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.