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 But the name THE Son of God is in hath sanctified, and sent into the the New Testament given by way of world, thou blasphemest: because 1 eminence to the Lord Jesus Christ. said I am the Son of God?" There is This was the common and favourite in these places the fullest proof that name by which the apostles designated the title suggested naturally the idea him. The expression Son of God is of equality with God; or the idea of his applied to him no less than twenty- sustaining a relation to God corseven times in the Gospels and the responding to the relation of equality Acts of the Apostles, and fifteen times to man suggested by the title Son of in the Epistles and the Revelation. man. This view is still further sustainThe expression my son, and his son, ed in the first chapter of the epistle to thy son, &c. is applied to him in his the Hebrews, ver. 1, 2. God hath spoken peculiar relation to God, times almost unto us BY HIS SON. He is the brightwithout number. The other most com- ness of his glory, and the express mon appellation which is given to him image of his person, vor. 3. He is highis Son of man. By this name he com- er than the angels, and they are remonly designated himself. There can quired to worship him. ver. 4, 5, 6. He be no doubt that that was assumed to is called God, and his throne is for ever denote that he was a man, that he sus- and ever, ver. 8. He is the Creator of the tained a peculiar relation to man, and heavens and the earth, and is IMMUthat he chose to speak of himself as a TABLY THE SAME, ver. 10, 11, 12. Thus man. The first, the most obvious, im- the rank, or title of the Son of God pression on the use of the name Son of suggests the ideas and attributes of the man is that he was truly a man, and Divinity. This idea is sustained it was used doubtless to guard against throughout the New Testament. See the impression that one who manifest- John xiv. 9. "He that hath seen me ed so many other qualities, and did so hath seen the Father." v. 23. "That many things like a celestial being, was all men shall honour the Son even as not truly a human being. The phrase they honour the Father." Col. i. 19, Son of God stands in contrast with "It hath pleased the Father that in him the title Son of man, and as the natu- should all fulness dwell." ii. 9, " For in ral and obvious import of that is that him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhe 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 Sox 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.

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. lxxxii. 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 thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Mark xiv. 61. Luke xxii. 70. John i. 34. Acts ix. 20. "He preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God." (3.) It was conferred on him to denote his miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Luke i. 35. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, THEREFORE (d) also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." 4 With power. ἐν δυνάμει. By some, this expression has been supposed to mean in power or authority, after his resurrection from the dead. It is said, that he was before a man of sorrows; now he was clothed with power and authority. But I have seen no instance in which the expression in power denotes office, or authority. It denotes physical energy and might, and this was bestowed on Jesus before his resurrection as well as after. Acts x. 38. "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power." Rom. xv. 19. 1 Cor. xv. 43. With such power Jesus will come to judg

power, and by his Holy Spirit," &c. Arabic, "Designated the Son of God by power appropriate to the Holy Spirit." According to the spirit of holiness.

Kaтà zveμa ágæσúvns. This expression has been variously understood. We may arrive at its meaning by the following considerations. (1.) It is not the third person in the Trinity that is referred to here. The designation of that person is always in a dif ferent form. It is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost, πνευμα αγιον, οι τὸ πνεῦμα rov; never the spirit of holiness. (2.) It stands in contrast with the flesh. ver. 3, 'According to the flesh, the seed of David: according to the spirit of holiness, the Son of God.' As the former refers doubtless to his human nature, so this must refer to the nature designated by the title Son of God, that is, to his superior or divine nature. (3.) The expression is altogether peculiar to the Lord Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Scriptures, or in any other writings, is there an affirmation like this. What would be meant by it if affirmed of a mere man?

66

By

(4.) It cannot mean that the Holy | man. What that is, is to be learned Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, from other declarations. This expresshowed that Jesus was the Son of sion implies simply that it was such God by raising him from the dead, because that act is nowhere attributed to him. It is uniformly ascribed either to God, as God (Acts ii. 24. 32; iii. 15. 26; iv. 10; v. 30; x. 40; xiii. 30. 33, 34; xvii. 31. Rom. x. 9. Eph. i. 20), or to the Father (Rom. vi. 4), or to Jesus himself (John x. 18). In no instance is this act ascribed to the Holy Ghost. (5.) It indicates a state far more elevated than any human dignity, or honour. In regard to his earthly descent, he was of a royal race; in regard to the Spirit of holiness, much more than that, he was the Son of God. (6.) The word Spirit is used often to designate God, the holy God, as distinguished from all the material forms of idol worship. John iv. 24. (7.) The word Spirit is applied to the Messiah, in his more elevated or divine nature. 1 Cor. xv. 45, "The last Adam was made a quickening Spirit." 2 Cor. iii. 17, 'Now the Lord (Jesus) is that Spirit." Heb. ix. 14. Christ is said to have "offered himself through the eternal Spirit." 1 Peter iii. 18. He is said to have been "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 1 Tim. iii. 16. He is said to have been "justified in the Spirit." In most of these passages there is the same contrast noticed between his flesh, his human nature, and his other state, which occurs in Rom. i. 3, 4. In all these instances, the design is, doubtless, to speak of him as a man, and as something more than a man: he was one thing as a man; he was another thing in his other nature. In the one, he was of David; was put to death, &c. In the other, he was of God, he was manifested to be such, he was restored to the elevation which he had sustained before his incarnation and death. John xvii. 1-5. Phil. ii. 2-11. The expression according to the Spirit of holiness does not indeed of itself imply divinity. It denotes that holy and more exalted nature which he possessed as distinguished from the hu

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 admitted that the preposition by, i, sometimes 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, "Or 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 un

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 ab-
solved 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 at-derstanding him.
testation, in the face of the universe,
of the truth of his claims to be the
Son of God. God would not sanction
the doings and doctrines of an impos-
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 inti-
mately 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

5. By whom. The apostle here returns to the subject of the salutation of the Romans, and states to them his authority to address them. That authority 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