a Ps.89.36. 4 And 1 declared to be the Son of God with power, accord 1 determined. b Ac.13.33,34. Re.J.18. also something else; that there was a to determine, constitute, ordain, decree ; nature in which he was not descended i. e. to fix or designate the proper from David. That this is its meaning boundaries of a truth, or a doctrine; will still further appear by the follow- to distinguish its lines and marks from ing observations. (1.) The apostle error; or to shew, or declare a thing expressly makes a contrast between to be so by any action. Luke xxii. 22, his condition according to the flesh, "The Son of man goeth as it was and that according to the spirit of | determined,” as it was fixed, purposed, holiness. (2.) The expression "ac- defined, in the purpose of God, and decording to the flesh" is applied to no clared in the prophets. Acts ii. 23, other one in the New Testament but "Him being delivered by the deterto Jesus Christ. Though the word minate counsel," the definite, constiflesh often occurs, and is often used to tuted will, or design of God. xi. 29. denote man, yet the peculiar expression Heb. iv. 7, "He limiteth a certain according to the flesh occurs in no day," fixes it, defines it. In this sense other connexion. In all the Scriptures it is clearly used in this place. The act it is never said of any prophet or apos- of raising him from the dead designattle, any lawgiver or king, or any man ined him, or constituted him the Son of any capacity, that he came in the flesh, or that he was descended from certain ancestors according to the flesh. Nor is such an expression ever used any where else. If it were applied to a mere man, we should instantly ask in what other way could he come than in the flesh? Has he a higher nature? Is he an angel, or a seraph? The expression would be unmeaning. And when, therefore, it is applied to Jesus Christ, it implies, if language has any meaning, that there was a sense in which Jesus was not descended from David. What that was, appears in the next verse. 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 1 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, 4. And declared. In the margin, an adopted son, or one that imitates or determined. To givros. The an- resembles another. See Note, Matt. i. cient Syriac has, " And he was known 1. The expression sons of God, or to be the Son of God by might and by son of God, is used in an almost equal the Holy Spirit, who rose from the latitude of signification. It is, (1.) house of the dead." The Latin Vul- Applied to Adam, as being immediately gate," Who was predestinated the created by God without an earthly Son of God," &c. The Arabic, "The father. Luke iii. 38. (2.) It is applied Son of God destined by power pecu- to saints or Christians, as being adopted liar to the Holy Spirit," &c. The into his family, and sustaining to hitn word translated "declared to be" means the relation of children. John i. 12, properly to bound, to fix limits to, as 13. 1 John iii. 1, 2, &c. This name to a field, to determine its proper limits is given to them because they resemble or boundaries, to define, &c. Acts xvii. him in their moral character. Matt. v. 26, "And hath determined the bounds 45. (3.) It is given to strong men as of their habitation." Hence it means resembling God in strength. Gen. vi | 2, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men," &c. 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, &c. (4.) Kings are sometimes called his sons, as resembling him in dominion and power. Ps. lxxxii. 6. (5.) The name is given to angels, because they resemble God; because he is their Creator and Father, &c. Job i. 6; ii. 1. Dan. iii. 25. tained 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. John v. 18. "But said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." This idea Jesus immediately proceeded to confirm. See Note, John v. 19-30. The same idea is also suggested in John x. 29, 30, 31. 33. 36. "Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest: because 1 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, ver. 1, 2. God hath spoken unto us BY HIS SON. He is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, ver. 3. He is high 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 favourite name by which the apostles designated him. The expression Son of God is applied to him no less than twentyseven times in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and fifteen times in the Epistles and the Revelation. The expression my son, and his son, thy son, &c. is applied to him in his peculiar 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 com-er than the angels, and they are remonly designated himself. There can be no doubt that that was assumed to denote that he was a man, that he sustained a peculiar 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 it 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 a 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 ob-head bodily." Phil. ii. 2—11. Rev. v 13, vious import of the title Son of God is 14; ii. 23. It is not affirmed that this that he was divine; or that he sus- title was given to the second person of tained relations to God designated by the Trinity before he became incarnate, the name SON OF GOD, corresponding or to suggest the idea of any derivation to the relations which he sustained or extraction before he was made flesh. to man designated by the name SON There is no instance in which the apOF MAN. The natural idea of the term pellation is not conferred to express his Son of God therefore is, that he sus-relation after he assumed human flesh. quired to worship him. ver. 4, 5, 6. He ment. Matt. xxiv. 30. If there is any passage in which the word power means authority, office, &c. it is Matt. xxviii. 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. Matt. x. 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. i. 29, " Which worketh in in me mightily," Greek, in power. i. e. 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 Ghost." Ethiopic, "Whom he de 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. viz: (1.) To designate his peculiar relation to God, as equal with him (John i. 14, 18. Matt. xi. 27. Luke x. 22; iii. 22. 2 Pet. i. 17), or as sustaining a most intimate and close connexion with him, such as neither man nor angels could do, an acquaintance with his nature (Matt. xi. 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 Ps. Ixxxii. 6. See Matt. xvi. 16. "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Matt. xxvi. 63. "I adjure thee by theclared to be the Son of God by his own living God, that thou tell us whether power, and by his Holy Spirit," &c. thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Arabic, "Designated the Son of God Mark xiv. 61. Luke xxii. 70. John i. by power appropriate to the Holy 34. Acts ix. 20. “He preached Christ Spirit." According to the spirit of in the synagogues, that he is the Son holiness. Karà veμa ágæσúvns. This of God." (3.) It was conferred on expression has been variously underhim to denote his miraculous concep- stood. We may arrive at its meaning tion in the womb of the Virgin Mary. by the following considerations. (1.) Luke i. 35. The Holy Ghost shall It is not the third person in the Trinity come upon thee, THEREFORE (dio) also that is referred to here. The designathat holy thing which shall be born of tion of that person is always in difthee shall be called the Son of God." ferent form. It is the Holy Spirit, the ¶ With power. ἐν δυνάμει. By some, Holy Ghost, πνευμα αγιον, or τὸ πνεῦμα τό this expression has been supposed to Taov; never the spirit of holiness. mean in power or authority, after his (2.) It stands in contrast with the resurrection from the dead. It is said, flesh. ver. 3, According to the flesh, that he was before a man of sorrows; the seed of David: according to the now he was clothed with power and spirit of holiness, the Son of God.' authority. But I have seen no in- As the former refers doubtless to his stance in which the expression in power hunian nature, so this must refer to the denotes office, or authority It denotes nature designated by the title Son of physical energy and might, and this God, that is, to his superior or divine was bestowed on Jesus before his nature. (3.) The expression is altoresurrection as well as after. Acts x.gether peculiar to the Lord Jesus 38. "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth | Christ. Nowhere in the Scriptures, with the Holy Ghost, and with power." or in any other writings, is there an Rom. xv. 19. 1 Cor. xv. 43. With affirmation like this. With affirmation like this. What would be auch power Jesus will come to judg-meant by it if affirmed of a mere man (4.) It cannot mean that the Holy | man. By 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 John i. 1, &c. and the Note on that place. the resurrection from the dead. This has been also variously understood. Some have maintained that the word by,, 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 afterwards that he was invested with power. (3.) Though it must be ad› mitted that the preposition by, i, sometines means AFTER (Matt. xix. 20, Luke viii. 27; xxiii. 8, &c.), yet its proper and usual meaning is to denote the efficient cause, or the agent, or origin of a thing. Matt. i. 3. 18; xxi. 25. John iii. 5. Rom. v. 16. Rom. xi. 36, "OF him are all things." 1 Cor. viii. 6, "One God, the Father, or whom are all things," &c. 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 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, 1 for obe 1 or, to the obedience of faith. 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 Acts xvii. 31. "He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given asSURANCE to all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." The one involves the other. See Acts i. 6. Thus Peter (Acts ii. 22-32) having proved that Jesus was raised up, adds, ver. 33, "THEREFORE, being by the right hand exalted, he hath shed forth this," &c.; and ver. 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 Paul's 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. 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 any thing 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. John v. 17-30; x. 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 v. 1-17. Mark ii. 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, 5. By whom. The apostle here reof the truth of his claims to be the turns to the subject of the salutation of Son of God. God would not sanction the Romans, and states to them his authe doings and doctrines of an impos-thority to address them. tor. 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 That au thority he had derived from the Lord Jesus, and not from man. On this fact, that he had received his apostolic commission, not from man, but by the direct authority of Jesus Christ, Paul not unfrequently insisted. Gal. i. 12, "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by revelation of Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. xv. 1-8. Eph. iii. 1-3. ¶ We. The plural here is probably put for the singular. See Col. iv. 3. Comp. Eph. vi. 19, 20. It was usual for those who were clothed with authority to express themselves in this manner. Perhaps here, however he refers to the general nature of the |