means after (Mat 19:20; Luk 8:27; xxiii. 8, etc.), yet its proper and usual meaning is to denote the efficient cause, or the agent, or origin of a thing, Mat 1:3, Mat 1:18; Mat 21:25; Joh 3:5; Rom 5:16; Rom 11:36, “OF him are all things.” 1Co 8:6, “one God, the Father, of whom are all things,” etc. In this sense, I suppose it is used here; and that the apostle means to affirm that he was clearly or decisively shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead.

But here will it be asked, how did his resurrection show this? Was not Lazarus raised from the dead? And did not many saints rise also after Jesus? And were not the dead raised by the apostles; by Elijah, by the bones of Elisha, and by Christ himself? And did their being raised prove that they were the sons of God? I answer that the mere fact of the resurrection of the body proves nothing in itself about the character and rank of the being that is raised. But in the circumstances in which Jesus was placed it might show it conclusively. When Lazarus was raised, it was not in attestation of anything which he had taught or done. It was a mere display of the power and benevolence of Christ. But in regard to the resurrection of Jesus, let the following circumstances be taken into the account.

(1) He came as the Messiah.

(2) He uniformly taught that he was the Son of God.

(3) He maintained that God was his Father in such a sense as to imply equality with him, Joh 5:17-30; Joh 10:36.

(4) He claimed authority to abolish the laws of the Jews, to change their customs, and to be himself absolved from the observance of those laws, even as his Father was, John 5:1-17; Mar 2:28.

(5) When God raised him up therefore, it was not an ordinary event. It was “a public attestation, in the face of the universe, of the truth of his claims to be the Son of God.” God would not sanction the doings and doctrines of an impostor. And when, therefore he raised up Jesus, he, by this act, showed the truth of his claims, that he was the Son of God.

Further, in the view of the apostles, the resurrection was intimately connected with the ascension and exaltation of Jesus. The one made the other certain. And it is not improbable that when they spoke of his resurrection, they meant to include, not merely that single act, but the entire series of doings of which that was the first, and which was the pledge of the elevation and majesty of the Son of God. Hence, when they had proved his resurrection, they assumed that all the others would follow. That involved and supposed all. And the series, of which that was the first, proved that he was the Son of God; see Act 17:31, “He will judge the world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance to all people, “in that he hath raised him from the dead.” The one involves the other; see Act 1:6. Thus, Peter Act 2:22-32 having proved that Jesus was raised up, adds, Act 2:33, “therefore, being by the right hand exalted, he hath shed forth this,” etc.; and Act 2:36, “therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

This verse is a remarkable instance of the “apostle” Paul’s manner of writing. Having mentioned a subject, his mind seems to catch fire; he presents it in new forms, and amplifies it, until he seems to forget for a time the subject on which he was writing. It is from this cause that his writings abound so with parentheses, and that there is so much difficulty in following and understanding him.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Romans

THE WITNESS OF THE RESURRECTION

Rom 1:4.

It is a great mistake to treat Paul’s writings, and especially this Epistle, as mere theology. They are the transcript of his life’s experience. As has been well said, the gospel of Paul is an interpretation of the significance of the life and work of Jesus based upon the revelation to him of Jesus as the risen Christ. He believed that he had seen Jesus on the road to Damascus, and it was that appearance which revolutionised his life, turned him from a persecutor into a disciple, and united him with the Apostles as ordained to be a witness with them of the Resurrection. To them all the Resurrection of Jesus was first of all a historical fact appreciated chiefly in its bearing on Him. By degrees they discerned that so transcendent a fact bore in itself a revelation of what would become the experience of all His followers beyond the grave, and a symbol of the present life possible for them. All three of these aspects are plainly declared in Paul’s writings. In our text it is chiefly the first which is made prominent. All that distinguishes Christianity; and makes it worth believing, or mighty, is inseparably connected with the Resurrection.

I. The Resurrection of Christ declares His Sonship.

Resurrection and Ascension are inseparably connected. Jesus does not rise to share again in the ills and weariness of humanity. Risen, ‘He dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him.’ ‘He died unto sin once’; and His risen humanity had nothing in it on which physical death could lay hold. That He should from some secluded dimple on Olivet ascend before the gazing disciples until the bright cloud, which was the symbol of the Divine Presence, received Him out of their sight, was but the end of the process which began unseen in morning twilight. He laid aside the garments of the grave and passed out of the sepulchre which was made sure by the great stone rolled against its mouth. The grand avowal of faith in His Resurrection loses meaning, unless it is completed as Paul completed his ‘yea rather that was raised from the dead,’ with the triumphant ‘who is at the right hand of God.’ Both are supernatural, and the Virgin Birth corresponds at the beginning to the supernatural Resurrection and Ascension at the close. Both such an entrance into the world and such a departure from it, proclaim at once His true humanity, and that ‘this is the Son of God.’

Still further, the Resurrection is God’s solemn ‘Amen’ to the tremendous claims which Christ had made. The fact of His Resurrection, indeed, would not declare His divinity; but the Resurrection of One who had spoken such words does. If the Cross and a nameless grave had been the end, what a reductio ad absurdum that would have been to the claims of Jesus to have ever been with the Father and to be doing always the things that pleased Him. The Resurrection is God’s last and loudest proclamation, ‘This is My beloved Son: hear ye Him.’ The Psalmist of old had learned to trust that his sonship and consecration to the Father made it impossible that that Father should leave his soul in Sheol, or suffer one who was knit to Him by such sacred bonds to see corruption; and the unique Sonship and perfect self-consecration of Jesus went down into the grave in the assured confidence, as He Himself declared, that the third day He would rise again. The old alternative seems to retain all its sharp points: Either Christ rose again from the dead, or His claims are a series of blasphemous arrogances and His character irremediably stained.

But we may also remember that Scripture not only represents Christ’s Resurrection as a divine act but also as the act of Christ’s own power. In His earthly life He asserted that His relation both to physical death and to resurrection was an entirely unique one. ‘I have power,’ said He, ‘to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again’; and yet, even in this tremendous instance of self-assertion, He remains the obedient Son, for He goes on to say, ‘This commandment have I received of My Father.’ If these claims are just, then it is vain to stumble at the miracles which Jesus did in His earthly life. If He could strip it off and resume it, then obviously it was not a life like other men’s. The whole phenomenon is supernatural, and we shall not be in the true position to understand and appreciate it and Him until, like the doubting Thomas, we fall at the feet of the risen Son, and breathe out loyalty and worship in that rapturous exclamation, ‘My Lord and my God.’

II. The Resurrection interprets Christ’s Death.

There is no more striking contrast than that between the absolute non-receptivity of the disciples in regard to all Christ’s plain teachings about His death and their clear perception after Pentecost of the mighty power that lay in it. The very fact that they continued disciples at all, and that there continued to be such a community as the Church, demands their belief in the Resurrection as the only cause which can account for it. If He did not rise from the dead, and if His followers did not know that He did so by the plainest teachings of common-sense, they ought to have scattered, and borne in isolated hearts the bitter memories of disappointed hopes; for if He lay in a nameless grave, and they were not sure that He was risen from the dead, His death would have been a conclusive showing up of the falsity of His claims. In it there would have been no atoning power, no triumph over sin. If the death of Christ were not followed by His Resurrection and Ascension, the whole fabric of Christianity falls to pieces. As the Apostle puts it in his great chapter on resurrection, ‘Ye are yet in your sins.’ The forgiveness which the Gospel holds forth to men does not depend on the mercy of God or on the mere penitence of man, but upon the offering of the one sacrifice for sins in His death, which is justified by His Resurrection as being accepted by God. If we cannot triumphantly proclaim ‘Christ is risen indeed,’ we have nothing worth preaching.

We are told now that the ethics of Christianity are its vital centre, which will stand out more plainly when purified from these mystical doctrines of a Death as the sin-offering for the world, and a Resurrection as the great token that that offering avails. Paul did not think so. To him the morality of the Gospel was all deduced from the life of Christ the Son of God as our Example, and from His death for us which touches men’s hearts and makes obedience to Him our joyful answer to what He has done for us. Christianity is a new thing in the world, not as moral teaching, but as moral power to obey that teaching, and that depends on the Cross interpreted by the Resurrection. If we have only a dead Christ, we have not a living Christianity.

III. Resurrection points onwards to Christ’s coming again.

Paul at Athens declared in the hearing of supercilious Greek philosophers, that the Jesus, whom he proclaimed to them, was ‘the Man whom God had ordained to judge the world in righteousness,’ and that ‘He had given assurance thereof unto all men, in that He raised Him from the dead.’ The Resurrection was the beginning of the process which, from the human point of view, culminated in the Ascension. Beyond the Ascension stretches the supernatural life of the glorified Son of God. Olivet cannot be the end, and the words of the two men in white apparel who stood amongst the little group of the upward gazing friends, remain as the hope of the Church: ‘This same Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.’ That great assurance implies a visible corporeal return locally defined, and having for its purpose to complete the work which Incarnation, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension, each advanced a stage. The Resurrection is the corner-stone of the whole Christian faith. It seals the truths that Jesus is the Son of God with power, that He died for us, that He has ascended on high to prepare a place for us, that He will come again and take us to Himself. If we, by faith in Him, take for ours the women’s greeting on that Easter morning, ‘The Lord hath risen indeed,’ He will come to us with His own greeting, ‘Peace be unto you.’

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1:4 he was shown to be: Although Jesus eternally existed as the Son of God (1:3), his resurrection demonstrated him to be God’s Son, revealing him in all his power and glory.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 1:4. Τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, who was definitively marked as [declared to be, Engl. Vers.] the Son of God) He uses τοῦ again, not καὶ or δὲ. When the article is repeated, it forms an epitasis. [end.] In many passages, where both natures of the Saviour are mentioned, the human nature is put first, because the divine was most distinctly proved to all, only after His resurrection from the dead. [Hence it is, that it is frequently repeated, He, and not any other. Act 9:20; Act 9:22, etc.—V. g.] The participle ὁρισθέντος expresses much more than ἀφωρισμένος in Rom 1:1; for one, ἀφορίζεται, out of a number of other persons, but a person, ὁρίζεται, as the one and only person, Act 10:42. In that well-known passage, Psa 2:7, חק [the decree] is the same as ὁρισμὸς; [the decree implying] that the Father has most determinately said, Thou art My Son. The ἀπόδειξις, the approving of the Son, in regard to men, follows in the train of this ὁρισμόν.—Act 2:22. Paul particularly extols the glory of the Son of God, when writing to those to whom he had been unable to preach it face to face. Comp. Heb 10:8, etc., note.—ἐν δυνάμει, in (or with) power), most powerfully, most fully; as when the sun shines in δυνάμει, in his strength.—Rev 1:16.—κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, according to the spirit of holiness) The word קדוש ἃγιος, holy, when the subject under discussion refers to God, not only denotes that blameless rectitude in acting, which distinguishes Him, but the Godhead itself, or, to speak with greater propriety, the divinity, or the excellence of the Divine nature. Hence ἁγιωσύνη has a kind of middle sense between ἁγιότητα and ἁγιασμόν.—Comp. Heb 12:10; Heb 12:14. [“His holiness,” ἁγιότης; “without ἁγιασμός sanctification, no man shall see the Lord.”] So that there are, as it were, three degrees, sanctification (sanctificatio), sanctity (or sanctimony, “sanctimonia,”) holiness (sanctitas) Holiness itself (sanctitas) is ascribed to God the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. And since the Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this passage, but the Spirit of holiness (sanctity, sanctimoniæ), we must inquire farther, what that expression, which is evidently a singular one, denotes. The name Spirit is expressly, and that too, very often, given to the Holy Spirit; but God is also said to be a Spirit; and the Lord, Jesus Christ, is called Spirit, in antithesis indeed to the letter, 2Co 3:17. But in the strict sense, it is of use to compare with the idea here the fact, that the antithesis flesh and spirit occurs, as in this passage, so rather frequently, in passages speaking of Christ, 1Ti 3:16; 1Pe 3:18. And in these passages that is called Spirit, whatever belongs to Christ, independently of the flesh [assumed through His descent from David, Luk 1:35.—V. g.], although that flesh was pure and holy; also whatever superior to flesh belongs to Him, owing to His generation by the Father, who has sanctified Him, Joh 10:36; in short, the Godhead itself. For, as in this passage, flesh and spirit, so at chap. Rom 9:5, flesh and Godhead stand in contradistinction to each other. This spirit is not called the spirit of holiness (sanctitatis ἁγιότητος), which is the peculiar and solemn appellation of the Holy Spirit, with whom, however, Jesus was most abundantly filled and anointed, Luk 1:35; Luk 4:1; Luk 4:18; Joh 3:34; Act 10:38; but in this one passage alone, the expression used is the spirit of sanctity (sanctimoniæ ἁγιωσύνης), in order that there may be at once implied the efficacy of that holiness (sanctitatis ἁγιότητος) or divinity, of which the resurrection of the Saviour was both a necessary consequence, and which it most powerfully illustrates; and so, that spiritual and holy, or divine power of Jesus Christ glorified, who, however, has still retained the spiritual body. Before the resurrection, the Spirit was concealed under the flesh; after the resurrection the Spirit of sanctity [sanctimoniæ] entirely concealed the flesh, although He did not lay aside the flesh; but all that is carnal (which was also without sin), Luk 24:39. In respect of the former [His state before the resurrection], He once used frequently to call Himself the Son of Man; in respect of the latter [His state after the resurrection; and the spirit of sanctity, by which He rose again], He is celebrated as the Son of God. His [manifested or] conspicuous state [as presented to men’s view before His resurrection] was modified in various ways. At the day of judgment, His glory as the Son of God shall appear, as also His body in the highest degree glorified. See also Joh 6:63, note.—ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, by means of the resurrection of the dead) Ἐκ not only denotes time, but the connection of things (for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is at once the source and the object of our faith, Act 17:31). The verb ἀνίστημι is also used without a preposition, as in Herodotus, ἀναστάντες τῶν βαθρῶν: therefore, ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν might be taken in this passage for the resurrection from the dead. But it is in reality taken in a more pregnant sense; for it is intimated, that the resurrection of all is intimately connected with the resurrection of Christ. Comp. Act 4:2; Act 23:6; Act 26:23. Artemonius conjectures that the reading should be ἐξ ἀναστάσεως ἐκ νεκρῶν Part I., cap. 41, p. 214, etc., and this is his construction of the passage: περὶ [Rom 1:3] ἐξαναστάσεως ἐκ νεκρῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. concerning the resurrection of His Son from the dead, etc. But, I. There is a manifest Apposition, concerning His Son, Jesus Christ; therefore, the words, which come between parenthetically, are all construed in an unbroken connection with one another. II. There is an obvious antithesis: ΤΟΥ γενομένου ΕΚ ΚΑΤΑ: ΤΟΥ ὁρισθέντος—ΚΑΤΑ—ΕΞ.—III. ἀνάστασις, not ἐξανάστασις, if we are to have regard to Paul’s style, is properly applied to Christ; but ἐξαανάστασις to Christians; Comp. ἤγειρε, ἐξεγερεῖ, 1Co 6:14. Artemonius objects that Christ was even previously the Son of God, Luk 3:22; Joh 10:36; Act 2:22; Act 10:38. We answer, Paul does not infer the Sonship itself, but the ὁρισμὸν, the [declaration] definitive marking of the Sonship by the resurrection. And in support of this point, Chrysostom compares with this the following passages: Joh 2:19; Joh 8:28; Mat 12:39; and the preaching of the apostles follows close upon this ὁρισμόν, Luk 24:47. Therefore, this mode of mentioning the resurrection is exceedingly well adapted to this introduction, as Gal 1:1.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_1:4

Declared to the Son of God. The word ὁρίζειν means,

1. To limit, or bound, and, in reference to ideas, to define.

2. To determine. Luk_22:22; Act_2:23; Heb_4:7.

3. To appoint, or constitute. Act_10:42.

ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν. Act_17:31. This last sense is given by some few commentators to ὁρισθέντος in this passage. The apostle would then say that Christ was appointed, or constituted the Son of God, by or after his resurrection. But this is inconsistent with what he elsewhere teaches, viz., that Christ was the Son of God before the foundation of the world, Col_1:15. As shown above, Son of God is not a title of office, but of nature, and therefore Christ cannot be said to have been constituted the Son of God. This interpretation also would involve the latter part of the verse in great difficulties. Hence even those commentators who most strenuously insist on adhering to the signification of words, are constrained, ex necessitate loci, to understand ὁρισθέντος here declaratively, or in reference to the knowledge of men. That is, when Christ is said to be constituted the Son of God, we are not to understand that he became or was made Son, but was, in the view of men, thus determined.‹6›

The vulgate reads, qui praedestinatus est, which version is followed by most of the Roman Catholic interpreters, and by Grotius. This rendering is probably founded on the reading προορισθέντος, which, although old, has little evidence in its favor. Neither is the sense thus expressed suited to the context. Christ was not predestined to be the Son of God. He was such from eternity.

With power; τουτέστι, says Theophylact, ἀπὸ τῆς δυνάμεως τῶν σημείων ῶν ἐποίει; Theodoret also understands these words to refer to the miracles which Jesus, by the power of the Holy Ghost, wrought in confirmation of his claim to be the Son of God. The former of these commentators takes ἐν δυνάμει, κατὰ πνεῦμα, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως, as indicating three distinct sources of proof of the Sonship of Christ. He was proved by his miraculous power, by the Holy Spirit either as given to him, or as by him given to his people (the latter is Theophylacts view), and by his resurrection, to be the Son of God. But the change of the prepositions, and especially the antithetical structure of the sentence, by which κατὰ πνεῦμα is obviously opposed to κατὰ σάρκα, are decisive objections to this interpretation. Others propose to connect ἐν δυνάμει ωιτη υἱοῦ, Son in power, for powerful Son; a more common and more natural construction is to connect them with ὁρισθέντος, proved, or declared with power, for powerfully, effectually proved to be the Son of God. He was declared with emphasis to be the Son of God, ita ut ejus rei plenissima et certissima sit fides, Winzer.

According to the Spirit of holiness. As just remarked, these words are in antithesis with κατὰ σάρκα; as to the flesh he was the Son of David, as to the Spirit the Son of God. As σάρξ means his human nature, πνεῦμα can hardly mean anything else than the higher or divine nature of Christ. The word πνεῦμα may be taken in this sense in 1Ti_3:16 ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, justified by the Spirit, i.e., he was shown to be just, his claims were all sustained by the manifestations of his divine nature, i.e., of his divine power and authority. Heb_9:14 ὃς διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου, who with an eternal Spirit offered himself unto God. 1Pe_3:18 is a more doubtful passage. The genitive ἁγιωσύνἡ is a qualification of πνεῦμα, Spirit of holiness; the Spirit whose characteristic is holiness. This expression seems to be here used, to prevent ambiguity, as Holy Spirit is appropriated as the designation of the third person of the Trinity. As the word holy often means august, venerandus, so ἁγιωσύνη expresses that attribute of a person which renders him worthy of reverence; πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνἡ is therefore, Spiritus summe venerandus, the θεότἡ, divine nature, or Godhead, which dwelt in Jesus Christ; the Logos, who in the beginning was with God, and was God, and who became flesh and dwelt among us. That πνεῦμα does not here mean the spiritual state of exaltation of Christ, is plain; first, because the word is never so used elsewhere; and, secondly, because it is inconsistent with the antithesis to κατὰ σάρκα. Those who understand the phrase Spirit of holiness to refer to the Holy Spirit, either, as before remarked, suppose that the apostle refers to the evidence given by the Spirit to the Sonship of Christ, hence Calvin renders κατὰ πνεῦμα per Spiritum; or they consider him as appealing to the testimony of the Spirit as given in the Scriptures. Christ was declared to be the Son of God, agreeably to the Spirit. To both these views, however, the same objection lies, that it destroys the antithesis.

ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, is rendered by Erasmus, Luther, and others, after the resurrection from the dead. It was not until Christ had risen that the evidence of his Sonship was complete, or the fullness of its import known even to the apostles. But it is better suited to the context, and more agreeable to the Scripture, to consider the resurrection itself, as the evidence of his Sonship. It was by the resurrection that he was proved to be the Son of God. God, says the apostle, will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given assurance unto all, in that he hath raised him from the dead. Act_17:31. The apostle Peter also says, that God hath begotten us to a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. 1Pe_1:3. Comp. 1Pe_3:21; Act_13:35; Act_26:23; 1Co_15:20. In these and many other passages the resurrection of Christ is represented as the great conclusive evidence of the truth of all that Christ taught, and of the validity of all his claims. If it be asked how the resurrection of Christ is a proof of his being the Son of God, it may be answered, first, because he rose by his own power. He had power to lay down his life, and he had power to take it again, Joh_10:18. This is not inconsistent with the fact taught in so many other passages, that he was raised by the power of the Father, because what the Father does the Son does likewise; creation, and all other external works, are ascribed indifferently to the Father, Son, and Spirit. But in the second place, as Christ had openly declared himself to be the Son of God, his rising from the dead was the seal of God to the truth of that declaration. Had he continued under the power of death, God would thereby have disallowed his claim to be his Son; but as he raised him from the dead, he publicly acknowledged him; saying, Thou art my Son, this day have I declared thee such. If Christ be not right, then is our preaching vain, says the apostle, and your faith is also vain. But now is Christ risen, and become the first fruits of them that slept.

Jesus Christ our Lord. These words are in apposition with τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ of the third verse; his Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. All the names of Christ are precious to his people. He is called Jesus, Savior, because he saves his people from their sins, Mat_1:21. The name Christ, i.e., Messiah, Anointed, connects him with all the predictions and promises of the Old Testament. He is the anointed prophet, priest, and king, to whom all believing eyes had been so long directed, and on whom all hopes centered. He is κύριος ἡμῶν our Lord. This word indeed is often used as a mere term of respect, equivalent to Sir, but as it is employed by the lxx, as the common substitute of Jehovah, or rather as the translation of אֲדוֹנָי, adonai, in the sense of supreme Lord and possessor, so it is in the New Testament applied in the same sense to Christ. He is our supreme Lord and possessor. We belong to him, and his authority over us is absolute, extending to the heart and conscience as well as to the outward conduct; and to him every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. He, then, who in this exalted sense is our Lord, is, as to his human nature, the Son of David, and, as to his Divine nature, the Son of God.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The divine and mighty power is set against the weakness of the flesh, for that overcame death.

Showed and made manifest.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

And declared--literally, "marked off," "defined," "determined," that is, "shown," or "proved."

to be the Son of God--Observe how studiously the language changes here. He "was MADE [says the apostle] of the seed of David, according to the flesh" (Rom 1:3); but He was not made, He was only "declared [or proved] to BE the Son of God." So Joh 1:1, Joh 1:14, "In the beginning WAS the Word . . . and the Word was MADE flesh"; and Isa 9:6, "Unto us a Child is BORN, unto us a Son is GIVEN." Thus the Sonship of Christ is in no proper sense a born relationship to the Father, as some, otherwise sound divines, conceive of it. By His birth in the flesh, that Sonship, which was essential and uncreated, merely effloresced into palpable manifestation. (See on Luk 1:35; Act 13:32-33).

with power--This may either be connected with "declared," and then the meaning will be "powerfully declared" [LUTHER, BEZA, BENGEL, FRITZSCHE, ALFORD, &c.]; or (as in our version, and as we think rightly) with "the Son of God," and then the sense is, "declared to be the Son of God" in possession of that "power" which belonged to Him as the only-begotten of the Father, no longer shrouded as in the days of His flesh, but "by His resurrection from the dead" gloriously displayed and henceforth to be for ever exerted in this nature of ours [Vulgate, CALVIN, HODGE, PHILIPPI, MEHRING, &c.].

according to the spirit of holiness--If "according to the flesh" means here, "in His human nature," this uncommon expression must mean "in His other nature," which we have seen to be that "of the Son of God"--an eternal, uncreated nature. This is here styled the "spirit," as an impalpable and immaterial nature (Joh 4:24), and "the spirit of holiness," probably in absolute contrast with that "likeness, of sinful flesh" which He assumed. One is apt to wonder that if this be the meaning, it was not expressed more simply. But if the apostle had said "He was declared to be the Son of God according to the Holy Spirit," the reader would have thought he meant "the Holy Ghost"; and it seems to have been just to avoid this misapprehension that he used the rare expression, "the spirit of holiness."

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 4. And declared to be the Son of God] See Clarke on Ac 13:33, where this subject is considered at large. The word ορισθεντος, which we render declared, comes from οριζω, to bound, define, determine, or limit, and hence our word horizon, the line that determines the farthest visible part of the earth, in reference to the heavens. In this place the word signifies such a manifest and complete exhibition of the subject as to render it indubitable. The resurrection of Christ from the dead was such a manifest proof of our Lord's innocence, the truth of his doctrine, and the fulfilment of all that the prophets had spoken, as to leave no doubt on any considerate and candid mind.

With power] ενδυναμει, With a miraculous display of Divine energy; for, how could his body be raised again, but by the miraculous energy of God? Some apply the word here to the proof of Christ's sonship; as if it were said that he was most manifestly declared to be the Son of God, with such powerful evidence and argument as to render the truth irresistible.

According to the spirit of holiness] There are many differences of sentiment relative to the meaning of this phrase in this place; some supposing that the spirit of holiness implies the Divine nature of Jesus Christ; others, his immaculate sanctity, c. To me it seems that the apostle simply means that the person called Jesus, lately crucified at Jerusalem, and in whose name salvation was preached to the world, was the Son of God, the very Messiah promised before in the holy Scriptures and that he was this Messiah was amply demonstrated.

1st, By his resurrection from the dead, the irrefragable proof of his purity, innocence, and the Divine approbation; for, had he been a malefactor, as the Jews pretended, the miraculous power of God would not have been exerted in raising his body from the dead.

2d, He vas proved to be the Son of God, the promised Messiah, by the Holy Spirit, (called here the spirit of holiness,) which he sent down upon his apostles, and not on them only, but on all that believed on his name; by whose influence multitudes were convinced of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and multitudes sanctified unto God; and it was by the peculiar unction of this spirit of holiness, that the apostles gave witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, Ac 4:33.

Thus, then, Christ was proved to be the true Messiah, the son of David according to the flesh, having the sole right to the throne of Israel; and God recognized this character, and this right, by his resurrection from the dead, and sending forth the various gifts and graces of the Spirit of holiness in his name.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. Declared the Son of God, etc.: or, if you prefer, determined (definitus); as though he had said, that the power, by which he was raised from the dead, was something like a decree by which he was proclaimed the Son of God, according to what is said in Psalm 2:7, “I have this day begotten thee:” for this begetting refers to what was made known. Though some indeed find here three separate evidences of the divinity of Christ — “power,” understanding thereby miracles — then the testimony of the Spirit — and, lastly, the resurrection from the dead — I yet prefer to connect them together, and to reduce these three things to one, in this manner — that Christ was declared the Son of God by openly exercising a real celestial power, that is, the power of the Spirit, when he rose from the dead; but that this power is comprehended, when a conviction of it is imprinted on our hearts by the same Spirit. The language of the Apostle well agrees with this view; for he says that he was declared by power, because power, peculiar to God, shone forth in him, and uncontestably proved him to be God; and this was indeed made evident by his resurrection. Paul says the same thing in another place; having stated, that by death the weakness of the flesh appeared, he at the same time extols the power of the Spirit in his resurrection; (2 Corinthians 13:4) This glory, however, is not made known to us, until the same Spirit imprints a conviction of it on our hearts. And that Paul includes, together with the wonderful energy of the Spirit, which Christ manifested by rising from the dead, the testimony which all the faithful feel in their hearts, is even evident from this — that he expressly calls it the Spirit of Holiness; as though he had said, that the Spirit, as far as it sanctifies, confirms and ratifies that evidence of its power which it once exhibited. For the Scripture is wont often to ascribe such titles to the Spirit, as tend to illustrate our present subject. Thus He is called by our Lord the Spirit of Truth, on account of the effect which he mentions; (John 14:17)

Besides, a divine power is said to have shone forth in the resurrection of Christ for this reason — because he rose by his own power, as he had often testified:

“Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,” (John 2:19;)

“No man taketh it from me,” etc.; (John 10:18)

For he gained victory over death, (to which he yielded with regard to the weakness of the flesh,) not by aid sought from another, but by the celestial operation of his own Spirit.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(4) With power.—That is, in a transcendent and superhuman manner.

According to the spirit of holiness.—In antithesis to “according to the flesh,” and therefore coming where we should expect “in His divine nature.” And yet there is a difference, the precise shade of which is not easy to define. What are we to understand by the “spirit of holiness”? Are we to regard it as simply convertible with “Holy Spirit”? Not quite. Or are we to look upon it as corresponding to “the flesh,” as “spirit” and “flesh” correspond in man? Again, not quite—or not merely. The spirit of Christ is human, for Christ took upon Him our nature in all its parts. It is human; and yet it is in it more especially that the divinity resides. It is in it that the “Godhead dwells bodily,” and the presence of the Godhead is seen in the peculiar and exceptional “holiness” by which it is characterised. The “spirit,” therefore, or that portion of His being to which St. Paul gives the name, in Christ, is the connecting-link between the human and the divine, and shares alike in both. It is the divine “enshrined” in the human, or the human penetrated and energised by the divine. It is, perhaps, not possible to get beyond metaphorical language such as this. The junction of the human and divine must necessarily evade exact definition, and to carry such definition too far would be to misrepresent the meaning of the Apostle. We may compare with this passage 1Ti_3:16, “God (rather, Who) was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit:” or St. Peter’s phrase, “Put to death in the flesh. but quickened by the Spirit”—rather, in the spirit, as the seat of that divinity by virtue of which He overcame death—(1Pe_3:18).

The particular act in which the Sonship of Christ was most conspicuously ratified and confirmed was His resurrection from the dead. It was ratified by His resurrection, as a manifestation of transcendent and divine power. (Comp. Act_2:24 et seq.; Act_17:31; Rom_4:24.)

It should be observed that this antithesis between the human and divine nature in Christ is not here intended to carry with it any disparagement of the former. Rather the Apostle wishes to bring out the completeness and fulness of the dignity of Christ, as exhibited on both its sides. He is at once the Jewish Messiah (and with the Jewish section of the Church at Rome this fact would carry great weight) and the Son of God.

By the resurrection from the dead.—Strictly, by the resurrection of the dead. There is a slight distinction to be observed between the two phrases. It is not “by His resurrection from the dead,” but in an abstract and general sense, “by the resurrection of the dead”—by that resurrection of which Christ was the firstfruits.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. declared] Better, defined, marked out by sure signs. Same word as Heb_4:7 (“He limiteth a certain day”). His Resurrection shewed Him to be none other than the Son. The same Greek word is used in e.g. Act_10:42; Act_17:31; and rendered there “ordained;” perhaps rightly so. But obviously its meaning will slightly vary as connected with the Sonship or with the Judgeship of Christ.

the Son of God] Cp. Act_13:32-33, for a close parallel; one of the many between St Paul’s Discourses and Epistles. The Sonship of the Redeemer, the truth proclaimed at His baptism (Mat_3:17), is enforced and illustrated through the N. T. In this Epistle see especially cch. Rom_5:10, Rom_8:3; Rom_8:29; Rom_8:32.

with power] Lit. in power. Cp. 1Co_15:43. Power attended and characterized His Resurrection, both as cause and as effect. The practical reference here is to the fulness of the proof of the fact. The true Resurrection was not such as that imagined by e.g. Schleiermacher; the creeping forth of a half-slain Man from his grave. It was miracle and triumph.

according to the Spirit of holiness] This phrase presents two questions: (1) what is “the Spirit of Holiness”? (2) what is meant by “according to”? We take them in order. A. “The Spirit of Holiness” must mean either the Holy Paraclete, or the sacred Human Spirit of Christ, or His Deity regarded as (what it is, Joh_4:24,) Spirit. The reference here seems to be to the Paraclete; for (1) in this Epistle He is very frequently referred to, in a way which makes an initial reference here highly probable; (2) the expression “Holy Spirit” is so closely akin to “Spirit of Holiness” that any reference of the words other than that to the Paraclete would need special evidence; and such evidence can hardly be found in St Paul. (See 1Ti_3:16; Heb_9:14; for the nearest approaches to it in N. T.) B. The words “according to” may refer to the Paraclete, either (1) as the Agent in the Incarnation (Luk_1:35), or (2) as concerned in the Resurrection (see Rom_8:11 for a very partial parallel), or (3) as the Inspirer of the Prophets. Of these possibilities (1) is most unlikely, for the Sonship of Christ here in question is plainly the Eternal Sonship (see Rom_9:5), not that of the Incarnation; (2) accords better with Scripture usage; but (3) far more so, in view of the frequent mention of the Holy Spirit as the Inspirer. See Act_20:23; 1Ti_4:1; Heb_3:7; Heb_9:8; Heb_10:15, (and cp. 1Pe_1:11); for places where “the Spirit” is evidently the Holy Spirit as the Author of Prophecy. The present passage will thus mean: “He was declared to be the Son of God, with power, (even as the Holy Ghost foretold,) in consequence of the resurrection.”

by the resurrection] Lit. out of, from; i.e. in consequence, as a result, of. The same construction and meaning occur e.g. 2Co_13:4, where lit. “He was crucified out of weakness; He liveth out of the power of God; we shall live out of, &c.” The grand result of the resurrection here stated is that His prophesied character and dignity were, by the resurrection, made unmistakably clear.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And declared to be the Son of God,.... Not made as he is said to be before, when his incarnation is spoken of; nor did he begin to be the Son of God, when he was made of the seed of David, but he, the Son of God, who existed as such, from everlasting, was manifested in the flesh, or human nature: and this his divine sonship, and proper deity, are declared and made evident,

with, or "by"

his power; which has appeared in the creation of all things out of nothing; in upholding all things in their beings; in the government of the world, and works of Providence; in the miracles he wrought; in his performing the great work of redemption; in the success of his Gospel, to the conversion of sinners; and in the preservation of his churches and people: here it seems chiefly to regard the power of Christ in raising the dead, since it follows, and which is to be connected with this clause,

by the resurrection from the dead; and designs either the resurrection of others, as of Lazarus, and some other persons, in his lifetime, and of some at his resurrection, and of all at the last day: or the resurrection of his own body, which dying he had power to raise up again, and did; and which declared him to be, or clearly made it appear that he was the Son of God, a divine person, truly and properly God: and this was done

according to the Spirit of holiness; which may be understood of the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, who is holy in himself, and the author of holiness in the saints; and who is the declarer of Christ's sonship, partly by bearing a testimony to it in the word, and in the hearts of believers, and chiefly by being concerned in the resurrection of the body of Christ from the dead; or else by the Spirit of holiness may be meant the divine nature of Christ, which, as it is holy, so by it Christ offered himself to God, and by it was quickened, or made alive, when he had been put to death in the flesh; and which must be a clear and strong proof of his being truly the Son of God.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

Ver. 4. Declared to be, &c.] Gr. ορισθεντος, defined; for definitions explain obscurities.

With power] For, Superas evadere ad auras, Hic labor, hoc opus est -a work befitting a God. See Eph 1:20. {See Trapp on "Eph 1:20"}

The Spirit of holiness] The divine essence of Christ, 2Co 13:4, which sanctifieth the human nature assumed by him.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who was predestined [2] the Son of God. The learned bishop of Meaux, Bossuet, in his second Pastoral Instruction, in which he condemned the French translation of Mons. Simon, (p. 127.) takes notice, that according to St. Paul, and the constant doctrine of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, Christ as man, or the human nature of Christ united to his divine person, was predestined without any precedent merits, by a free and liberal predestination of God’s goodness. (Witham) --- Christ, as man, was predestined to be the Son of God; and declared to be so (as the apostle here signifies) first by power, that is, by his working stupendous miracles; secondly, by the spirit of sanctification, that is, by his infinite sanctity; thirdly, by his resurrection, or raising himself from the dead. (Challoner)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Qui prædestinatus est. St. John Chrysostom, Greek: om. a. p. 7. Ed. Sau. Greek: ti oun estin oristhentos; deichthentos, apophanthentos.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Not made the Son of God, as he was said before to be made of the seed of David; but

declared, or demonstrated, to be the Son of God.

With power: this refers either to the word declared, and then the meaning is, he was powerfully or miraculously declared to be the Son of God; the Greek word ordinarily signifies a miracle in the New Testament: or else it refers to the last words, the Son of God; and then the sense is, he was declared to be the powerful and omnipotent Son of God, of the same power and majesty with the Father.

By the spirit of holiness, some would understand the Third Person in the blessed Trinity, which is often called the Holy Spirit, and here the Spirit of holiness; but others, and they more rightly, do understand the Deity and Divine nature of Christ; this is called the Spirit, 1Ti 3:16; 1Pe 3:18; and the eternal Spirit, Heb 9:14 and here it is called the Spirit of holiness, or the most Holy Spirit, and that, probably, because of its effects; for thereby he sanctified his natural body, and still sanctifies his mystical body, the church. That this is the meaning is evident, by the opposition between the flesh and the Spirit: as according to the flesh, in the former verse, did signify his human nature; so according to the Spirit, in this verse, doth signify his Divine nature. See the like antithesis in 1Ti 3:16; 1Pe 3:18.

By the resurrection from the dead: because it is said, the resurrection of the dead, not from the dead, some would understand the words of Lazarus, and others, who by the power of Christ were raised from the dead; and others would understand the words of those who were raised with Christ, when he himself arose: see Mat 27:52,53. But in Scripture the resurrection of the dead, is put for the resurrection from the dead; see 1Co 15:42; Heb 6:2; and hereby is meant the resurrection of Christ himself: he rose again from the dead, and thereby declared or manifested himself to be the Son of God with power: see Joh 2:19,21; 5:26; 10:18; 1Co 15:4. And though it be said in Scripture, that the Father raised him from the dead, Act 2:24; 13:30,33; yet that doth not hinder but by his own power he raised himself; seeing the Father and he were one, and the works of the Three Persons in one and the same Essence are undivided.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. Declared—Outlined. The word is derived from ορος, a boundary line, and signifies bounded, as with a line. As a painter draws an exact outline of an object, so the form and nature of Jesus was as it were chalked or outlined as God’s Son.

With power—Rather in power, referring to the wondrous display of power with which God declared his Son at the resurrection. (See note on Mat_28:2-4.) He was prophetically outlined as Son of God by the prophets by divine knowledge; the outline was filled up by divine power.

Spirit of holiness—This completes the antithesis embodied in the person of Christ, Son of man according to the flesh, Son of God according to the spirit of holiness. This last phrase does not designate the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, but that spirit whose attribute is holiness. (See note on Luk_1:35.)

By the resurrection from the dead—Literally, from resurrection of dead, dead, or dead ones, being plural. (See note on Luk_20:35.) Resurrection of dead, or of dead ones, probably is a reference to the fact that the act of power that raised Jesus also raised a retinue of saints, as an earnest of the power by which the final resurrection of all through him would be accomplished. (See note on Mat_27:53.) The preposition from is used to indicate that it was out from this manifold display of power that the demonstration came that he was, as the centurion confessed, what he claimed to be, the Son of God.

The antithesis of Christ’s nature (given with much beauty from the Greek by Dr. Forbes) may be thus presented in English:

The born | from seed of David | according to flesh.

The outlined | from resurrection of dead | according to spirit.

This is a striking representation of the human and the divine in the Godman.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Who was declared (so Authorized Version) the Son of God with (literally, in) power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of (not as in Authorized Version, from) the dead. Supposing the intention here to be to declare the Son"s essential Deity, notwithstanding his human birth, we might have expected ontov after the genomenou preceding. But the word used is orisyentov ; and, further, the Resurrection is referred to, not a pre-existent state. The verb orizein means properly to "appoint" or "determine;" and if this meaning be re-mined, the whole passage would seem to preclude the idea of Sonship previous to the Resurrection being in view. Hence commentators ancient and modern agree generally in assigning an unusual meaning to orisyentov here, making it signify "declared," as in the Authorized Version. So Chrysostom, Ti oun estin orisyentov; tou deicyentov, apofanyentov kriyentov duologhyentov para thv apantwn gnwmhv kai qhfou (Hom. 2 p. 432, D). It is maintained that this use of the word, though unusual, is legitimate; since a person may be said to be appointed, or determined, to be what he already is, when his being such is declared and manifested. Thus, it may be said, a king may be spoken of as appointed king when he is crowned, though he was king before; or a saint determined a saint when he is canonized; and the classical phrase, orizein tina Yeon , in the sense of deify, is adduced as parallel. Thus the expression is made to mean that "the same who kata sarka was known only as the descendant of David, is now declared to be the Son of God" (Tholuck); Orizetai de eiv uio kata to anbrwpinon (Cyril); and St. Paul"s reason for thus putting it, in pursuance of his course of thought, is thus explained by Meyer; "Paul gives the two main epochs in the history of the Son of God as they had actually occurred, and had been prophetically announced;" also by Bengel thus, "Etiam ante exinanitionem suam Filius Dei is quidem fuit: sed exinanitione filiatio occultata fuit, et plene demure retecta post resurrectionem." This interpretation would be more satisfactory than it is if the verb orizein were found similarly used in any other part of the New Testament. It occurs in the following passages, and always in its proper and usual sense: Luk_22:22 Act_2:23 Act_10:42 Act_11:29 Act_17:26, 31 Heb_4:7. Of these especially significant are Act_10:42 (Oti autov estin o wrismenov upo tou Yeou krithntwn kai nekrwn) and Act_17:31 (Dioti esthsen hmeran en h mellei krinein thnhn en dikaiosunh en andri w wrise, pistin parascwsav auto). In both of these texts the word denotes God"s appointment or determination of Christ to the office of Judge, not merely a declaration or manifestation of his already being so; and it is to be observed that in the second the language is given as that of St. Paul himself, and that it corresponds with the passage before us in that the Resurrection is spoken of as the display to the world of Christ being so appointed or determined. Surely, then, there ought to be cogent reason for giving orisyentov a different meaning here; and, in spite of the weight of authority on the other side, it is submitted that we are under no necessity to do so, if we bear in mind what appeared under ver. 3 as to the different senses in which Christ is designated Uio . In the sense apparent is Messianic prophecy, and pervading the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the sense which seems intended by St. Paul himself in Act_13:32, Act_13:33, it was not till after the Resurrection that Christ attained his position of royal Sonship; it was then that the Divine orismov took effect in that regard. It is true that St. Paul (as was seen under ver. 3) himself conceived of Christ as essentially Son of God from eternity; but here, while speaking of the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy, and desiring to point out what was patent to all who believed that Christ had risen, he may fitly refer to his exaltation only, in virtue of which, further, he had himself received his apostolic commission, of which he proceeds to speak, and the assertion which he has had all along in view. The above interpretation of orisyentov appears, further, to have the weighty support of Pearson, who, speaking of Christ"s fourfold right unto the title of "the Son of God by generation, as begotten of God; by commission, as sent by him; by resurrection, as the Firstborn; by actual possession, as Heir of all refers thus to Rom_1:4: "Thus was he defined, or constituted, and "appointed to be the Son of God with power by the Resurrection from the dead (Pearson on the Creed, art. 2.). En dunamei (to be connected with orisyentov ) denotes the Divine power displayed in the Resurrection. (cf. Eph_1:19, "the exceeding greatness of his power,... according to the working of the strength of his might, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead;" cf. 1Co_6:14 1Co_15:43 2Co_13:4) In the last two of these passages, power evidenced in resurrection is contrasted with human weakness evidenced in death: Speiretai en asyeneia egeiretai en dunamei Kai gayh ex asyeneiav alla zh ek dunamewv. To kata sarka in ver. 3 is opposed, not simply kata pneuma , but kata pneuma agiwsunhv (the spirit of holiness), so as to denote the Divine element that was all along in the Incarnate Son, in virtue of which he rose triumphant over human asyeneia . We too are composed of sarx and pneuma ; but the pneuma in Christ was one of absolute holiness the holiness of Deity; not agiothv , holiness in the abstract, attributed to Deity, (Heb_12:10) nor agiasmov "sanctification," of which man is capable; but agiwsunh , an inherent quality of Divine holiness ("Quasi tres sint gradus, sanctificatio, sanctimonia, sanctitas, Bengel). Because of this "spirit of holiness" that was in Christ, "it was not possible that he should be holden of" death. (Act_2:24) Through this, which was in himself not merely through a Divine power external to himself calling him from the grave, as he had called Lazarus he overcame death. (cf. Act_2:27 Act_13:35, "Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption It was through this too (dia pneumatov aiwniou) that he "offered himself without spot to God"; (Heb_9:14) and in the same sense may be understood edikaiwyh en pneumatic . (1Ti_3:16) Neither in these passages nor in the one before us is the Holy Spirit meant, in the sense of a distinct Person of the Holy Trinity. Further, the preposition in ex anastasewv does not denote (as explained by Theodoret, Luther, and Grotius) the time from which the orismo began in the sense of ex ou anesth , but the source out of which it proceeded. Ek non mode tempus, sed nexum rerum denotat" (Bengel). Further, the phrase is not "resurrection from the dead," as in the Authorized Version, but of the dead," which may be purposely used so as to point, not only to the fact of Christ"s own resurrection, but also to its significance for mankind. The same expression often occurs elsewhere with a comprehensive meaning. (cf. Act_23:6 Act_24:21 1Co_15:12-21 Php_3:11; also 1Co_15:22 Php_3:10) The resurrection of Christ expressed "the power of an endless life," here and hereafter, for mankind, carrying with it the possibility of the resurrection of all from the dominion of death in the risen Son. One view of the meaning of the whole of the above passage that of Chrysostom and Melancthon may be mentioned because of the weight of these authorities, though it cannot be the true one. They take kata pneuma agiwsunhv en dunamei , and ex anastasewv nekrwn , as coordinate, regarding them as the three proofs of Christ"s eternal Sonship i.e. miracles, the communication of the Holy Ghost, and the resurrection. Jesus Christ our Lord; thus in conclusion distinctly identifying the Son of prophecy with the Jesus who had lately appeared, and was acknowledged by the Christians as the Messiah, and commonly by them called Kuriov . The force of the passage is weakened in the Authorized Version by the transposition of Ihsou Cristou Kuriou hmwn to the beginning of ver. 3, as also by the inclusion of ver. 2 in a parenthesis, so as to separate it from peri tou uiou which follows. (See explanation given above)

The apostolic aim.

There was great dignity in the character, demeanour, and language of the Apostle Paul. This was not inconsistent with the modesty and humility which were the ornament of his Christian character. But whilst he felt his personal unworthiness, feebleness, and utter insufficiency for the vast and arduous work entrusted to him, his sense of the grandeur of the work raised his conception of his own high vocation. It were well that all Christian ministers should cherish lowly views of self, and, at the same time, lofty views of the ministry they have received from God.

I OBSERVE THE QUALIFICATIONS BESTOWED UPON PAUL. He describes these in order both to justify himself in the tone of his Epistle, and to secure the respectful attention of his readers.

1. Whence were they derived? They were not the ordinary gifts which Providence bestows upon men to fit them for the work of life. They were traced to Christ ("by whom"), the Giver of all blessings to his Church. It was the prerogative of the glorified Redeemer to confer gifts upon men. "He gave some, apostles," etc. Having redeemed his Church at a cost so great, he could not leave it without providing for the supply of all its needs.

2. In what did they consist? Paul uses two terms. One of these denotes the more general gift, "grace." By this may be understood, not only the enlightening and quickening influences of the Holy Spirit, which bring the soul into the enjoyment of the new and higher spiritual life, but all that distinguishes Christian character, and fits for an effective and beneficent witness to the Saviour. The other term is "apostleship." The apostles occupied a place so prominent and so honourable among the servants of Christ, that we cannot be surprised that a special word is here employed. Paul was "called to be an apostle;" and he often refers to the memorable occasion when he was arrested upon his errand of persecution, converted to Christ"s faith and service, and commissioned for the great and holy work of his life. He claims to be not behind the chiefest of the apostles, and glories in the grace of God which was manifested unto and in him.

II OBSERVE THE END SOUGHT BY PAUL. "Spirits are not finely touched but to fine issues;" and such endowments as were conferred upon Paul must have been in preparation for no ordinary service.

1. The character of this end was moral, spiritual. It was to overcome the disobedience and rebellion of sinful men; to vanquish these by the grace of the cross of Christ, and by the power of the Spirit of God. The obedience which our King and Father requires, he has resolved to secure by means devised by infinite wisdom and provided by infinite love. The gospel of Christ, received by faith, is to be the means of reconciling man to God.

2. Faith, then, occupied a place of immense importance in the teaching of the apostle. This Epistle to the Romans is, in itself, sufficient proof of this. Justification with God, and subjection and consecration to God, are secured by faith in the Mediator, Christ. Christian obedience is prompted, not by constraint or fear, but by this intelligent and lofty motive.

3. The sphere of this apostolic mission was unlimited, save by the boundaries of humanity. "All nations" were comprehended within the commission he received. A great modern preacher, John Wesley, is said to have claimed "the world as his parish." It was a sublime view of his ministry which Paul took; and it was taken, not under the influence of enthusiasm or self-importance, but upon the highest of all authority that of the Saviour and the Lord of all.

4. The ultimate issue of the apostleship of Paul seems to be implied in the expression," for his Name." It was the glory of the Son of God which his servant faithfully and consistently sought; there was nothing personal or selfish, nothing petty or unworthy, in his aims. The Name of Christ is in itself above every name, and at that Name every knee shall bow. This assurance was enough to animate and sustain the apostle in all his labour and in all his suffering. In all, "Christ should be magnified.

APPLICATION.

1. All hearers of the gospel are summoned to the obedience of faith.

2. All who have received the gospel have received also some trust and some grace, which render them responsible for making known the revealed means of salvation to their fellow-men.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But powerfully declared to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit of Holiness - That is, according to his divine nature. By the resurrection from the dead - For this is both the fountain and the object of our faith; and the preaching of the apostles was the consequence of Christ's resurrection.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

4. “Defined the Son of God with power from the resurrection of the dead, through the Spirit of holiness.” The resurrection of our Savior by the omnipotent power of the Holy Ghost was the irrefutable confirmation of His Messiahship, the grand leverage of human faith and the prelude of the universal resurrection of the dead.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead; even Jesus Christ our Lord

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

4. But declared to be the Son of God. Though in human form he was demonstrated to be divine by power, such power as he displayed in mighty miracles, and especially by the greater miracle of his own resurrection from the dead. According to the spirit of holiness. It must be noted that this is a contrast with according to the flesh in verse 3, and hence must refer to our Lord's holy nature. The body was descended from David, but the pure, holy life was demonstrated to be divine. One was a human nature; the other was a divine nature. This nature is spoken of as “the spirit of holiness,” because it is contrasted with sinful flesh.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Paul talks here about his obligation to preach.

he was declared with power to be the Son of God

The word "he" refers to Jesus Christ. You can translate this in an active form. AT: "God declared him with power to be the Son of God" (See: Active or Passive)

by the resurrection from the dead

"by raising him from among the people who are dead." This expression speaks of all dead people together in the underworld, and coming alive again is spoken of as resurrection from among them.

Spirit of holiness

This refers to the Holy Spirit.

we have received grace and apostleship

God has given Paul the gift of being an apostle. You can translate this in an active form. AT: "God caused me to be an apostle. This is a special privilege" (See: Active or Passive)

we

Here the word "we" refers to Paul and to the apostles that followed Jesus but excludes the believers in the church in Rome. (See: Exclusive and Inclusive "We")

for obedience of faith among all the nations, for the sake of his name

Paul uses the word "name" as a metonym to refer to Jesus. AT: "in order to teach all nations to obey because of their faith in him" (See: Metonymy)

translationWords

power

Son of God

Holy Spirit

Jesus

lord

grace

apostle

obey

faith

nation

call

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

4. τοῦ ὁρισθέντος, “who was distinguished, from His brethren κατὰ σάρκα, as GOD’S Son by an act of power,” closely |[56] Act 17:31, ἐν ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὥρισεν κ.τ.λ., “by a man whom He marked out or distinguished for that office, by the warrant of raising Him from death.” The fundamental notion of ὁρίζειν is to distinguish or mark off one object from others by drawing a line between them: so of local boundaries, of definitions, of appointments to specific work or office, of discriminations. Here, as in Acts l.c[57], the line is drawn by the act of GOD in raising Jesus from the dead; that marked Him off from other men and indicated consequently His true character as, not David’s son only, but Son of GOD. N. then that the word does not imply that He then became Son of GOD, as γενόμενος implies that He became man, but that His unique Sonship then became clear to men. Cf. also Act 11:29 with Field’s note. Chrys. δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος comes near to the meaning but does not express so fully the action of GOD.

[56] | parallel to

[57] l.c. locus citatus

Contrast ἔθηκε, Heb 1:2; γενόμενος, Rom 1:3, Heb 6:20; Col 1:18; ἐποίησεν, Act 2:36; ἐχαρίσατο, Php 2:9. These verbs can be used when it is a question of office and relation to man, but not of nature and relation to GOD.

υἱοῦ θεοῦ, anarthrous, as marking the character, not the individual merely.

ἐν δυνάμει, ‘by an act of power’; cf. Act 2:33, τῇ δεξιᾷ = by His mighty Hand; 1Co 6:14; 2Co 13:4; Eph 1:19-20; Heb 7:16. The resurrection of Jesus was an exercise of GOD’S power, unique but inevitable, Jesus being who He was, unique but the warrant of consequent exercise of the same power on men in Christ; cf. also Php 3:10. The phrase goes closely with ὁρισθέντος; for ἐν cf. 1Pe 1:5 (v. Hort); Rom 15:13; Rom 15:19; 1Co 2:5; 2Co 6:7.

κατὰ πν. ἁγιωσύνης. κατὰ indicates the correspondence of this act of GOD with the nature of Him on whom it was exercised. It was natural that, Jesus being what He was, GOD should raise Him from the dead; cf. Act 2:24. It follows that πν. ἁγ. refers to the divine nature of Jesus, in contrast with σάρξ which indicates His true human nature. This divine nature is properly indicated by the genitive of quality. ἅγιος is the specific word in the Greek Bible for that which is essentially divine. It is used secondarily of persons and things as related to or belonging to GOD, cf. Hort, 1 Pet. p. 70; Davidson, O.T. Theology, pp. 256 ff.; Heb 9:14 (with Westcott’s note). The a[58] sense of the article shows that we are dealing with the nature of the Son Himself.

[58] al alibi

ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν. The raising of Christ is the testimony of GOD to His nature; cf. Act 1:22; Act 2:24 et passim; 1Co 15:14 alibi With ὁρισθέντος—the distinction was the immediate result of resurrection; cf. closely Act 26:23. The phrase ἀν. ν. (without articles, limited to Acts (4), Rom. (here), 1 Corinthians 15 (3), Heb 6:2) describes most generally the fact and its nature = resurrection from death. νεκρῶν is gen. of definition, distinguishing this ἀνάστασις from other kinds (cf. Luk 2:34; Heb 7:11; Heb 7:15; Act 7:37 alibi).

Ἰ. Χρ. τ. κ. ἡ. The full title sums up the argument implicit in the preceding clauses: the Son of GOD is the Man Jesus, the promised Christ, our Sovereign Lord, the one subject of the Gospel; cf. esp. Act 2:36, Php 2:11. It occurs about 68 times in S. Paul, about 19 in the rest of N.T.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4.] The simple antithesis would have been, τοῦ μὲν γενομένου … ὄντος δὲ υἱοῦ θεοῦ κατὰ πνεῦμα, see 1Ti 3:16. But (1) wonderful solemnity is given by dropping the particles, and taking up separately the human and divine nature of Christ, keeping ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ as the great subject of both clauses, and thus making them, not contrasts to one another, but correlative parts of the same great whole. And (2) the Apostle, dwelling here on patent facts,—the announcements of prophecy,—the history of the Lord’s Humanity,—does not deal with the essential subsistent Godhead of Christ, but with that manifestation of it which the great fact of the Resurrection had made to men. Also (3) by amplifying πνεῦμα into πν. ἁγιωσύνης, he characterizes the Spirit of Christ as one of absolute holiness, i.e. as divine and partaking of the Godhead: see below.

ὁρισθέντος] “Multo plus dicit quam ἀφωρισμένος, ver. 1: nam ἀφορίζεται unus e pluribus, ὁρίζεται unicus quispiam.” Bengel. See reff. Nor does it = προορισθέντος, as vulg. prœdestinatus, and as Irenæus (iii. 22. 1, p. 219) and Augustine de Sanctorum, c. 15, vol. x. p. 982:—“Prædestinatus est ergo Jesus, ut qui futurus erat secundum carnem filius David, esset tamen in virtute Filius Dei secundum Spiritum Sanctificationis: quia natus est de Spiritu Sancto et Virgine Maria.” But this is one of the places where Augustine has been misled by the Latin:—the text speaks, not of the fact of Christ’s being the Son of God barely, but of the proof of that fact by His Resurrection. Chrysostom has given the right meaning: τί οὖν ἔστιν ὁρισθέντος; τοῦ δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος, κριθέντος, ὁμολογηθέντος παρὰ τῆς ἁπάντων γνώμης καὶ ψήφου.… Hom. ii. p. 432. That an example is wanting of this exact use of the word, is, as Olsh. has shewn, no objection to such use; the ὁρίζειν here spoken of is not the objective ‘fixing,’ ‘appointing’ of Christ to be the Son of God, but the subjective manifestation in men’s minds that He is so. Thus the objective words ποιεῖν (Act 2:36), γεννᾷν (Act 13:33) are used of the same proof or manifestation of Christ’s Sonship by His Resurrection. So again ἐδικαιώθη, 1Ti 3:16.

ἐν δυνάμει belongs to ὁρισθέντος,—not to υἱοῦ θεοῦ,—nor again is it a parallel clause to κατ. πν. ἁγ. and ἐξ ἀναστ. νεκ. (as Chrys., who interprets it ἀπὸ τῶν θαυμάτων ἅπερ ἔπραττε, Theophyl. &c.) manifested with power (to be) the Son of God. See reff.

κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης] ἁγιως. is not = ἅγιον; this epithet would be inapplicable here, for it would point out the Third Person in the Blessed Trinity, whereas it is the Spirit of Christ Himself, in distinction from His Flesh, which is spoken of. And this Spirit is designated by the gen. of quality, ἁγιωσύνης, to shew that it is not a human, but a divine Spirit which is attributed here to Christ,—a Spirit to which holiness belongs as its essence. The other interpretations certainly miss the mark, by overlooking the κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα, the two sides of the Person of Christ here intended to be brought out. Such are that of Theodoret (διὰ τῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ παναγίου πνεύματος ἐνεργουμένης δυνάμεως),—Chrys. (ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος, διʼ οὗ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν ἔδωκεν), &c. Calvin and Olshausen seem to wish to include the notion of sanctifying (ἁγιασμός) in ἁγιωσύνη,—which however true, is more than strictly belongs to the words. See by all means, on the whole, Umbreit’s important note, pp. 164-172.

ἐξ] not ‘from and after’ (as Theodoret, Luther, Grotius, al.), nor = ἀπό, which could not be used here, but by, as indicating the source, out of which the demonstration proceeds.

ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν] not = ἀναστ. ἐκ νεκρῶν,—which, besides the force done to the words, would be a weakening of the strong expression of the Apostle, who takes here summarily and by anticipation the Resurrection of Jesus as being, including, involving (ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις, Joh 11:25) the (whole) Resurrection of the dead. So that we must not render as E. V. ‘the resurrection from the dead,’ but the resurrection of the dead, regarded as accomplished in that of Christ. It was the full accomplishment of this, which more than any thing declared Him to be the Son of God: see Joh 5:25-29. Thus in these words lies wrapped up the argument of ch. 6:4ff.

Ἰης. χρ. τ. κυρ. ἡμ.] Having given this description of the Person and dignity of the Son of God, very Man and very God, he now identifies this divine Person with Jesus Christ, the Lord and Master of Christians,—the historical object of their faith, and (see words following) the Appointer of himself to the apostolic office.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. ὁρισθέντος: ‘designated.’ It is usual to propose for this word an alternative between (i) ‘proved to be,’ ‘marked out as being’ (δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος Chrys.), and (ii) ‘appointed,’ ‘instituted,’ ‘installed,’ in fact and not merely in idea. For this latter sense (which is that adopted by most modern commentators) the parallels are quoted, Act 10:42 οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν, and 17:31 μέλλει κρίνειν ̣ ̣ ̣ ἐν ἀνδρὶ ᾦ ὥρισε. The word itself does not determine the meaning either way: it must be determined by the context. But here the particular context is also neutral; so that we must look to the wider context of St. Paul’s teaching generally. Now it is certain that St. Paul did not hold that the Son of God became Son by the Resurrection. The undoubted Epistles are clear on this point (esp. 2Co 4:4; 2Co 8:9; cf. Col 1:15-19). At the same time he did regard the Resurrection as making a difference—if not in the transcendental relations of the Father to the Son (which lie beyond our cognisance), yet in the visible manifestation of Sonship as addressed to the understanding of men (cf. esp. Php 2:9 διὸ καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσε, καὶ ἐχαρίσατο αὐτῷ τὸ ὅνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα). This is sufficiently expressed by our word ‘designated,’ which might perhaps with advantage also be used in the two places in the Acts. It is true that Christ becomes Judge in a sense in which He does not become Son; but He is Judge too not wholly by an external creation but by an inherent right. The Divine declaration, as it were, endorses and proclaims that right.

The Latin versions are not very helpful. The common rendering was praedestinatus (so expressly Rufinus [Orig.-lat.] ad loc.; cf. Introd. § 7). Hilary of Poitiers has destinatus, which Rufinus also prefers. Tertullian reads definitus.

υἱοῦ Θεοῦ. ‘Son of God,’ like ‘Son of Man,’ was a recognized title of the Messiah (cf. Enoch cv. 2; 4 Ezr 7:28, 29; 13:32, 37, 52; 14:9, in all which places the Almighty speaks of the Messiah as ‘My Son,’ though the exact phrase ‘Son of God’ does not occur). It is remarkable that in the Gospels we very rarely find it used by our Lord Himself, though in face of Mat 27:43, Joh 10:36, cf. Mat 21:37 f. al., it cannot be said that He did not use it. It is more often used to describe the impression made upon others (e.g. the demonized, Mar 3:11, Mar 5:7 ||; the centurion, Mar 15:39 ||), and it is implied by the words of the Tempter (Mat 4:3, Mat 4:6 ||) and the voice from heaven (Mar 1:11 ||, 9:7 ||). The crowning instance is the confession of St. Peter in the version which is probably derived from the Logia, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ Mat 16:16. It is consistent with the whole of our Lord’s method that He should have been thus reticent in putting forward his own claims, and that He should have left them to be inferred by the free and spontaneous working of the minds of His disciples. Nor is it surprising that the title should have been chosen by the Early Church to express its sense of that which was transcendent in the Person of Christ: see esp. the common text of the Gospel of St. Mar 1:1 (where the words, if not certainly genuine, in any case are an extremely early addition), and this passage, the teaching of which is very direct and explicit. The further history of the term, with its strengthening addition μονογενής, may be followed in Swete, Apost. Creed, p. 24 ff., where recent attempts to restrict the Sonship of Christ to His earthly manifestation are duly weighed and discussed. In this passage we have seen that the declaration of Sonship dates from the Resurrection: but we have also seen that St. Paul regarded the Incarnate Christ as existing before His Incarnation; and it is as certain that when he speaks of Him as ὁ ἴδιος υἱός (Rom 8:32), ὁ έαυτοῦ υἱός (8:3), he intends to cover the period of pre-existence, as that St. John identifies the μονογενής with the pre-existent Logos. There is no sufficient reason to think that the Early Church, so far as it reflected upon these terms, understood them differently.

There are three moments to each of which are applied with variations the words of Psa 2:7 ‘Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.’ They are (i) the Baptism (Mar 1:11 ||); (ii) the Transfiguration (Mar 9:7 ||); (iii) the Resurrection (Act 13:33). We can see here the origin of the Ebionite idea of progressive exaltation, which is however held in check by the doctrine of the Logos in both its forms, Pauline (2Co 4:4, &c., ut sup.) and Johannean (Joh 1:1 ff.). The moments in question are so many steps in the passage through an earthly life of One who came forth from God and returned to God, not stages in the gradual deification of one who began his career as ψιλὸς ἄνθρωπος.

ἐν δυνάμει: not with υἱοῦ Θεοῦ, as Weiss, Lips. and others, ‘Son of God in power,’opposed to the present state of humiliation, but rather adverbially, qualifying ὁρισθέντος, ‘declared with might to be Son of God.’ The Resurrection is regarded as a ‘miracle’ or ‘signal manifestation of Divine Power.’ Comp. esp. 2Co 13:4 ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας, ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως Θεοῦ. This parallel determines the connexion of ἐν δυν.

κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης: not (i) = Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον, the Third Person in the Trinity (as the Patristic writers generally and some moderns), because the antithesis of σάρξ and πνεῦμα requires that they shall be in the same person; nor (ii), with Beng. and other moderns (even Lid.) = the Divine Nature in Christ as if the Human Nature were coextensive with the σάρξ and the Divine Nature were coextensive with the πνεῦμα, which would be very like the error of Apollinaris; but (iii) the human πνεῦμα, like the human σάρξ, distinguished however from that of ordinary humanity by an exceptional and transcendent Holiness (cf. Heb 2:17; Heb 4:15 ‘it behoved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren.. yet without sin’).

ἁγιωσύνη, not found in profane literature, occurs three times in LXX of the Psalms, not always in agreement with Heb. (Psa 95:6 [96:6 ‘strength’]; 96:12 [97:12 ‘holy name,’ lit. ‘memorial’]; 144:5 [145:5 ‘honour’]). In all three places it is used of the Divine attribute; but in 2 Macc. 3:12 we have ἡ τοῦ τόπου ἁγιωσύνη. In Test. XII. Patr. Lev_18 the identical phrase πνεῦμ. ἁγιως. occurs of the saints in Paradise. The passage is Christian in its character, but may belong to the original work and is in any case probably early. If so, the use of the phrase is so different from that in the text, that the presumption would be that it was not coined for the first time by St. Paul. The same instance would show that the phrase does not of itself and alone necessarily imply divinity. The πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity or Divine Personality resided. The clear definition of this point was one of the last results of the Christological controversies of the fifth and sixth centuries (Loofs, Dogmengesch. § 39, 3). For ἁγιως. see on ἅγιοι ver. 7.

ἑξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν: a remarkable phrase as applied to Christ. His was not a ‘resurrection of dead persons’ (‘azenrisynge of dead men’ Wic.) but of a single dead person. We might expect rather νεκροῦ or ἐκ νεκρῶν (as in 1Pe 1:3); and it is probable that this form is only avoided because of ἐξ ἀναστάσεως coming just before. But νεκρῶν coalesces closely in meaning with ἀναστ., so as to give it very much the force of a compound word, ‘by a dead-rising’ (Todtenauferstehung), ‘a resurrection such as that when dead persons rise.’ Christ is ‘the first-born from the dead’ (Col 1:18).

τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν. Although in O. T. regularly applied to God as equivalent of Adonai, Jahveh, this word does not in itself necessarily involve Divinity. The Jews applied it to their Messiah (Mar 12:36, Mar 12:37 ||; Ps. Sol. 17:36 βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν χριστὸς κύριος) without thereby pronouncing Him to be ‘God’; they expressly distinguished between the Messiah and the Memra or ‘Word’ of Jehovah (Weber, Altsyn. Theol. p. 178). On the lips of Christians Κροιος denotes the idea of ‘Sovereignty,’ primarily over themselves as the society of believers (Col 1:18, &c.), but also over all creation (Php 2:10, Php 2:11; Col 1:16, Col 1:17). The title was given to our Lord even in His lifetime (Joh 13:13 ‘Ye call me, Master (ὁ διδάσκαλος), and, Lord (ὁ Κύριος): and ye say well; for so I am’), but without a full consciousness of its significance: it was only after the Resurrection that the Apostles took it to express their central belief (Php 2:9 ff., &c.).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Declared [ορισθεντος] . Rev., in margin, determined. The same verb as in the compound separated in ver. 1 Bengel says that it expresses more than "separated," since one of a number is separated, but only one is defined or declared. Compare Act 10:42; Act 17:31 It means to designate one for something, to nominate, to instate. There is an antithesis between born (ver. 3) and declared. As respected Christ 's earthly descent, He was born like other men. As respected His divine essence, He was declared. The idea is that of Christ 's instatement or establishment in the rank and dignity of His divine sonship with a view to the conviction of men. This was required by His previous humiliation, and was accomplished by His resurrection, which not only manifested or demonstrated what He was, but wrought a real transformation in His mode of being. Compare Act 2:36; "God made," etc.

With power [εν δυναμει] . Lit., in power. Construe with was declared. He was declared or instated mightily; in a striking, triumphant manner, through His resurrection.

Spirit of holiness. In contrast with according to the flesh. The reference is not to the Holy Spirit, who is nowhere designated by this phrase, but to the spirit of Christ as the seat of the divine nature belonging to His person. As God is spirit, the divine nature of Christ is spirit, and its characteristic quality is holiness.

Resurrection from the dead [αναστασεως νεκρων] . Wrong, since this would require the preposition ejk from. Rev., correctly, of the dead Though this resurrection is here represented as actually realized in one individual only, the phrase, as everywhere in the New Testament, signifies the resurrection of the dead absolutely and generically - of all the dead, as exemplified, included, and involved in the resurrection of Christ. See on Phi 3:11

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.