Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 1:4

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

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.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

And declared – In the margin, determined. 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 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 Gods 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 – 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 – kata pneuma hagiosunes. 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, pneuma hagion, or 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, 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, 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 Pauls 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.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

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 , which we render declared, comes from , 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] , 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.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

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.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

4. And declaredliterally,”marked off,” “defined,” “determined,”that is, “shown,” or “proved.”

to be the Sonof GodObserve how studiously the language changes here. He”was MADE[says the apostle] of the seed of David, according to the flesh”(Ro 1:3); but He was notmade, He was only “declared [or proved] to BEthe Son of God.” So Joh 1:1;Joh 1:14, “In the beginningWAS the Word . . . and theWord was MADEflesh”; and Isa 9:6, “Untous a Child is BORN,unto us a Son is GIVEN.”Thus the Sonship of Christ is in no proper sense a bornrelationship to the Father, as some, otherwise sound divines,conceive of it. By His birth in the flesh, that Sonship, which wasessential and uncreated, merely effloresced into palpablemanifestation. (See on Lu 1:35; Ac13:32, 33).

with powerThis mayeither be connected with “declared,” and then the meaningwill be “powerfully declared” [LUTHER,BEZA, BENGEL,FRITZSCHE, ALFORD,c.] or (as in our version, and as we think rightly) with “theSon of God,” and then the sense is, “declared to be the Sonof God” in possession of that “power” which belongedto Him as the only-begotten of the Father, no longer shrouded as inthe days of His flesh, but “by His resurrection from the dead”gloriously displayed and henceforth to be for ever exerted in thisnature of ours [Vulgate, CALVIN,HODGE, PHILIPPI,MEHRING, c.].

according to the spirit ofholinessIf “according to the flesh” means here, “inHis human nature,” this uncommon expression must mean “inHis other nature,” which we have seen to be that “ofthe Son of God”an eternal, uncreated nature. This is herestyled the “spirit,” as an impalpable and immaterialnature (Joh 4:24), and “thespirit of holiness,” probably in absolute contrast withthat “likeness, of sinful flesh” which He assumed. One isapt to wonder that if this be the meaning, it was not expressed moresimply. But if the apostle had said “He was declared to be theSon of God according to the Holy Spirit,” the readerwould have thought he meant “the Holy Ghost” and itseems to have been just to avoid this misapprehension that he usedthe rare expression, “the spirit of holiness.”

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

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.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Who was declared ( ). Articular participle (first aorist passive) of for which verb see on Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23. He was the Son of God in his preincarnate state (2Cor 8:9; Phil 2:6) and still so after his Incarnation (verse 3, “of the seed of David”), but it was the Resurrection of the dead ( , the general resurrection implied by that of Christ) that definitely marked Jesus off as God’s Son because of his claims about himself as God’s Son and his prophecy that he would rise on the third day. This event (cf. 1Co 15) gave God’s seal “with power” ( ), “in power,” declared so in power (2Co 13:4). The Resurrection of Christ is the miracle of miracles. “The resurrection only declared him to be what he truly was” (Denney).

According to the spirit of holiness ( ). Not the Holy Spirit, but a description of Christ ethically as describes him physically (Denney). H is rare (1Thess 3:13; 2Cor 7:1 in N.T.), three times in LXX, each time as the attribute of God. “The , though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity or Divine Personality Resided ” (Sanday and Headlam).

Jesus Christ our Lord ( ). These words gather up the total personality of Jesus (his deity and his humanity).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Declared [] . 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 [ ] . 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 [ ] . 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

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “And declared to be the Son of God with power,” (tou horisthentos huiou theou en dunamei) “Designated (as) the Son of God in (with) power, dynamic,” demonstrated, or “marked out” power through his miracle ministry in life, his resurrection from the dead, and ascension.

2) “According to the spirit of holiness,” (kata pneuma hagiosunes) “According to (the) spirit of holiness,” Act 2:36; 2Co 13:4; Rom 8:9 c, 10, 11; Heb 1:1-3.

3) “By the resurrection from the dead,” (eks anastaseos nekron, lesou Christou tau kuriou hemon) “Out of a resurrection of dead persons Jesus Christ our Lord,” –he came forth first, as the firstfruit of the first resurrection, a decisive evidence of His Sonship, Act 13:33; 1Co 15:1-4; 1Co 15:20-21.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

4. Declared (19) 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 Psa 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; (2Co 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; (Joh 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,” (Joh 2:19😉

“

No man taketh it from me,” etc.; (Joh 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.

(19) “Declaratus,” ὁρισθέντος. Some of the ancients, such as [ Origen ], [ Chrysostom ], [ Cyril ], and others, have given to this verb the meaning of is “proved — δειχθέντος; ” demonstrated — ἀποφανθέντος; ” “exhibited — ἀποδειχθώντος; ”etc. But it is said that the word has not this meaning in the New Testament, and that it means, limited, determined, decreed, constituted. Besides here, it is found only in Luk 22:22; Act 2:23; Act 10:42; Act 11:29; Act 17:26; Heb 4:7. The word, determined, or constituted, if adopted here, would amount to the same thing, that is, that Christ was visibly determined or constituted the Son of God through the resurrection, or by that event. It was that which fixed, settled, determined, and manifestly exhibited him as the Son of God, clothed and adorned with his own power. Professor [ Stuart ] has conjured a number of difficulties in connection with this verse, for which there seems to be no solid reason. The phrase, the Son of God, is so well known from the usage of Scripture, that there is no difficulty connected with it: the full phrase is the only-begotten Son. To say that Christ’s resurrection was no evidence of his divine nature, as Lazarus and others had been raised from the dead, appears indeed very strange. Did Lazarus rise through his own power? Did Lazarus rise again for our justification? Was his resurrection an attestation of any thing he had previously declared? The Revelation A. [ Barnes ] very justly says, that the circumstances connected with Christ were those which rendered his resurrection a proof of his divinity.

Professor [ Hodge ] gives what he conceives to be the import of the two verses in these words, “Jesus Christ was, as to his human nature, the Son of David; but he was clearly demonstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by the resurrection from the dead.” This view is taken by many, such as [ Pareus ], [ Beza ], [ Turrettin ], etc. But the words, “according to the Spirit of Holiness ” — κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, are taken differently by others, as meaning the Holy Spirit. As the phrase is nowhere else found, it may be taken in either sense. That the divine nature of Christ is called Spirit, is evident. See 1Co 15:45; 2Co 3:17; Heb 9:14, 1Pe 3:18 [ Doddridge ], [ Scott ], and [ Chalmers ], consider The Holy Spirit to be intended. The last gives this paraphrase: — “ Declared, or determinately marked out to be the Son of God and with power. The thing was demonstrated by an evidence, the exhibition of which required a putting forth of power, which Paul in another place represents as a very great and strenuous exertion, ‘According to the working of his mighty power when he raised him from the dead.’ — The Spirit of Holiness, or the Holy Spirit. It was through the operation of the Holy Spirit that the divine nature was infused into the human at the birth of Jesus Christ; and the very same agent, it is remarkable, was employed in the work of the resurrection. ‘Put to death in the flesh,’ says Peter, and ‘quickened by the Spirit.’ We have only to do with the facts of the case. He was demonstrated to be the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit having been put forth in raising him from the dead.” As to the genitive case after “resurrection,” see a similar instance in Act 17:32

The idea deduced by [ Calvin ], that he is called here “the Spirit of Holiness,” on account of the holiness he works in us, seems not well-founded, though advanced by [ Theodoret ] and [ Augustine ]. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(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 quiteor 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. Peters phrase, Put to death in the flesh. but quickened by the Spiritrather, 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 deadby that resurrection of which Christ was the firstfruits.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

4. Declared Outlined. The word is derived from , 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.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘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,’

For His greater manifestation came in that He was powerfully declared (or, more strongly, ‘appointed’ – see the use in Act 10:42; Act 17:31) to be the Son of God, in an act of power which revealed His own power. He was declared to be ‘the Son of God with power’, the Son of God powerful enough to bring about the resurrection. And His true divine Sonship was therefore made known by His immensely powerful resurrection from the dead, a resurrection in which He proclaimed the death of death, having triumphed over it once for all (1Co 15:20-28). Through it He also declared the defeat of the spiritual powers of darkness (Col 2:15). Satan would be bruised under their feet shortly (Rom 16:20). All that could prevent the salvation of His people was dealt with through His resurrection, and what had preceded it, something which demonstrated Who He really was, the Saviour of the world (1Jn 4:14).

‘According to the spirit of holiness.’ This stands in apposition to ‘according to the flesh.’ In His flesh He was revealed as the son of David. In His spirit, a ‘spirit of holiness’, He was revealed as the only Son of God. (Compare how Paul describes himself as acting in a spirit of servitude – Rom 1:9). That being so, as the former refers to His essential humanity we must surely see the latter as referring to the divine element in His make-up. It was ‘the spirit of holiness’, that unique spirit which was manifested in Him, totally pure and totally righteous and totally powerful over death (‘death could not keep its prey, He tore the bars away’), that revealed Him to be the Son of God. For in Himself He had the power to lay down His life, and He had the power to take it again (Joh 10:18). He was in other words the Lord of life (Joh 11:25). This was what revealed Him to be the only, unique Son of God. This was what revealed Him to be ‘our LORD’, a title that constantly parallels ‘God’ in the New Testament and indicates the same thing. There is One God and one LORD. It is, equally with ‘God’, the title of deity (e.g. 1Co 8:8. And note also Php 2:11 where it is announced of Him in His manhood by the resurrection). He is the Lord of glory (1Co 2:8; Jas 2:1).

We do not necessarily by this have to exclude from our reckoning the power and working of the Holy Spirit, indeed we must not. ‘The Spirit of holiness’ could have been seen as a Hebraism for ‘the Holy Spirit’ (and is so seen by many), although the distinction of expression maintained by Paul (he never uses the term ‘Spirit of holiness’ elsewhere) confirms that we are to view it uniquely. Thus we may certainly see the Holy Spirit as acting alongside Christ’s Spirit (and with the Father) in the resurrection of Christ (see Rom 8:9-11 where Christ and Spirit inter-react). But that it is Christ’s Spirit which is primary comes out in the contrast with His flesh. The association of Jesus’ ‘spirit of holiness’ with the Holy Spirit would not be a blurring of distinctions, but a bringing out of the mystery of the Godhead, for where One acts, all act (e.g. Rom 8:8-9). The Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit (and the Father – Joh 5:17; Joh 5:19) act as One, and their working cannot be differentiated. It is we who, in our technical way, sometimes unwisely seek to over-emphasise the distinctions (although to make the distinction is necessary). But it is because of His ‘Spirit of holiness’ that Jesus can drench men with ‘the Holy Spirit’ (Mat 3:11), while Himself coming to dwell within them (Joh 14:15-18; Joh 14:23).

‘By the resurrection from/of the dead ones.’ (For so it can be more literally translated). Act 26:23 uses this phrase in such a way as to demonstrate that it refers primarily to the resurrection of Christ (1Co 15:23). He was the firstfruits of the resurrection, the One Who arose from among the dead. But it is also a reminder that when Jesus rose it was not only Him Who was to be seen as rising. Intrinsically it guaranteed the resurrection of all who would become His, of all who truly believed in Him, who then partook in His resurrection spiritually (Joh 5:24; Eph 2:1-10), awaiting the day of physical resurrection (Rom 6:4-11). All who would belong to Him in essence rose with Him (Rom 8:1; 1Co 15:23). Thus every spiritually resurrected saint (see Rom 6:4; Rom 6:11, and compare Eph 2:1-10) reveals the Lordship of Christ. His resurrection encompassed them all. In other words His deity is equally revealed by His own resurrection and by the resurrection of those whom He came to save.

So the resurrection of Christ is seen as having introduced a new era. By it He has been manifested as, and declared to be, God’s only Son, and by it He has broken the powers of death and Hell, those elements which stood in the way of our enjoyment of an eternal inheritance. Because He lives we can live also (Joh 14:19). Indeed, as we shall see, this is what the letter is all about, for whilst our acceptability with God (our ‘justification’) is undoubtedly something which is at the heart of the letter, it is the final result of that justification in our transformation and glorification which is its final goal (chapter 8).

And Who is this unique and powerful Son of God? He is ‘Jesus Christ our Lord.’ Firstly He is ‘Jesus’, Who will save His people from their sins (Mat 1:21). He is true man and true Saviour. Secondly He is ‘the Christ’, promised and prepared for by God’s word and by the prophets, and now manifested to the world. And above all He is ‘our LORD’, Lord of the Universe, co-equal with God the Father (Joh 5:19-23; Joh 14:7-9; Col 1:19; Col 2:9), Creator of all things (Joh 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:2-3), and of us, and the One Who has bought us with a price (1Co 6:19-20).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Rom 1:4. With power See on Rom 1:16. He who will read in the original what St. Paul says, Eph 1:19-20 concerning the power which God exerted in raisingChrist from the dead, will hardly avoid thinking that he there sees St. Paul labouring for words to express the greatness of it. The word declared does not exactly answer the original, nor is it perhaps easy to find a word in English which perfectly answers to the Greek word , in the sense the Apostle uses it here. The original word ‘ signifies properly to bound, terminate, or circumscribe; by which termination the figure of things sensible is made,and they are known to be of this or that species, and so distinguished from others. Thus St. Paul takes Christ’s resurrection from the dead and entering into immortality to be the most eminent and characteristical mark whereby Christ is certainly known, and as it were determined, to be the Son of God; and undoubtedly his resurrection amply rolled away all the reproach of his cross, and intitled him to the honour of the first-born among many brethren. The phrase according to the Spirit of holiness, says Mr. Locke, is here manifestly opposed to according to the flesh in the foregoing verse, and so must mean his divine nature; unless this be understood, the antithesis is lost. Dr. Doddridge, however, and others think, that it appears little agreeable to the style of Scripture in general, to call the divine nature of Christ the Spirit of holiness, and therefore they rather refer it to the operation of the Spirit of God, in the production of Christ’s body; by which means the opposition between the flesh and the Spirit will be preserved, the one referring to the materials acted upon, the other to the divine and miraculous agent. Compare Luk 1:35. The sense of the verse maybe expressed thus: “But determinately and in the most convincing manner marked out to be the Son of God, as to that spiritual part in him, which remained perfectly holy and spotless under all temptations, by his being raised from the dead to universal dominion.”

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

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. , 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.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

4. ] The simple antithesis would have been, , 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 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 into . , he characterizes the Spirit of Christ as one of absolute holiness, i.e. as divine and partaking of the Godhead : see below.

] “Multo plus dicit quam , Rom 1:1 ; nam unus e pluribus , unicus quispiam .” Bengel. See reff. Nor does it = , as vulg. prdestinatus , and as Irenus (iii. 22. 1, p. 219) and Augustine de Prdest [1] Sanctorum, c. 15, vol. x. p. 982: “Prdestinatus 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: ; , , , . 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 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 ( Act 2:36 ), ( Act 13:33 ) are used of the same proof or manifestation of Christ’s Sonship by His Resurrection. So again , 1Ti 3:16 .

[1] “Prdest inatus .” A work ascribed to Vincent of Lerins (434)

belongs to , not to , nor again is it a parallel clause to . . . and . . (as Chrys., who interprets it , Theophyl. &c.) manifested with power ( to be ) the Son of God . See reff.

] . is not = ; 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, , 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 and , the two sides of the Person of Christ here intended to be brought out. Such are that of Theodoret ( ), Chrys. ( , ), &c. Calvin and Olshausen seem to wish to include the notion of sanctifying ( ) in , 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.

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

] not = . , 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 ( , 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. Rom 6:4 ff.

. . . . . ] 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.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

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.’

Fuente: Expositions Of Holy Scripture by Alexander MacLaren

declared = marked out. Greek. horizo. See Act 2:23. Compare Psa 2:7.

Son of God. App-98.

with power = in (Greek. en) power (Greek. dunamis. App-172.); i.e. powerfully. Compare Php 3:10.

spirit. App-101.

holiness. Greek. hagiosune. Only here, 2Co 7:1. 1Th 3:13. Nowhere in Greek. literature. It is the Genitive of apposition (App-17.) The expression is not to be confounded with pneuma hagion (App-101.) His Divine spiritual nature in resurrection is here set in contrast with His human flesh as seed of David.

resurrection. Greek. anastasis. App-178. Compare Act 26:23.

from = of.

dead. App-139. See Mat 27:52, Mat 27:53.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

4.] The simple antithesis would have been, , 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 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 Lords 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 into . , he characterizes the Spirit of Christ as one of absolute holiness, i.e. as divine and partaking of the Godhead: see below.

] Multo plus dicit quam , Rom 1:1; nam unus e pluribus, unicus quispiam. Bengel. See reff. Nor does it = , as vulg. prdestinatus, and as Irenus (iii. 22. 1, p. 219) and Augustine de Prdest[1] Sanctorum, c. 15, vol. x. p. 982:-Prdestinatus 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 Christs being the Son of God barely, but of the proof of that fact by His Resurrection. Chrysostom has given the right meaning: ; , , , . 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 here spoken of is not the objective fixing, appointing of Christ to be the Son of God, but the subjective manifestation in mens minds that He is so. Thus the objective words (Act 2:36), (Act 13:33) are used of the same proof or manifestation of Christs Sonship by His Resurrection. So again , 1Ti 3:16.

[1] Prdestinatus. A work ascribed to Vincent of Lerins (434)

belongs to ,-not to ,-nor again is it a parallel clause to . . . and . . (as Chrys., who interprets it , Theophyl. &c.) manifested with power (to be) the Son of God. See reff.

] . is not = ; 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, , 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 and , the two sides of the Person of Christ here intended to be brought out. Such are that of Theodoret ( ),-Chrys. ( , ), &c. Calvin and Olshausen seem to wish to include the notion of sanctifying () in ,-which however true, is more than strictly belongs to the words. See by all means, on the whole, Umbreits important note, pp. 164-172.

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

] not = . ,-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 ( , 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. Rom 6:4 ff.

. . . . .] 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.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Rom 1:4. , who was definitively marked as [declared to be, Engl. Vers.] the Son of God) He uses again, not or . 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 expresses much more than in Rom 1:1; for one, , out of a number of other persons, but a person, , as the one and only person, Act 10:42. In that well-known passage, Psa 2:7, [the decree] is the same as ; [the decree implying] that the Father has most determinately said, Thou art My Son. The , the approving of the Son, in regard to men, follows in the train of this .-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.- , in (or with) power), most powerfully, most fully; as when the sun shines in , in his strength.-Rev 1:16.- , according to the spirit of holiness) The word , 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 has a kind of middle sense between and .-Comp. Heb 12:10; Heb 12:14. [His holiness, ; without 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, sanctimoni), 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 ), 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 (sanctimoni ), in order that there may be at once implied the efficacy of that holiness (sanctitatis ) 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 [sanctimoni] 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 mens 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.- , by means of the resurrection of the dead) 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 is also used without a preposition, as in Herodotus, : therefore, 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 Part I., cap. 41, p. 214, etc., and this is his construction of the passage: [Rom 1:3] … 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: : –.-III. , not , if we are to have regard to Pauls style, is properly applied to Christ; but to Christians; Comp. , , 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 , 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 , Luk 24:47. Therefore, this mode of mentioning the resurrection is exceedingly well adapted to this introduction, as Gal 1:1.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Rom 1:4

Rom 1:4

who was declared to be the Son of God with power,-[That Christ is as to his spirit the Son of God could not be known by intuition, nor perhaps in any other way, save the one employed; and this was determined by power-the resurrection of the dead.]

according to the spirit of holiness,-[This is put in contrast with according to the flesh, and denotes the divine element that was in Jesus, by which he is connected with the Father, and is thus called “the Son of God.” The contrast is between his humanity and his divinity. The passage confirms the claim of Jesus to be more than the son of David, as set forth in his conversation with the Pharisees: Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet? If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son? And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. (Mat 22:41-46).]

by the resurrection from the dead;-God declared this truth with power by raising him from the dead. He had declared him in other ways and on other occasions to be his Son, but the truth was settled by the power that raised him from the dead. This was the sign of all signs to which Jesus pointed the Jews who asked for a sign (Mat 12:38-40). [Faith in Jesus as the Son of God was not a fixed, immovable principle till after he was raised from the dead. The strong and abiding faith of the apostles that was to constitute the leading and foundation principle of membership in the church of God rested on his resurrection. Peter says: Who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. (1Pe 1:3). They had no living and abiding hope of the incorruptible inheritance until he was raised from the dead; indeed the apostles did not understand the spiritual nature of his kingdom on the day of his ascension, but looked for the restoration of the fleshly kingdom of Judaism. (See Act 1:6-8). While the reference is to Christs own resurrection, this can be rightly considered as assuring the general resurrection of all the dead, since the identity of the two is presupposed in 1Co 15:12-22. Christs divine relation to the Father shines forth in the virtual accomplishment of the resurrection of all mankind through his own victory over death. Hence his sublime declaration to Martha: I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die. (Joh 11:25-26).]

even Jesus Christ our Lord:-[The son of David and the Son of God is thus finally described by these well-known titles. Jesus was his personal name and identifies him as the crucified Savior, Christ as the promised Messiah, and Lord as the exalted King to whom all authority is given in heaven and on earth.]

Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary

declared: Gr. determined

the Son: Rom 1:3, Joh 2:18-21, Act 2:24, Act 2:32, Act 3:15, Act 4:10-12, Act 5:30-32, Act 13:33-35, Act 17:31, 2Co 13:4, Eph 1:19-23, Heb 5:5, Heb 5:6, Rev 1:18

according: Luk 18:31-33, Luk 24:26, Luk 24:27, Heb 9:14, 1Pe 1:11, 2Pe 1:21, Rev 19:10

Reciprocal: 1Ch 17:11 – I will raise Psa 2:7 – Thou Psa 51:11 – holy Psa 89:4 – General Isa 53:8 – who Dan 3:25 – the Son of God Zec 12:8 – the house Mat 1:23 – God Mat 14:33 – Of Mat 16:16 – Thou Mat 20:30 – Have Mat 22:45 – how Mat 27:54 – Truly Mar 1:11 – Thou Mar 9:7 – This Mar 10:47 – thou Mar 12:37 – and whence Luk 1:32 – the Son Luk 1:35 – the Son of God Luk 4:9 – If Luk 20:41 – Christ Joh 1:14 – the Word Joh 1:34 – this Joh 6:42 – Is not Joh 8:28 – then Joh 9:35 – the Son Joh 10:36 – I am Joh 19:7 – because Joh 20:31 – these Act 9:20 – that Act 10:40 – General 1Co 1:24 – the power 2Co 1:19 – the Son Gal 1:1 – but Eph 1:20 – when 1Th 1:10 – whom 1Ti 3:16 – justified 2Ti 2:8 – Jesus Heb 1:2 – spoken Heb 13:20 – brought 1Pe 3:18 – but 2Pe 1:16 – the power Rev 2:18 – the Son Rev 22:16 – I am

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1:4

Rom 1:4. It became generally known that Jesus was a descendant of David as to his fleshly or human relationship, but some special event was necessary to declare or prove him to be also the Son of God. That was accomplished by his resurrection from the dead, for God would not have raised him had he been an impostor.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Rom 1:4. Who was installed, or, declared, the Son of God. The clause is strictly parallel with who was born.(The word and as well as the phrase to be are interpolated in the E. V.) The word translated declared has been much discussed. It first meant, to bound, define, determine, etc. In this case a mistake of the Latin Vulgate has confounded it with the word meaning predestined. The sense constituted, in so far as that implies that the Sonship began at the resurrection, is an impossible one. The two allowable meanings are: (1) instated or installed; (2) declared, manifested, etc. They differ in this respect that (1) points to what God did, and (2) to the human recognition or proof of the Sonship of Christ. The former seems to be the more natural sense, but the latter is usually accepted. In neither case is there any suggestion that Christ became the Son of God in consequence of the resurrection, although the human nature of Christ was then exalted, and made partaker of the glory which eternally belonged to the Son, Joh 17:5, For although Christ was already the Son of God before the creation of the world, and as such was sent (chap. Rom 8:3; Gal 4:4), nevertheless there was needed a fact, by means of which He should receive, after the humiliation that began with his birth (Php 2:7 ff.), instating into the rank and dignity of His divine Sonship; whereby also, as its necessary consequence with a view to the knowledge and conviction of men, He was legitimately established as the Son (Meyer).

With power. Lit, in power. This should be connected with declared; it thus sets forth the in-stating by the resurrection as an exhibition of the divine power. Some, however, prefer to join the phrase with Son of God, thus contrasting the majesty and power of the risen Son of God with the weakness of His human nature. In any case the whole phrase installed the Son of God with power, is to be taken together as in contrast with was born (Rom 1:3).

According to the Spirit of holiness. This is evidently in contrast with according to the flesh, and must set forththat side of the person of Christ wherein He differs absolutely from those who are only human. This would exclude a reference to the personal Holy Spirit, who is nowhere designated by this phrase, also to the human spirit of Christ as distinct from His body and soul (see on Rom 1:3). God is a Spirit, hence the divine nature of the Incarnate Son of God is Spirit. Of this Spirit the characteristic quality is holiness. We reject the view which explains holiness as sanctification.

By the resurrection of the dead. Literally, out of resurrection of dead. Out of is here equivalent to by means of, and not to after or since, as some have imagined Resurrection, though without the article, refers to the historical fact by virtue of which was accomplished the exaltation of the Son of God, who had previously humbled himself to be born. Hence it seems best to insert the article in English. Of the dead is probably not identical with from the dead (as in E.V.), but points to the resurrection of Christ as the fact which implies and guarantees the final resurrection of all believers.

Jesus Christ our Lord. 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 (Alford). Jesus is the personal name; Christ the official name; our Lord, taking up the word applied to Jehovah in the Septuagint, presents Him as the supreme Lord of the New Dispensation, the personal Master and King of all believers. The full phrase always has a solemn and triumphant tone, and here serves not only to exalt Christ, but to express the high dignity of the apostolic office (Rom 1:1; Rom 1:5), the leading idea in the address.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

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

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

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.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 4

According to the Spirit of holiness. A great degree of uncertainty has been felt among commentators in respect to the precise import of the term Spirit of holiness, as used in this connection; and, in fact, also in respect to the other clauses of this verse. Some consider this expression as referring to the Holy Spirit, others to the divine Word which became flesh in the person of Jesus. (John 1:1,14.) Others still understand it to denote those spiritual influences affused by the Savior, after his resurrection, upon the apostles, and other members of the early church. In fact, in regard to the whole verse, the best authorities among commentators express their opinions of the specific sense in which its several clauses are to be understood with great hesitation. Its general import is clear, viz., that Jesus, who, in respect to his human powers and station, was a descendant of David, was proclaimed the Son of God by divine indications of the highest and most unquestionable character.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

1:4 And {g} declared [to be] the Son of God with {h} power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

(g) Shown and made manifest.

(h) The divine and mighty power is set against the weakness of the flesh, for it overcame death.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes