The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 11

more. The pReeo.gee in hie Epistles, apnrt of a fixed and definite usage in tho appli. from this ohaptar, whereOhriet is called God's cation of the term "Son" oo Christ, which Son a.re these: (1) eh. v. 10, "We were (as has been seen) is found in the N'ew reconciled to Goel through the deo.th of hie Testament, is what mii:ht be expected there. Bon ; " (2) eh. viii. 8, " Bending bis own Formal definitions of theological conceptions Bon (Tbv lczVTov ul&v) in the likeness of flesh by means of language used uniformly in a of sin;" (3) oh. viii. 29, •~ To be conformed recoguized definito Bense ho.cl not u yet to the imo.ge of his Bon, tbo.t he might be been made. Among such conceptions that the Firstbom among m11ny brethren;" (4) of the Holy 'frinity though implied, is eh. viii. 82, "Bp11red not his own Bon (Toii nowhere distinctly formulated as a dogma. l~loiJ uloi.i) ; " (5) 2 Cor. i. 19, " The Bon of It was reBerved for the Chlll'ch, under the God . . . woe not Yea. and N o.y ; " (6) Gal. guidance of the Spirit, to preclude miscon- iv. 4, 6, "God sent forth hie Bon,"-" sent ception by precise dogmatic definitions. forth the Spirit of hie Bon into your hearts, Ver. 3.-"'Whieh was made; or, u:cu born. orying, Abba, Father ; " (7) Col. i. 13, But the word in it.self, -yevoµhov, need only " Tra.nslates us into the kingdom of the Bon mean that he beca7Tlll a Man of the seed of of his love." In all these passages-except David ; implying, it wonld seem, a. pre-ex- (3), in which the reference may be only to istence of him who so became. Thia, how- Christ in glory-the term " Son" denotes a ever, is more evident from other passages, in relation to the Father, peculiar to Olll' Lord, which II,11, or inrifpxwv, is oppos,:d to -y•voµ.evos previous to the death and exaltation, and (cf. John i. 1, 14; Phil. ii. 6, 7; cf. also in some of them, (2), (6), (7), previous to Ge.I. iv. 4, 'E{cz..-eO''T€1AEV il e,os 'TOV uiov the Incarnation. Buch previous relation czirrou, -yevoµ.e11ov '" j'UVCZlKOS). Of the seed is especially apparent in the sequence to of Da.vid according to the 1leah. KaTii o-cip1<cz (7), where "the Son of his love" is defined is here, as elsewhere, contr:l.l!ted with 1ecn-/i not only as "the Head of the body, the ,rveiiµa. Here """" a-ifpi<cz denotes the merely Church," and " the Firstborn from the human descent of Jesus in distinction from dead," but also as " the Image of the in- his Di vine Being (ef. Acts ii. 40 ; eh. ix. visible God, the Firatborn of all crea- 3, 5; 2 Cor. v. 16). His having come tion ; for in him all things were created, ho.manly "of the seed of David" is suitably the things in heaven, and the things on noted here, where "the Son" is being set the earth, the things visible and the things forth as fulfilling the Old Testament promises; invisible ; all things through him and unto for they uniformly represent the MeSB:ia.h him ho.ve been created." With this mo.y as thus descended, and it was essential to be compared Phil. ii. 6-12, where an the Jewish conception of bim that he should existence iv µopcpfi EleoiJ, anterior to incarna- be so (cf. Matt. x:xil. 42 ; John vii -12 ; tion, is undoubtedly declared, though the and for the stress laid by the writers o! exaltation after human obedience, and the the New Testament on the fact that Jesus receiving then of "a no.me that is above was so-<>f which fa.et no doubt wa.s enkr- every name" (cf. Heb. i. 4), is spoken of te.ined-cf. Heb. vii 14, 1rpdli11l\D• -yiip, etc. as well. One other passage remains to be See, among many other passages, Matt. i- notioed, occurring, not in an Epistle, but 1; Luke ii. 4, 5; Acts ii 30; x:iii. 23: 2 in the sermon e.t Antioch in Pisidia (Acts Tim. ii. S). Meyer, co=enting on the xiii. 33), where the view of Christ's Sonship verse before ns, goes somewhat out of his which is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews way to set forth that only Joseph's, not (no more being expressed) appears as pre- Mary's, descent from David was in St. Paul's sent to St. Paul's mind. For there God is mind, saying that "the Davidic descent of said to h11ve "fulfilled the promise which the mother of J esllB can by no meallll be was made unto the fathers, in that he bath established from the New Testament," and mised up Jesus again; ns it is also written also that "Paul nowhere indicates the Tiew in the psalm, 'l'bou art my Son; this day of B supemnturs.J. genel'Btion of the bodily hnve I begotten thee." Here the Sonship nature of J esn&" As to the first of the..se assigned to " the Christ" in the second nssertions, it may be oooerved tha.t, in the psalm is regarded as exhibited in the Resur- opening chapters of Olll' Gospel of St. Luke reotiou. l!'rom this review of St. Paul's (representing certainly the early belief of ual\ge it may be inforred that 1r•pl Tou uloiJ the Churoh) olll' Lord seeD18 to bo re- auToiJ in the tell.t before us carries with garded as aotuo.lly desCl!nded from Da,id it iu his owu mind the idel\ of pre-e:s:istmt -not legally so nccounted ouly-though, BI. eternal Sonship, though what we may oall tho 81\mo tiiue, his supcruntmo.l. gen,'l'BLiou Mossiimio Sonship may be all he mel\ns dis- is distinctly n..sscrtcd ( comp. Luko i. S-J with tinotly to intimate L\S cleol11red by prnphets. i. 35). Hence wo nro led to infer Mary's, 'l'he benring of this distinction on the in- ns woll as Joseph's, dcsl'cnt frow D,wiJ, torprotntion of vc1·. 4 will 1tppenr uudor it. whether or uot either ot' tho ~cueal,,,::it>s It muy be observed here thnt the absouoe givonin St. 1\111,tthow's t\lld St. Litko'sl,o,spel:t  4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL '1'0 'l'Im ROMANS. [on. 1. 1-32,