a (Hens 4 ον ~ κ, 3 - a ΄ > , ἐν γραφαις ἁγίαις,) 3. περὶ TOU υἱού αὐτοῦ, (τοῦ yevopevou ἐκ σπέρ-
bCh. ix.s. patos Δαβὶδ κατὰ "σάρκα, 4. τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν δυνάµει
c Acts i. 25;
: Cor, ix. κατὰ πνεύμα ἁγιωσύνης, ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν;) ᾿Ιησού Χριστού τού
2; Gal. ii. 8.
by itself, “the Son of God” is, in the first instance, a title rather than a name. It goes back to Ps. ii. 7; the person to whom it is applied is conceived as the chosen object of the Divine love, God’s instrument for accomplishing the salvation of His people. (Weiss.) The description which follows does not enable us to answer all the questions it raises, yet it is sufficiently clear. ‘‘ The Son of God” was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. For γενομένον, cf. Gal. iv. 4; for David, 2 Tim. ii. 8, where, as here, the Davidic descent is an essential part of the Pauline Gospel. That it was generally preached and recognised in the primitive Church is proved by these passages, as well as by Heb. vii. 14 and the genealogies in Matthew and Luke; yet it seems a fair inference from our Lord’s question in Mk. xii. 35 ff. that for Him it had no real importance. Those who did not directly see in Jesus one transcendently greater than David would not recognise in Him the Saviour by being convinced of His Davidic descent. This person, of royal lineage, was ‘declared Son of God, with power, according to the spirit of holiness, in virtue of resurrection from the dead”. The word ὁρισθέντος is ambiguous; in Acts x. 42, xvii. 31, it is used to describe the appointment of Christ to judge the living and the dead, and is rendered in A.V. ‘‘ordained”’. If to be Son of God were merely an office or a dignity, like that of judge of the world, this meaning might be defended here. There is an approximation to such an idea in Acts xiii. 33, where also Paul is the speaker. ‘‘God,’’ he says, ‘thas fulfilled His promise by raising up Jesus; as it is written also in the second Psalm, Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee.” Here the resurrection day, strictly speaking, is the birthday of the Son of God; sonship is a dignity to which He is exalted after death. But in view of passages like Gal. iv. 4, 2 Cor. vill. ο, Phil. ii. 5 f., it is impossible to suppose that Paul limited his use of Son of God in this way; even while Jesus lived on earth there was that in Him which no connection with David could explain, but which rested on a relatiop
Κυρίου ἡμῶν, 5. (δι) οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν “eis ὑπακοὴν
to God; the resurrection only declared Him to be what He truly was—just as in the Psalm, for that matter, the bold words, This day have I begotten Thee, may be said to refer, not to the right and title, but to the coronation of the King. In virtue of His resurrection, which is here conceived, not as from the dead (ἐκ νεκρῶν), but of the dead (ἀναστάσεως vexp@v—a resurrection exemplifying, and so guaranteeing, that of others), Christ is established in that dignity which is His, and which answers to His nature. The expression κατὰ πγεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης characterises Christ ethically, as κατὰ σάρκα does physically. Not that it makes the sonship in question ‘ ethical” as opposed to ‘‘ metaphysical’’: no such distinctions were in the Apostle’s thought. But the sonship, which was declared by the resurrection, answered to (κατὰ) the spirit of holiness which was the inmost and deepest reality in the Person and life of Jesus. The sense that there is that in Christ which is explained by his con- nection with mankind, and that also which can only be explained by some peculiar relation to God, is no doubt conveyed in this description, and is the basis of the orthodox doctrine of the two natures in the one Person of the Lord; but it is a mistake to say that that doctrine is formulated here. The con- nection of the words ἐν Suvdpet is doubt- ful. They have been joined to ὁρισθέντος (cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 4: ζῇ ἐκ Suvdpews θεοῦ): declared to be Son of God “by a miracle,’ a mighty work wrought by God; and also with υἱοῦ θεοῦ = Son ot God, not in humiliation, but ‘in power,” a power demonstrated by the gift of thé Spirit and its operations in the Church. ‘¢ Jesus, Messiah, Our Lord,” summarises all this. ‘‘Our Lord” is the most com- pendious expression of the Christian con- sciousness. (A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, 398 ff.) ‘The whole Gospel of Paul is comprehended in this historical Jesus, who has appeared in flesh, but who, on the ground of the πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, which constitutes His essence, has been exalted as Christ and Lord.” (Lipsius.)