Who was declared (so Authorized Version) the Son of God with (literally, in) power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of (not as in Authorized Version, from) the dead. Supposing the intention here to be to declare the Son's essential Deity, notwithstanding his human birth, we might have expected ὄντος after the γενομένου preceding.
But the word used is ὁρισθέντος; and, further, the Resurrection is referred to, not a pre-existent state. The verb ὁρίζειν means properly to "appoint" or "determine;" and if this meaning be re-mined, the whole passage would seem to preclude the idea of Sonship previous to the Resurrection being in view.
Hence commentators ancient and modern agree generally in assigning an unusual meaning to ὁρισθέντος-here, making it signify "declared," as in the Authorized Version. So Chrysostom, τί οὗν ἔστιν ὁρισθέντος; τοῦ δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος κριθέντος δυολογηθέντος παρὰ τῆς ἀπάντων γνώμης καὶ ψήφου.
It is maintained that this use of the word, though unusual, is legitimate; since a person may be said to be appointed, or determined, to be what he already is, when his being such is declared and manifested.
Thus, it may be said, a king may be spoken of as appointed king when he is crowned, though he was king before; or a saint determined a saint when he is canonized; and the classical phrase, ὁρίζειν τινὰ θεόν, in the sense of deify, is adduced as parallel.
Thus the expression is made to mean that "the same who κατὰ σάρκα was known only as the descendant of David, is now declared to be the Son of God" (Tholuck); ὅριζεται δὲ εἰς υἰὸν καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἀνβρώπινον" (Cyril); and St.
Paul's reason for thus putting it, in pursuance of his course of thought, is thus explained by Meyer; "Paul gives the two main epochs in the history of the Son of God as they had actually occurred, and had been prophetically announced;'' also by Bengel thus, "Etiam ante exinanitionem suam Filius Dei is quidem fuit: sed exinanitione filiatio occultata fuit, et plene demure retecta post resurrectionem."
This interpretation would be more satisfactory than it is if the verb ὁρίζειν were found similarly used in any other part of the New Testament. It occurs in the following passages, and always in its proper and usual sense: Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; Acts 10:42; Acts 11:29; Acts 17:26, Acts 17:31; Hebrews 4:7.
Of these especially significant are Acts 10:42 ( ὅτι αὐτός ἔστιν ὁ ὡρισμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ κριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν) and Acts 17:31 ( διότι ἔστησεν ἡμέραν ἐν ᾗ μέλλει κρίνειν τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ ἐν ἀνδρὶ ᾧ ὥρισε, πίστιν παρασχὼν πᾶσιν ἀναστήσας αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν).
In both of these texts the word denotes God's appointment or determination of Christ to the office of Judge, not merely a declaration or manifestation of his already being so; and it is to be observed that in the second the language is given as that of St.
Paul himself, and that it corresponds with the passage before us in that the Resurrection is spoken of as the display to the world of Christ being so appointed or determined. Surely, then, there ought to be cogent reason for giving ὁρισθέντος a different meaning here; and, in spite of the weight of authority on the other side, it is submitted that we are under no necessity to do so, if we bear in mind what appeared under Acts 17:3 as to the different senses in which Christ is designated υἱὸς θεοῦ.
In the sense apparent is Messianic prophecy, and pervading the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the sense which seems intended by St. Paul himself in Acts 13:32, Acts 13:33, it was not till after the Resurrection that Christ attained his position of royal Sonship; it was then that the Divine ὁρισμὸς took effect in that regard.
It is true that St. Paul (as was seen under Acts 13:3) himself conceived of Christ as essentially Son of God from eternity; but here, while speaking of the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy, and desiring to point out what was patent to all who believed that Christ had risen, he may fitly refer to his exaltation only, in virtue of which, further, he had himself received his apostolic commission, of which he proceeds to speak, and the assertion which he has had all along in view.
The above interpretation of ὁρισθέντος appears, further, to have the weighty support of Pearson, who, speaking of Christ's fourfold right unto the title of "the Son of God"—by generation, as begotten of God; by commission, as sent by him; by resurrection, as the Firstborn; by actual possession, as Heir of all—refers thus to Romans 1:4 : 'Thus was he defined, or constituted, and 'appointed to be the Son of God with power by the Resurrection from the dead'", (Pearson on the Creed, art.
2.). ἐν δυνάμει (to be connected with ὁρισθέντος) denotes the Divine power displayed in the Resurrection (cf. Ephesians 1:19, "the exceeding greatness of his power,… according to the working of the strength of his might, which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead;" cf.
also 1 Corinthians 6:14; 1 Corinthians 15:43; 2 Corinthians 13:4). In the last two of these passages, power evidenced in resurrection is contrasted with human weakness evidenced in death: σπείρεται ἐν ἀσθενειά ἐγείρεται ἐν δυνάμει καὶ γὰρ εἴ ἐσταυρώθη ἐξ ἀσθενείας ἀλλὰ ζῆ ἐκ δυνάμεως.
το κατὰ σάρκα in Romans 1:3 is opposed, not simply κατὰ πνεῦμα, but κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσὑνης (the spirit of holiness), so as to denote the Divine element that was all along in the Incarnate Son, in virtue of which he rose triumphant over human ἀσθένεια.
We too are composed of σάρξ and πνεῦμα; but the πνεῦμα in Christ was one of absolute holiness—the holiness of Deity; not ἁγιότης, holiness in the abstract, attributed to Deity (Hebrews 12:10), nor ἁγιασμὸς "sanctification," of which man is capable; but ἁγιωσύνη, an inherent quality of Divine holiness ("Quasi tres sint gradus, sanctificatio, sanctimonia, sanctitas," Bengel).
Because of this "spirit of holiness" that was in Christ, "it was not possible that he should be holden of" death (Acts 2:24). Through this, which was in himself—not merely through a Divine power external to himself calling him from the grave, as he had called Lazarus—he overcame death (cf.
Acts 2:27; Acts 13:35, "Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption"). It was through this too ( διὰ πνεύματος αἰωνίου) that he "offered himself without spot to God" (Hebrews 9:14); and in the same sense may be understood ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι (1 Timothy 3:16).
Neither in these passages nor in the one before us is the Holy Spirit meant, in the sense of a distinct Person of the Holy Trinity. Further, the preposition in ἐξ ἀναστάσεως does not denote (as explained by Theodoret, Luther, and Grotius) the time from which the ὁρισμὸς began in the sense of ἐξ οὗ ἀνέστη, but the source out of which it proceeded.
" ἑκ non mode tempus, sed nexum rerum denotat" (Bengel). Further, the phrase is not ''resurrection from the dead," as in the Authorized Version, but "of the dead," which may be purposely used so as to point, not only to the fact of Christ's own resurrection, but also to its significance for mankind.
The same expression often occurs elsewhere with a comprehensive meaning (cf. Acts 23:6; Acts 24:21; 1 Corinthians 15:12-21; Philippians 3:11; also 1 Corinthians 15:22; Philippians 3:10). The resurrection of Christ expressed "the power of an endless life," here and hereafter, for mankind, carrying with it the possibility of the resurrection of all from the dominion of death in the risen Son.
One view of the meaning of the whole of the above passage—that of Chrysostom and Melancthon—may be mentioned because of the weight of these authorities, though it cannot be the true one. They take κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐν δυνάμει, and ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, as co-ordinate, regarding them as the three proofs of Christ's eternal Sonship.
i.e. miracles, the communication of the Holy Ghost, and the resurrection. Jesus Christ our Lord; thus in conclusion distinctly identifying the Son of prophecy with the Jesus who had lately appeared, and was acknowledged by the Christians as the Messiah, and commonly by them called κύριος.
The force of the passage is weakened in the Authorized Version by the transposition of ιησοῦ χριστοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν to the beginning of Romans 1:3, as also by the inclusion of Romans 1:2 in a parenthesis, so as to separate it from περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ which follows.
(See explanation given above.