New Shades of Theology?: An Analysis of Bruce Ware's Compatibilist Middle Knowledge

“There is nothing new under the son,” said Solomon. Perhaps since Solomon lived in ancient Israel we are tempted to think that while there was nothing new for him, we’ve got lots of new stuff in our day. Thousands of years have passed since Solomon, and a lot has changed and a lot has been developed, so there must be something new. Well, whether or not there is anything at all new in the world I won’t attempt to answer here, but in terms of theological ideas there seems to be only a re-hashing of old ideas with slight variations for the present day. Such is the case, it seems, with the notion of “Compatibilist Middle Knowledge.” The doctrine of Compatibilist Middle Knowledge is, in its language, an altered form of an old heresy, but in its definition it is simply the same as the Orthodox Reformed doctrine of God’s omniscience; a doctrine that is old on two levels.

Defining Our Terms
Any critical analysis of a doctrine must begin with a basic understanding of the terms. Let’s start here by denoting what Compatibilism, and Middle Knowledge are. Afterwards we’ll explain how they work together to form the doctrine of Compatibilist Middle Knowledge, and conclude with an analysis of the doctrine and interaction with one of the primary sources on this teaching.

Compatibilism deals with the relationship between human freedom and divine sovereignty. Of course not all Compatibilism treats these two subjects. Some atheists offer the theory as a unifier for predeterminate naturalism and human freedom. But in the theological world it is a reference to the compatibility of human freedom and divine sovereignty. The Bible teaches both that God is sovereign, and that man is responsible for his free choices, the question remains, then, for theologians to assess how this can be possible. How can God be sovereign over all the world, and yet hold man responsible for what he does? To answer this question two major views have been proposed:[1]

1) Arminianism suggests that God, in creating human beings with a free will, voluntarily gave up some of His sovereignty. God did not want to create a race of robots who were simply compelled to love and serve Him because He had pre-determined that they would. Rather, He wanted a people who could freely express true love and devotion by having the power to choose either to love God, or reject God. This view of freedom is known as “libertarian freedom.” Libertarian Freedom states that “given the conditions preceding any voluntary decision, more than one decision must be possible- the person making the decision must be in a position to chose differently.”[2] Or as Bruce Ware Words it, “at the very moment of choice, we are free in making that choice if (and only if) in the choosing what we do, we could have chosen otherwise.”[3]

2) The alternate view is that of Calvinism. Calvinists believe both that God is sovereign and that man has a free will. There is a common misconception among people that Calvinists are fatalistic and that they deny human freedom; there is no such validity to that claim, however.[4] To resolve the apparent conflict between human freedom and divine sovereignty Calvinists propose the theory of Compatibilist freedom. Compatibilist Freedom states that we are free to choose what we want but that our choices are always limited by our desires. That is we chose what we most desire. Jonathan Edwards called it the freedom of inclination; we are free to choose what (and only what) we are most inclined towards. I will explore below how this plays itself out in the divine sovereignty/human responsibility debate, but for now let it suffice to say that Compatibilist freedom makes compatible God’s control over everything and my freedom of choice.

Middle Knowledge is a slightly more technical issue, but I will try to make it as accessible as possible. Middle Knowledge started with the teachings of Luis de Molina in the Post-Reformation period. Molina was a Jesuit priest, and to counter-act the “heretical teachings,” that is the doctrine of God’s exhaustive sovereignty over human free choices, he offered Molinism. Dr. Bruce Ware, professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, explains it in further detail for us. He writes:

Molina…argued that God has three logical moments of knowledge prior to creating the universe. God not only possesses knowledge of what could be, i.e., knowledge of all bare possibilities and logical necessities (what Molina calls “natural knowledge”), and knowledge of what will be, i.e., knowledge of all future actualities, or exact and detailed knowledge of the way the world, when created, will be (what Molina calls “free knowledge”), but importantly, God also possesses knowledge of what would be if circumstances were different from what they in fact will be in the actual world, i.e., knowledge of those possible states of affairs which would have become actual had circumstances other than those in the real world obtained (what Molina calls “middle knowledge”).[5]

If that doesn’t make sense, perhaps William Lane Craig’s lay out of the three types might be easier to grasp. In his book The Only Wise God Craig distinguishes the three forms of God’s knowledge as such:

1. Natural Knowledge: God’s knowledge of all possible worlds. The content of this knowledge is essential to God.
2. Middle Knowledge: God’s knowledge of what every possible free creature would do under any possible set of circumstances and, hence, knowledge of those possible worlds which God can make actual. The content of this knowledge is not essential to God…
3. Free Knowledge: God’s knowledge of the actual world. The content of this knowledge is not essential to God.[6]

Middle knowledge, then, is God’s knowledge of all the possible results from all the possible free decisions of all the possible free creatures, in all the possible situations. Now how do these two terms fit together? That is an important issue, and at the heart of this analysis.

Originally Molina argued for Middle Knowledge because he wanted to contend for both Libertarian Free Will and God’s Divine Sovereignty. By the application of Middle Knowledge Molina could allow God to foresee human free-choices and thereby maintain his divine sovereign control by working His will in light of that future free choice. But there are some advocates of Middle Knowledge today who wish to redeem this theory from the Libertarians, so they have adapted it into a Compatibilist form. Here’s how one proponent explains the problems with the libertarian model:

The problem for traditional Molinism, with its commitment to libertarian freedom, is that since there is no necessary connection between knowledge of each state of affairs and knowledge of what the agent would in fact choose in each different setting, God could not know the agent’s choice by knowing the circumstances.[7]

This assessment expresses one of the major critiques of general middle knowledge in a libertarian model. If human free choices are not determined by inclinations, then the surrounding influences upon a person cannot make their free decision certain, therefore making it impossible for God to know what that future decision will be. Despite Molina’s attempts, Middle Knowledge does not render libertarian freedom and divine sovereignty compatible. Here’s the adaptation offered by one advocate of the Compatibilist model:

What is different about this understanding of middle knowledge is that since freedom means that we always do what we most want, and since what we “most want” is shaped by the set of factors and circumstances that eventually give rise to one desire that stands above all others, therefore God can know the circumstances giving rise to our highest desires, and by knowing these, He can know the choice that we would make, given those particular circumstances.[8]

In the Compatibilist model, God gets to His desired end by creating the world with all the influences upon us that would cause us to freely choose and do what we wanted, but which was also in perfect concordance with His desired result. So, we see, Compatibilist Middle Knowledge reconciles both God’s sovereignty and human free will. Now that we’ve defined and explained our terms, however, it becomes necessary to evaluate the doctrine.

Evaluating the Doctrine
Dr. Bruce Ware, professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has been one of the most recent advocates of Compatibilist Middle Knowledge. In his book God’s Greater Glory he explains:

One of the most perplexing questions that those in the Reformed tradition endeavor to address is just how God’s permission of evil functions in light of his eternal decree by which he ordains all that will come to be…It has occurred to me over the past several years that one promising answer to this question may be provided if a modified version of Luis de Molina’s notion of middle knowledge were incorporated, here, within a fundamentally Reformed and compatibilist model of divine providence.[9]

Dr. Ware appeals to 1 Samuel 23:8-14 for his belief in middle knowledge, a common text held up by proponents of all forms of this theory. The text reads:

And Saul summoned all the people to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. David knew that Saul was plotting harm against him. And he said to Abiathar the priest, “Bring the ephod here.” Then said David, “O LORD, the God of Israel, your servant has surely heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. Will the men of Keilah surrender me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, the God of Israel, please tell your servant.” And the LORD said, “He will come down.” Then David said, “ Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?” And the LORD Said, “They will surrender you.” Then David and his men…departed from Keilah…And Saul sought him every day, but God did not give him into his hand.[10]

The passage is the most commonly sited among advocates of middle knowledge, whether of the libertarian or compatibilist model. Dr. Ware, is right when he states, “1 Samuel 23 indicates that when God told David that Saul will come down and that the men of Keilah will surrender him into the hand of Saul, we know that this actually means, ‘If you stay here, these things will happen’ (i.e., this was an implicitly conditional divine prediction).”[11] This is obviously an example of God’s knowing what will take place under a specific possible situation. It appears very much to be exactly what Dr. Ware is claiming in Middle Knowledge. Another textual example Dr. Ware sites is Exodus 13:17:

When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near. For God said, “Lest the people change their minds when they see war and return to Egypt.”[12]

Again Dr. Ware is so certain that this passage speaks of God’s middle knowledge that he states, “Here we have a clear and indisputable case where God used middle knowledge of what Israel would do under other circumstances in order to regulate what they would in fact choose to do.”[13] It certainly does appear to be a convincing citation; I am, however, now going to dispute with Dr. Ware’s understanding of it.

It is not that the author is wrong in his understanding that God knew how the Israelites would behave under a certain set of circumstances; he is correct in asserting this. If he is guilty of anything in his textual citations it may be perhaps he has an overly literal interpretation,[14] but he correctly understands what God is foreseeing about possible conditions. My qualm with Dr. Ware’s citations, however, has to do with his application of the term “Middle Knowledge” specifically to the generally accepted interpretation.

The traditional Reformed view of God’s knowledge agrees with much of what Dr. Ware has established. So Charles Hodge, great Princeton professor in the 19th Century, writes:

The knowledge of God is not only all-comprehending, but it is intuitive and immutable. He knows all things as they are, being as being, phenomena as phenomena, the possible as possible, the actual as actual, the necessary as necessary, the free as free, the past as past, the present as present, the future as future. Although all things are ever present in his view, yet He sees them as successive in time. The vast procession of events, thoughts, feelings, and acts, stands open to his view.[15]

Hodge holds to, as does Ware, both knowledge of the possible and knowledge of the actual. John Frame adds to this, saying that Reformed theologians believe that “God does know what every free creature would do in every possible circumstance…Indeed, God in Scripture often speaks of what would happen in conditions other than those that actually occur.”[16] But, he adds, and this is where we would disagree with Ware, “From a Reformed point of view, however, it is difficult to see why this kind of divine knowledge must be isolated as a third kind of knowledge.”[17] The issue comes down to narrowing the definitions. Note that natural knowledge states God “knows all the possible worlds,” while middle knowledge states, “God knows all the results that could come from those possible worlds being made actual.” What is the distinction for? Why is this narrow and nuanced understanding necessary. Even Ware himself recognizes the closeness of the two terms. He states, “One can think of middle knowledge as a subset of natural knowledge. That is, natural knowledge- knowledge of what could be- envisions all possibilities and all necessary truths.”[18]In a course lecture on the doctrine of God professor Stephen Wellum also confesses that the proposal offered by compatibilist middle knowledge is not that different from the traditional Reformed thought.

In regard to ‘middle knowledge’ the question has never been whether there is a conditional connection between future events, a connection known and willed by God. Rather what is rejected is the view of middle knowledge that incorporates libertarian freedom that is independent of God’s will and decree…So is it really necessary to isolate middle knowledge…from natural knowledge…and free knowledge? Is not middle knowledge tied to God’s necessary knowledge since it is God who knows what creatures and what creaturely actions are possible, simply because he knows himself.[19]

So why does Dr. Ware decide to make the distinction? What is his motivation? In his critique of middle knowledge in general Travis James Campbell has noted, “[William Lane] Craig has argued that middle knowledge may very well serve as the rapprochement between Calvinists and Arminians.”[20] We can see how compatibilist middle knowledge, quite possibly, could serve as a bridge between Arminians and Calvinists. It combines the middle knowledge theory, first advocated by Arminians, and the compatibilism of Calvinists. Such a comment needs to be taken into consideration when one notes the theological system to which Dr. Ware adheres. He is, himself, somewhat of a bridge between Calvinists and Arminians in so far as he holds to the system known as Amyrauldianism. This particular reform of traditional Calvinism is sometimes called “Four-Point Calvinism.” It agrees with the traditionalists on four of the five points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. The point of contention between the groups is over the fifth point: Limited atonement. Contra Calvin and the Reformers, Amyrauldianism adheres to a doctrine of “universal atonement,” that is that Christ’s death on the cross atoned for the sins of all men, but that only those who repent and believe are elect and thus receive forgiveness. The possibility of maintaining both a Reformed theology proper and an Arminian soteriology is made feasible through Compatibilist middle knowledge.

Let it be clarified here that this is not the exact confession of Dr. Ware concerning his motivations, merely my observation. I do not know the exact reasoning behind Dr. Ware’s move to include a third form of God’s knowledge, but it seems completely unwarranted in purely theological terms. To further critique Dr. Ware on this position one would need to investigate his motivations, and then seek as well to de-bunk his theory of “universal atonement,” something beyond the scope of this paper. But in conclusion it should be stated that despite Dr. Ware’s insistence on the “clear and indisputable” appearance of Middle Knowledge within Scripture, there remains no need for this distinction. It appears entirely un-helpful and un-necessary to use Molina’s theory, even in an adapted form.

Conclusion
Dr. Ware is an esteemed and admired theologian, a man whose work has been much appreciated and applauded.[21] And though he would offer his doctrine of Compatibilist Middle Knowledge as a new way to deal with the issue of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, it truly is not new at all.[22] Not only is it the reformulation of an old heresy, such that it is no longer heretical (and we are grateful for that), but in its full definition it is no different than the traditional Reformed theology. Nuanced though it may be, Dr. Ware has, in fact, not really offered us anything new under the sun.


[1] There exists more than three resolutions on this issue. Open Theism, a recent trend in theology, simply denies that God knows the future and therefore isn’t actually sovereign at all. See Bruce Ware, God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001), and John M. Frame, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2001).
[2] David Basinger, The Case for Freewill Theism: A Philosophical Assessment. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1996). 26.
[3] Bruce Ware, God’s Greater Glory: The Exalted God of Scripture and the Christian Faith. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004). 63. Ware is not supporting this view in his work, he is merely stating it as its supporters would state it.
[4] The reader should dismiss any criticism of Calvinism that they read which begins by asserting that Calvinists (or Reformed types) deny human responsibility. An example of such a criticism would be Norman Geisler, Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1999).
[5] Ware, 110. Author’s emphasis.
[6] Quoted in John M. Frame, The Doctrine of God. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2002). 501.
[7] Ware, 113.
[8] Ibid. 114-115.
[9] Ibid. 110.
[10] Quoted by the author on page 116.
[11] Ibid. 117.
[12] Quoted by the author on page 124.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Such seems to be the case with his interpretation of Matthew 11:21-24 (p. 118). In some cases passages where God is speaking of what could happen under a different set of influencing factors there is the possibility for anthropomorphic language. God is speaking of what he sees could happen as though He were a man, in order that we might understand. Not all are straight-forward, divine predictions. John Frame writes, “These passages, of course, are not intended to make technical theological points about God’s eternal knowledge. Perhaps we should not insist upon precisely literal interpretations. But granting the previous arguments of this book, it is plain that God, governing all things by His eternal decree, knows what each thing is capable of and what would result from any alteration of His plan” (Doctrine of God. 502).
[15] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 3rd printing- 2003). I.897.
[16] Frame, 502.
[17] Ibid. 503.
[18] Ware, 110-111.
[19] Class handouts for 27360:The Doctrine of God at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, January, 2006. .112
[20] Travis James Campbell, “Middle Knowledge: A Reformed Critique.” 6. http://monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/Middle_Knowledge.pdf viewed on August 24, 2006.
[21] See God’s Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2001); Their God is Too Small. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2003); Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2005); and Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspectives on Election, Foreknowledge, and Grace. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000).
[22] Among others who have experimented with it or who adhered to it are Millard Erickson, Christian Theology. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). 385, and John M. Frame notes several others including Gomarus, Walaeus, Crocius, and Alstead (The Doctrine of God. n. 71. p. 502).

Romans 1:3-4 and the Eternal Sonship of Christ

God is one, God is three; God is one, God is three. Say it enough times and it may make your head spin. The Doctrine of the Trinity is a complex issue, yet it is not without practical importance in the Christian life.[1] Despite what some may say it is not a tertiary doctrine. We cannot grasp all of the dimensions of the Trinity, but we must defend it as the clear presentation God gives us of Himself. For if God declares that He is one, and He is three, than this is the God whom we must worship and adore, none other will suffice. Throughout the history of the church the Trinitarian God has not always been accepted, and contention over the subject has almost always revolved around the issue of the nature of the Son of God. Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but this expression, while necessary and accepted as orthodox, needs further clarification to avoid the common heresies of church history and contemporary theology. As some have sought to deny the Trinitarian nature of God they have appealed to both logic and the Bible to do so. Extensive work has been done to show that the Bible does indeed teach the Divine Trinity[2], but there are still some passages that give us trouble. Romans 1:4, for example, has had a history of misinterpretation, and the present accepted reading calls the distinct nature of the triune God into question. I am contending here, however, that this verse wholly supports the distinct personhood and eternality of the Son of God as a member of the Godhead.

The Question of Eternal Sonship
Often when we think of Jesus Christ as the Son of God we think of Him in His earthly form, His likeness to man. We think of Him in the body, walking on the earth, healing, walking on water, and especially of His dying on the cross. We will even acknowledge, and rightfully so, that after the resurrection Jesus Christ maintains his divine Sonship. Yet rarely do we think of the Christ as the Son of God in His pre-existent state, but this too is crucial to maintaining a thoroughly orthodox view of our triune God. The question of Eternal Sonship has to do with what theologians call the “Eternal Generation of the Son.” If the subject seems a bit weighty to you at first, I urge you to bear with the argument, for it does have great significance for the Christian faith.

The question of eternal sonship is significant because it preserves the distinctions of the persons of the Trinity and prevents us from falling into the heresies of Modalism[3] and Sabellianism[4], and a host of other theological errors. The doctrine of Eternal Generation declares that the Son of God was the Son from all eternity, that He has always been begotten of the Father. It claims that the Sonship and Fatherhood of God (and parenthetically The Holy Spirit-ness), respectively, are part of the very nature of the Godhead. Theologians have labeled this as the ontological Trinity, that is the Trinitarian nature inherent in God’s being (ontology). Scripture indicates the ontological trinity in a number of ways, many evidencing Christ’s role as Son before his incarnation. For example it describes the ontological trinity in the act of election, creation, and the sending of the Son into the Word. Each act is a description of the Father and the Son (and sometimes the Holy Spirit) before the Son’s incarnation.[5] Yet there are still some scholars today who will appeal to the Bible to deny the pre-existence of the Son, most turn to the epistles of Paul.


The Trouble with Romans 1:4
Pauline Christology is significant, for the letters of Paul compose the majority of the New Testament. In arguing against the doctrine of eternal generation most will turn to the book of Colossians, where Paul writes of Christ in terms of the “firstborn of all creation.” Since this verse has, however, been amply dealt with, and a defense against this heresy offered, I want to turn to another equally troubling passage: Romans 1:4.

The particular difficulty of this passage, in relation to eternal generation, is its apparent linking of divine sonship with the resurrection. The “linking” suggests that Jesus became the Son of God as a result of His resurrection, a troubling issue for anyone who holds to the eternality of Christ. D.R. Bauer comments that this is, and has been, an accepted interpretation of the divinity of Jesus among some scholars. He writes:

Many scholars have argued that this was the original understanding of the divine sonship of Jesus and that the early church gradually pushed the inauguration of Jesus’ status as the Son of God back to the Transfiguration, then to the baptism, and finally to either virginal conception or pre-existence.[6]

The link between the resurrection and the divine sonship are the pressing issue of this text and a variety of interpretations have arisen to explain the “link”. Two interpretations stand out in particular as significant, but before we survey them a quick outline of the text might be helpful.

Outline of Romans 1:1-7
The main focus of this passage is the Gospel. The theme of Romans continues to be debated, but one thing is evident, Paul writes clearly about the Gospel throughout the letter, and, in fact, he centers on in the salutation. So the letter begins:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was [appointed][7] to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.[8]

Paul lists here three aspects of this gospel message which he was set apart for. 1) That it is the Gospel of God; 2) That is was Promised Beforehand; and 3) That it is Concerning God’s Son. Verses 3 and 4 are the most important to our focus on eternal generation. Quoting Douglas Moo, Dr. Thomas Schreiner lays out the structure of these passages to help us see their connection to one another.
Verse 3 Verse 4

Who has Come Who was Appointed

From the Seed of David Son of God in Power

According to the Flesh According to the Spirit of Holiness

From the Resurrection of the Dead[9]

The parallelism of the two clauses identifies a contrast that is at the heart of the Romans 1 debate. Now I will zero in on the two major interpretations.

The Romans Debate
The first interpretation identifies the contrast as one between Jesus’ human and divine nature. So the parallel expressions “according to the flesh,” and “according to the Spirit of Holiness” refer to the human nature and the divine nature respectively. In verse 4 the Greek word translated as “appointed” should really be translated as “declare” or “show”.[10] This interpretation has, as my friend Greg said, a noble pedigree. It was the accepted understanding of Chrysostom, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, and Robert Haldane. So Charles Hodge writes:

In Romans 1:2-5, the Apostle says that the gospel concerns the Son of God, who is our Lord Jesus Christ, who, as to his human nature is the Son of David, but as to his divine nature, is the Son of God. Here also the two natures and one person of the Redeemer are clearly asserted.[11]

This seems like an acceptable interpretation, but, as is noted by the common translation of the Greek word “Oristhentos”[12] as “appointed,” it is no longer presently accepted. Tom Schreiner writes:

The first interpretation is almost universally rejected today. The assigning of an improbable meaning to the word [“orizein”] shows its inadequacy. This word does not mean “to declare” or “to show.” In the [New Testament] it consistently means “appoint,” “determine,” or “fix”.[13]

So it would seem that a more accurate translation of the Greek does not allow for an interpretation in which the resurrection “showed” Jesus to be, what He all along was, the Son of God. The link between the resurrection and divine Sonship is not accurately resolved here.

The Second interpretation takes aim at the “link” by offering a different distinction. Paul is not here distinguishing between the tow natures of the Christ, but between two stages of the ministry of Christ. On earth, pre-resurrection, Jesus was the son of David in the flesh. But post-resurrection He was the Son of God in power. So, it would appear, by virtue of His “resurrection from the dead” Jesus was “appointed the Son of God in power.” Stated simply like this, such an interpretation should raise up immediate red flags for Protestants who hold to the eternality of the Son.

Romans 1:4 and Adoptionism
During the closing decades of the second century several theological heresies about the divinity of Jesus arose. One was Modalism which blurred the lines between the three persons of the trinity. In an attempt to defend the monotheism of the Bible , Noetus of Smyrna began teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were all simply roles that the one God played, not distinct persons of the one Godhead. Along with Modalism, however, came the teachings of Adoptionism. Both Adoptionism and Modalism are placed under the umbrella label of Monarchianism; J.N.D. Kelly explains why.

The classification of both as forms of Monarchianism stems from the assumption that, despite different starting-points and motives, they were united by a concern for the divine unity, or monarchia. This supposition goes back at least as far as Novatian (c. 250), who interpreted Adoptionism and Modalism as misguided attempts to salvage the Bible dogma that God is one.[14]

Adoptionism is the view that Jesus was a “mere man.” That is to say that up until His baptism Jesus was ordinary. At His baptism, however, God “adopted” Jesus to be His Son. Even at this point, however, Jesus was not divine. He could perform miracles and lived a righteous life, but it was not until after His resurrection from the dead that Christ became the “Son of God in power”. Thus it becomes apparent that the presently accepted interpretation of this passage could be perceived as adoptionistic. Wayne Grudem gives an important note on Adoptionism when he writes:

Adoptionism never gained the force of a movement in the way Arianism did, but there were people who held adoptionist views from time to time in the early church, though their views were never accepted as orthodox. Many modern people who think of Jesus as a great man and someone especially empowered by God, but not really divine, would fall into the adoptionist category.[15]

The realization that many may believe this presently by default makes it all the more pressing that we wrestle with the text of Romans 1:4 and defend the Bible against the heresy of Adoptionism. One way in which we can avoid this heresy is to note the subject of the entire passage is the Son. So, as Douglas Moo words it, “It is the Son who is appointed Son.”[16] Paul’s own language states that the Gospel is concerning God’s “own Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was appointed to be the Son of God in power…” The Son of God is descended from David, and the Son of God is appointed to b the Son of God in power. Paul clearly has in mind here a pre-existent Christ. Moo states that the “appointment” has to do with a change, not in essence, but in function.[17] An interpretation dealing with a change in function and not in essence, brings us closer to a compatibility with Eternal Generation, but there is one more phrase that proves my original assertion.

Romans 1:4 and Pre-Existent Son
No other phrase in this passage is as crucial to the preservation of the Pre-Existence of the Son as is the phrase “in power.” Two words change everything. These two simple words indicate that Jesus was not made the Son of God by virtue of His resurrection from the dead, but that He was made Son of God “in power” by virtue of His resurrection. Tom Schreiner explains:

The appointment of Jesus being described here is his appointment as the messianic king. IN order to make this point clear an explanation of the phrase [Son of God in power] is necessary. The title [Son of God] in verse 3 is a reference not to Jesus’ deity but to his messianic kingship as the descendant of David (cf. 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7…). In addition, most commentators rightly argue that the words [in power] modify [Son of God]. The joining of the words [in power] to [Son of God] signals that Jesus did not become the Son of God or the Messiah at His resurrection. When He lived on earth, He was the Son of God as the seed of David (v. 3). Upon His resurrection, however, he was enthroned as the messianic king.[18]

The new dimension was not His sonship but His heavenly installation as God’s Son by virtue of His Davidic Sonship. In other words, the Song reigned with the Father from all eternity, but as a result of His incarnation and atoning work He was appointed to be the Son of God as one who was now both God and man.[19]

This phrase “in power,” then, stands out as quite significant for affirming the eternal Sonship of Christ in this passage.[20] There is a debate surrounding these words, however, and it would be important for us to take a look at it at this point.

It is generally accepted that verses 3-4 of Romans 1 are a Pre-Pauline hymn or creed that the apostle is quoting. Both the parallelism of the passage along with the inclusion of several themes not common to Paul’s writings has led to this conclusion.[21] There are, however, several diverse views on what this Pre-Pauline creed looked like. Some believe that the creed originated among Jewish Christians and was in fact a confession of an adoptionistic theology. Therefore, they contend, it lacked the phrase “in power,” which was a Pauline addition meant to express that Jesus had been the Son of God all along. If Paul did add this phrase to an early Christian creed, it may be somewhat troubling, though if one affirms Paul’s apostolic authority it may not make any difference. Paul, since he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, had every right to correct those early Christians who had misunderstood who Jesus was. I am, however, more inclined to agree with Moo when he states plainly, “Methodologically, it is necessary at least to maintain that whatever Paul quotes, he himself affirms.”[22]

Not all agree, however, that these two verses necessitate a Pauline quotation of an older creed. In fact, Vern Poythress, among others, has offered an alternative to this view, and contends, plausibly, that the entire passage is originally a Pauline confession.[23] In any case, however, it would be foolish to base our interpretation of this text on the belief that Paul was quoting an older tradition. It is an interesting debate, but since there is no evidence in support of it and the hypothesis itself is purely speculative, then we must deal with the text as it is and base our interpretation of it on the context of the passage and the background of the corpus of Paul’s letters.

In the context we must concede that Paul does state Christ is appointed to be the Son of God by virtue of His resurrection. But, as was explained above, this does not necessitate an adoptionistic interpretation. For the Bible as a whole presents its Christology in two ways: (1) Jesus is Lord by virtue of who He is- the eternal Son of God, the second person of the Trinity; and (2) Jesus is Lord by virtue of what He does- the messianic work. This passage, in particular, is focusing on the second of these two Biblical emphases. This assertion about the “appointment” of Jesus to the Son of God has parallels in other places within the canon of Scripture. Paul most likely has these references in mind. Let’s look at one that stands out as significant to this discussion: Psalm 2:7-9.

I will tell of the decree: The Lord said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you. Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

Here is a verse that is speaking of God’s “anointed one,” a phrase that is synonymous with “messiah.” It is generally accepted that Paul is referencing this verse and connecting it to Jesus, something he had already done in Pisidian Antioch (see Acts 13:33). The Psalm is addressing the appointment and adoption of the seed of David to the Son of God as the Messianic King. Jesus was already the Son of God in His divine nature, but by virtue of His resurrection, because of it, He now has the right to be the Son of God as the Messianic King. So Tom Schreiner qualifies that “The title [Son of God] in verse 3 is a reference not to Jesus’ deity but to His messianic kingship as the descendant of David.”[24] The emphasis of Romans 1:3-4 is on Jesus’ resurrection which designates Him the Son of God in the second of the two Christological expressions of the New Testament (that is “Jesus is Lord by virtue of what He does).

Conclusion
Adoptionists would love for us to believe that the Bible denies the eternal Sonship of Christ, and some would appeal to passages such as our focus here, Romans 1:4. But what we have seen from this examination is not that Adoptionism is true, but rather that this verse only further emphasizes the uniqueness and divinity of Jesus. He is Lord, Son of God, both because of who He is and because of what He does. He is God’s Son by eternal generation, and God’s Son by appointment as the Messiah. What an amazing Savior we have.

So perhaps you are a still wondering why this matters. That’s a fair question. The answer is simple. This discussion matters because at stake is the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Elsewhere I have written on the practical importance of this doctrine for worship and for salvation. And if it is true that this doctrine matters, if it is true that God has presented himself in Scripture as being three persons than we must believe it. If we allow the adoptionist theory to take this text away from us then we have called God a liar, we have denied the trinity, and we have called our very salvation into question. This discussion matters because in it we are striving to defend the Biblical Doctrine that God is one, and God is three.


Bibliography:
Allen, L.C. “The Old Testament Background of (pro) orizein in the New Testament .”
New Testament Studies. 17:104-8.

Beasley-Murray, P. “Romans 1:3f: An Early Confession of Faith in the Lordship of
Jesus.” Tyndale Bulletin 31:147-54.

Bruce, F.F. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Romans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1994).

Calvin, John. Acts 14-28, Romans 1-16. Calvin’s Commentaries. 19. (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2003).

Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans 1.

Dunn, James D.G. Word Biblical Commentary: Romans 1-8. (Dallas: Word, 1998).

_____. “The Justice of God: A Renewed Perspective on Justification by Faith.” Journal
of Theological Studies. n.s. 43:1-22.

_____. “Jesus –Flesh and Spirit: An Exposition of Romans 1.3-4.” Journal of
Theological Studies. n.s. 24:40-68.

Frame, John. The Doctrine of God. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002).

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).

Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology. II. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003).

Jewett, R. “Ecumenical Theology for the Sake of Missions: Romans 1:1-17 + 15:14-
16:24.” Pp. 89-108 in Pauline Theology, vol. 3: Romans. Ed. by D.M. Hay and E.
E. Johnson. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. (Peabody: Prince, 2003).

Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship.
(Phillipsburg: P&R, 2004).

MacArthur, John F. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Romans 1-8. (Chicago:
Moody, 1991).

Moo, Douglas. The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to
the Romans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).

Poythress, Vern. “Is Romans 1:3-4 a Pauline Confession After All?” Expository Times.
87:180-83.

Schreiner, Thomas. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Romans.
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998).

Warfield, B.B. Bible Doctrines. The Works of B.B. Warfield. 2. (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2003).

Wright, N.T. “Messiah and the People of God.” Unpublished Dissertation at Oxford in
1978.

[1] Cf. David Dunham, “The Heart and the Head: Gregory of Nazianzus and the Connection between Theology and Worship,” and “A Trinitarian Theology”.
[2] See any conservative Systematic Theology. See also Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2004).
[3] A heresy that declares there are not three persons in the one Godhead, but rather that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three “masks” or “roles” which the one God plays.
[4] This heresy, a second and third century heresy, is pre-cursor of Modalism with the distinctive feature that each mode occurred historically successive (for the modalist the roles are simultaneous, “each a kind of aspect or revelation of God.” Cf. John Frame, The Doctrine of God. (Philipsburg: P&R, 2002). 689).
[5] Cf. Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan 1994). 250-251.
[6] D.R. Bauer, “The Son of God.” in The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. ed. Joel Green, Scott McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992). 771.
[7] I have translated the Greek word “orizein” as “appointed” because it is a more accurate translation than the ESV, NIV, or NASB give. These modern translations, along with the KJV translate the word as “declared” which proposes some problems, as I will show, for good interpretation.
[8] All English translations are quoted from the English Standard Version unless otherwise stated.
[9] Thomas Schreiner, The Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Romans. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). 39.
[10] The Greek verb o`risqe,ntoj is an aorist passive genitive masculine singular participle. It literally means “to mark off by boundaries,” or “to determine”.
[11] Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology. II. (Grand Rapids: Hendrickson, re-print 2003). 385.
[12] I am using the transliterated form of the Greek words to allow those who do not read Greek characters to continue following along in the argument (For original Greek word in Koine see foot note 7).
[13] Schreiner, 42.
[14] J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. (Peabody: Prince, re-print 2003). 115-16.
[15] Grudem, 246.
[16] Douglas Moo, The New International Commentary on the New Testament: The Epistle to the Romans. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).48.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Schreiner, 42.
[19] Ibid. 39.
[20] Let me add here that there is no question about the eternality of Christ. The whole New Testament canon makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is God and has existed for all eternity (cf. John 1:1; 1:18; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom. 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:15-16; 2 Thess. 1:12; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Heb. 1:8; 1 John 5:20; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; for an examination of these passages see John Frame, The Doctrine of God. (Phillipsburg: P&R, 2002). 644-685). I am speaking here only in terms of this passage. In order to prove the eternality of the Son in Romans 1:3-4 it seems that this passage needs the expression “in power”.
[21] “Among the reasons for this [belief in a Pre-Pauline creed] are the participial constructions, the parallelism of the two clauses, the utilization of hapax legomena, and theological themes that are uncommon in Paul, such as the reference to the Davidic Sonship of Jesus” (Schreiner, 39-40).
[22] Moo, 46. Following this quote Moo sites Wright, “Messiah and the People of God” This is N.T. Wrights unpublished, 1978 Oxford dissertation on Paul.
[23] Vern Poythress, “Is Romans 1:3-4 a Pauline Confession After All?” Expository Times 87:180-83.
[24] Schreiner, 42.