Saturday, October 29, 2005

Jesus is the Son of God with Power

Paul begins his Epistle to the Romans with a summary statement of the gospel he wished to proclaim in Rome:
The gospel of God…concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead. (Romans 1:3& 4.)

Paul sets before us the broken symmetry of the life Jesus Christ who was “born according to the flesh” and “declared to be the Son of God with power”. The great transitional event in these two phases of the history of Jesus Christ is his resurrection from the dead.

For Paul “flesh” is synonymous with human life in a fallen world. To be born “according to the flesh” is to be born weak. God sent his Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). To be sure, Jesus Christ “knew no sin” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Yet he came as flesh, without the trappings of kingly majesty.

But this man, Jesus Christ was “declared to be the Son of God with power”. This, at any rate is how the New King James Version translates the text. Scholars are divided on how exactly we are to translate the participle “declared” in question. In usage elsewhere in the New Testament, the verb can mean to “delineate” or “demarcate”. This meaning is apparent when regional boundaries or borders are described, “in the regions of…” (Matthew 4:13), (8:34.) In this sense, Jesus was “marked out” or “delineated” as the Son of God.

Another use of the verb is “to determine” in God’s purpose (Luke 22:22), (Acts 2:23). The word is also used to describe Jesus being appointed or ordained by God as judge of all mankind, (10:43), (17:31).

But if we take the word here to mean “appointed”, in what meaningful sense could Jesus Christ be “appointed” as the Son of God? Orthodox Christology has always insisted that Jesus Christ ever was the Son of God. Our text itself suggests that it was “his Son” that was “born according to the flesh”. Paul, in Galatians 4:4 certainly believed in the pre-existence of Jesus as the Son of God, “when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman”. He did not become God’s Son at birth, it was as God’s Son he was sent to be born.

Evangelical expositors will want to avoid any suggestion that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection. This would be to fall into the heresy of adoptionism – the notion that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son, rather than being God’s Son from eternity.

Because of this difficulty, with Jesus being “appointed” as the Son of God by his resurrection, some scholars prefer the translation that Jesus was “declared or “marked out” to be the Son of God”. Dr. Robert Reymond argues for this point of view (Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Nelson, 1998, p. 240-245). He takes the words “in power” as qualifying the participle “declared” or “marked out”. Jesus was thus “powerfully marked out as the Son of God …by the resurrection of the dead.” (Reymond, 1998: 242.) Reymond, understands the phrase “by the Spirit of holiness” to mean Jesus’ divine nature, that stands contrast to his human nature as “flesh”. Thus Reymond, paraphrases the text, “who was powerfully marked out as the Son of God in accordance with his divine nature by his resurrection from the dead.” (Reymond, 1998: 243.)

But is this necessarily the best interpretation of the text? Reymond has avoided any suggestion that Christ became the Son of God by his resurrection. But his exegesis is not shared by other Reformed scholars who prefer the translation that “Jesus…was appointed [not simply marked out as] the Son of God with power ...”

At least as far back as Geerhardus Vos, conservative scholars have argued that, “The reference is not [as Reymond suggests] to two coexisting states in the make-up of the Saviour - his divine and human natures - but to two successive stages in his life.” (Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, P & R, 1930, p. 155.) The contrast in the text is between Jesus Christ being born according to the flesh by incarnation and appointed the Son of God with power by resurrection. The words “with power” qualify the new resurrected state of the “Son of God”. In the flesh, Jesus was the Son of God in weakness, but after his resurrection he was appointed the Son of God with power.

The apostle is dealing with some particular event in the history of the Son of God incarnate by which he was instated in a position of sovereignty and invested with power, an event which in respect of investiture with power surpassed everything that could be ascribed to him in his incarnate state. (John Murray, Romans, Eerdmans, 1987, p. 11.)

The “spirit of holiness” need not be taken to mean the Son’s divine nature as Reymond suggests. Paul’s intention is not to reflect on the relative natures, divine and human than constitute the person of the Son of God. He is describing the Son’s incarnate state before and after his resurrection from the dead. “Spirit of holiness” is a unique designation of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament. However, as Barrett points out, it was a common way of referring to the Holy Spirit in Hebrew and Aramaic writing. (C. K. Barrett, Paul, Geofferey Chapman, 1994, p. 24.) If, as Barrett suggests, Paul is using a pre-existing creedal formula here, this unusual way of describing the Spirit makes perfect sense.

Murray comments,

Thus when we come back to the expression “according to the Spirit of holiness”, our inference is that it refers to that stage of pneumatic endowment upon which Jesus entered through his resurrection. (Murray, 1987: 11.)

Post-resurrection, the incarnate life of the Son of God was transformed and endued with new power by the Spirit. Paul can write that, “The last Adam became a life-giving Spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45.) Christ was conceived by the Spirit according to his human nature and endued with the Spirit at his baptism. But on his resurrection, the Son was lifted to an unprecedented plane of Holy Spirit dynamism. The time of incarnated weakness is over. Jesus is now the Son of God with power.

This interpretation, that Jesus was appointed as the Son of God with power by his resurrection, avoids the danger of adoptionist Christology, while doing justice to the meaning of the text.

It was because Jesus Christ was God’s Son and the messianic seed of David, born according to the flesh, who did for sinners, that he was appointed the Son of God with power. “He was raised because of what he was. He did not become Son by being raised: he was raised because he was Son.” (Donald McLeod, The Person of Christ, IVP, 1998, p. 91.)


John said...

You say, ‘Evangelical expositors will want to avoid any suggestion that Jesus became the Son of God at his resurrection. This would be to fall into the heresy of adoptionism – the notion that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son, rather than being God’s Son from eternity.’

I think that you are right and that they, the evangelical expositors of which you speak, do avoid adoptionism by quite a distance, sometimes even denying any relevance to adoption itself in the meantime. If we are to restore adoption to its place in Christian theology (or even to its places in Christian theology) we might do worse than to get as close as we can to viewing the declaration of Christ’s sonship as his adoption.

I suspect that many expositors have not pursued this link, not because they thought that to do so would be to reintroduce adoptionism but because they knew that making such a link explicit would open themselves up to accusations of adoptionism.

The right defence against adoptionism is to teach clearly about the eternal sonship. It seems to me that a great deal is lost if we continue to try and defend against adoptionism by fencing off adoption as something that happens to us only; ie. that
we are adopted in Christ but not in his being declared to be the Son with power.

Fear of being accused of adoptionism surely reaches its nadir with those theologians who try and relegate adoption to be no more that the second part of justification.

I think that we should be teaching ‘the notion that Jesus was adopted as God’s Son, as well as being God’s Son from eternity.’

Steve said...

Hi Guy,

I've read this through twice to get to grips with it. It's been a long time since I looked at Christology.

Would you say (and I don;t remember reading anything on this, thogh it seems it must be so), that Jesus, ressurected, as son of God with power, retained his human experieces. That is, God who has experiecned being a man, and suffering.

The appearances of Jesus after the russurection and befoer the ascension would seem to back this up.

A strict calvinism site I was reading recently, which talked of a God who did not suffer or feel anything?


Cheers - Steve

Guy Davies said...

I would say that Jesus not only retained his human experiences, but his humanity at his resurrection / exaltation. Even as the glorified Son of God he remembers his experiences while on earth in a state of humliation. Hebrews 4:14 & 15 point us to Jesus who has passed through the heavens, the Son of God. Yet, he is able to sympathise with us ie suffer with us because he suffered being tempted (Hebrews 2:18.) Christ’s sovereign lordship is conditioned by his resurrected humanity. The King of kings and Lord of lords knows our frame, he remembers that we are flesh because he shared and continues to share our humanity.

Some of the old hymns unpack this for us:

Touched with a sympathy within / He knows our feeble frame; / He knows what sore temptations mean, / for he has felt the same. (Isaac Watts)

Our fellow-suffered yet retains / A fellow-feeling with our pains, / And still remembers in the skies / His tears, His agonies, and cries.

In every pang that rends the heart, / The Man of Sorrows had a part, / He sympathizes with our grief, / And to the suffer sends relief. (Michael Bruce)

God suffers with us in the glorified humanity of the Son.

Guy Davies said...

Hi John,

I certainly do not think of the adoption of believers to be a mere subset justification. In a sense I suppose that we are justified that we might be adpoted into the family of God. But I am not sure how we can speak meaningfully of the Son being adpoted as Son. He is Son autotheos, in his own right.

Steve said...

Thanks - I completly agree with that, it's godo to check another perspective on it!

Cheers - Steve

John said...

thank you for your response. I do think that we can meaningfully talk about Christ’s adoption since the eternal Sonship isn’t the only sonship that he has.

Just as the title, ‘Son of Man’ is a title of honour taken by him in his humiliation, so he has been ‘given a name which is above every name’ in his exaltation.

answer-man said...

Just dropped in to read your blog. We are reading what others have to say and are introducing ourselves as well. We are intoducing The new Holy Bibles King James Versions and New Living Translations and especially The New Children's Bibles on DVD and invite you to stop by and visit us at: **BibleMediaDvd.Com**

We hope you don't mind our comment on your site and do so repectfully.
Thank you and God Bless.