On Romans 1:3-4

The Book of Romans opens in verses 1 and 2 as follows:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the Good News of God, 2 which he promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures...

In Romans 1:3-4 upon first reading we may see an unsymmetrical contrast between the two parts of one statement.

3 concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,

4 who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord | Yehoshua HaMashaich Adonnu.

The unsymmetrical contrast is set up in verse 3, where it is said:

"concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh...,"

and then is completed in verse 4, where it is said:

"declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead…,"

κατὰ... κατὰ... according to... and according to...

The first κατὰ is according to something categorically simple, the seed of flesh. The second κατὰ is according to something that is modified within its category. It is the contrasting category of spirit, but whereas seed of flesh is a case of flesh, spirit is modified in a completely different way. If it were said κατὰ the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Spirit, then it would have been a symmetrical contrast, the Holy Spirit being a case of spirit. However, then the symmetry of the contrast would have suggested a symmetry in meaning. Such a symmetry in meaning would prove very problematic, as we will see later.

As Mashiach was generated, γενομένου (having been generated), of the the seed of David according to the flesh, the meaning would appear to be that in his spirit he was generated from the Holy Spirit. But this is not what Paul says, and clearly not what he wants to say. He changes the form of the contrast and makes it less symmetrical. In the sentence that Paul writes, the word, spirit, can actually be read to modify the word, holiness. To see this, we must look carefully at the way Paul constructs is contrast. He, in fact, makes the form of his contrast very uneven. The form, it turns out, is so uneven that a question begins to appear whether there a contrast is intended here at all, rather than just a multifaceted description of the singular Mashiach.

Because of the double use of κατὰ, ("according to"), it does appear that a form of contrast is intended. But, if a contrast is signified, what is the weight of the contrast in the meaning of the statement? Is the contrast intended to be the foundation of the meaning, or somehow incidental to it? In the first part the structure is straightforward and the meaning seems straightforward. The identity of Mashiach as promised by Scripture is that he is an offspring of the line of David. Because Paul uses the words, γενομένου, (being generated from, having been generated from, "born of"), and σπέρματος ,(seed), and σάρκα, (flesh), with κατὰ, (according to), the idea occurs that Paul is going to talk about first an earthly human, and then heavenly divine nature of Mashiach. However, Paul does not use the word γενομένου, (having been generated), at all in the second part of his construct. In fact, he not only changes the form of how he begins the second part, he changes what he says in a very signature way.

Paul actually immediately sets out to state the two parts of his description of Mashiach in the terms that he is really thinking about. He is thinking about him as the son of David and as the son of God. But whereas with regard to his being the son of David he describes him as γενομένου, (having been generated), he does not choose to say anything about how he is the son of God. He changes both his form and what he says. In the second part of his construct, he states simply that Mashiach was declared (ὁρισθέντος — having been declared), the Son of God. Yet this is not exactly or all that he says. It is not just that he has been declared the Son of God, but declared the son of God with power. And it is not just that he has been declared the Son of God with power, but declared the son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness. And it not just that he has been declared the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness, but that he has been declared the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead. All of this is what makes up the form of the second part of the construct and it is very different in nature from that which makes up the first part. The form of the contrast is asymmetrical.

On a simple level, we can say that Paul is simply stating two corresponding things about who Mashiach is, two qualifying things about his identity. He is the Son of David and he is the Son of God. And he has, in an incidental way tied these two statements together as one statement by use of the word, κατὰ, (according to). On this simple level we do not need to see any great significance in the asymmetrical form of the two parts of the statement. The form of each part would have simply been carefully chosen by Paul as being the most appropriate way of describing that aspect of the identity of Mashiach. However, while it might be helpful to look at this statement like this, Paul is clearly saying something more. He is not stating dogma about Mashiach. He is confessing the revelation that creates faith. Dogma might be a reflection of faith but it does not create faith. A true confession of faith desires to create faith. Therefore a true confession of faith needs to be more than a statement of dogma. It needs to be an expression of the revelation itself. Paul’s statement is exactly this.

As a confession seeing and expressing the revelation, Paul’s statement as a confession, seeing and expressing the revelation, Paul’s statement begins to appear to us clearly and beautifully. As we see its beauty and faithfulness, we see that Paul, in conveying and confessing the revelation that he is himself perceiving, has constructed his statement not only to describe what God has revealed in revealing Mashiach, but also to describe the way in which God has revealed him.

Paul’s statement here is a reflection not only of what the revelation is but also of how God revealed Mashiach through time. For a confession of faith to express the revelation it must do more than try to say what it is by trying to say something about it. It must express the revelation the way that God does. To convey the revelation and further it a confession must know and understand how the revelation comes and must reflect that form. This is what Paul’s confession here does.

Re-examining Paul’s statement, we see that his use of κατὰ, (according to), in the first part and in the second part of the statement may suggest a contrast, it actually serves to create a sequential structure in terms of the confession here of how God revealed Mashiach. He was first revealed as the seed of David, according to the promise, then he was declared to be the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead. Read in this light, the statement now is fully symmetrical and coherent. It is only because he is first the seed of one according to the flesh that he can possibly be raised from the dead. We can now focus clearly on the question of what it means specifically to say that he was declared the son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection of the dead.

The one who came in the flesh as the promised seed of David was declared the son of God. How was he declared the son of God? It is stated here fully. Who declared him the son of God? It is not stated here directly. Nevertheless, it is only a person who can declare something. Therefore, the fact that who this is not stated directly means that this statement must be understood clearly in the way that it was intended, in order that it becomes self-evident who Paul means us to understand declared Mashiach the son of God.

Paul’s statement literally says that it is the resurrection that declares Mashiach the son of God. It is possible to speak of an act as making a declaration, but really it is a statement that is saying that it is the one who performs the act who is declaring something by doing it. So who is declaring Mashiach the son of God by the action of his resurrection? Although in one sense we are right in saying that Mashiach himself rose from the dead, we know that he stated himself that he was given the commandment and the power to do so by God, his Father. God raised him from the dead. Paul intends us to understand that it is God who declared Mashiach the son of God.

What does it mean, then, that by the resurrection he was declared the son of God with power, and according to the spirit of holiness? Again, without reference to how this revelation was designed by God to take place in a sequence of events in a historical way it is not possible to understand clearly what these things mean. The expression, "with power", in Paul’s statement can be applied both to the act of declaring and to the person of Mashiach. By the resurrection from the dead he is powerfully declared by God to be the son of God. And by the resurrection from the dead he is declared the son of God with power, because it is made manifest that God has given him this power. In both ways there is no meaning in this apart from the historical knowledge of what it means that he is the promised seed of David, that it means he suffered and died for the kingdom of David, his people Israel.

It is at this point that we can understand the statement, κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης, "according to the spirit of holiness". The form of the word used for ‘holiness’ here, ἁγιωσύνης, refers to the accomplished process of sanctification, and this state is here modified by the word, ‘spirit’, through a genitive construct, which means it is translated with the word, ‘of’ in English. We might translate the genitive, or possessive, construct to be saying, 'the spirit belonging to holiness'. What, then, is this "spirit of holiness"? It is according to this ‘spirit of the accomplished process of sanctification’ that God declares Mashiach the son of God with power, by resurrection from the dead. To say, as some interpreters have, that this is simply a form of the name of the Holy Spirit*, would not yield any further clarity in understanding the basic meaning of the statement. If we were to read, ‘He was declared (by God) the son of God with power, according to the Holy Spirit, by resurrection from the dead’, what would this phrase mean, "according to the Holy Spirit"?

Apart from simply trying to state a dogma, which we do not read Paul as doing, could we imagine that Paul was trying to say that God declared Mashiach the son of God with power, by the resurrection according to the promise given in the Holy Scriptures by the Holy Spirit? This idea would need to contain some indication for why Paul would refer here to the Holy Spirit as the spirit of holiness. It would be reading a great deal into the text to suggest that Paul was saying that he could call the Holy Spirit here the Spirit of Holiness because the process of sanctification that had been promised in the Scriptures by the Spirit had now been fulfilled in the resurrection of Mashiach. This would mean that Paul was mixing in a form of expression which only hints or alludes to what might be understood within a sentence that otherwise is constructed to be understood to say exactly what he means. Since Paul works very hard as a writer to be understood it is more likely that if he had wanted to say, "according to the Holy Spirit", he would have just said, "according to the Holy Spirit".

Furthermore, "according to the Holy Spirit", does not work well to produce any kind of clear meaning through the structural form of κατὰ... κατὰ... according to... and according to… in the sentence, either as a contrast or as a sequential parallel. The idea would read, "Having been generated of the seed of David according to the flesh… having been declared son of God with power according to the Holy Spirit, by resurrection from the dead." In a dogmatic way, as a contrast it would be possible to think that what was being said was that he had a human nature revealed coming from the family of David and that he had a divine nature revealed by the resurrection coming from the Holy Spirit. Paul could never make a statement that could sound anything like this. Does Scripture say that the Holy Spirit worked within Mary to produce the conception of Mashiach? Yes. Does it say that the Holy Spirit somehow produced of itself some kind of fatherly divine seed? It does not. Such an idea would be more akin to Greek mythology. But again, in any case, we do not see Paul as simply making a dogmatic statement here but rather confessing his faith by offering an expression of the revelation given by God itself. Paul is not just theologically stating the elements of the Good News of God. He is declaring the Good News of God with his own expression of the revelation.

In reading the statement as a summary expression of the historical revelation itself, then, we could try to read it to say, “(First) according to the flesh (he) was generated through the seed of David, (as promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures), and (then) according to the Holy Spirit, he was declared (by God) son of God with power, by resurrection from the dead.” We are attempting to read the statement as an historical account of the Good News of God. We have tried to set out the two κατὰ phrases, ‘according to…’, ‘according to…’ as a parallel sequence. Reading the statement in this way, however, seems to make even less sense than trying to read it simply as a contrast structure.

According to the Scriptures, the promise of the son of David and his birth have just as much to do with the Holy Spirit as does his resurrection. Why then would Paul say that his revelation in his life and death was according to the flesh, while only his revelation in his resurrection was according to the Holy Spirit? Paul does bring a teaching that might seem similar to this elsewhere, saying that the natural mind does not receive the things of the Spirit. But his teaching there is that the natural Adam is unregenerate and does have the Spirit. He is not saying that Jesus | Yehoshua was carnal and did not have the Spirit in his life and death. There is no suggestion of the sinful nature in this place where Paul uses the express, ‘according to the flesh’. It is not because his relationship with the Holy Spirit changed in his resurrection but because our relationship with the Holy Spirit was transformed through his death and resurrection that Paul later says that there is a new creation in him now and that now we know him in a way that we did not know him “according to the flesh”. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is sent to Israel, and specifically to the remnant of Israel which believes, not immediately upon his resurrection, but only upon his ascension to the Father. The gift of the Holy Spirit is a consequence of the Good News of God, not that Good News itself — which is accomplished entirely in Mashaich. Therefore, this is not the meaning of Paul’s confession here, his summary expression of the Good News.

Looking again, then, at Paul’s statement with its sequential parallel, κατὰ... κατὰ... according to... and according to…, we can see that our clarity comes from understanding that Paul is focused on how God brought about his Good News in Mashiach. He brought Mashiach forth by his Word of promise as the son of David, to be the King of Israel. Then, like David, he was rejected by Israel. But then, again like David, God himself established him on the throne. And the process of the sanctification of his name in Israel that the life of David foreshadowed, the sanctification of his name in Israel which he began in Egypt, but which he could not complete in Israel because of the unbelief of the people, due to the weakness of the flesh, God completed in the one he declared his son, through raising him from the dead, after that he laid down his life as an atonement for the sins of the people. In this understanding we have the meaning of Paul’s statement, ‘according to the spirit of holiness’. For in the life and death and resurrection of the God-anointed King of Israel the process of the sanctification of God’s name is complete.

_________________

* The spirit of holiness. The spirit of the accomplished process of the sanctification of God's name in the world is the spirit of redemption itself. This spirit is in a paramount way the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God. However, I believe Paul uses this exact form of expression in order to include the spirit of all who bear testimony to the truth of the God of Israel. Above all other testimonies, this refers to the testimony and spirit of Yehoshua HaMashiach himself. And it refers to the testimony and witness of the apostles of the gospel and all who share in their testimony. The spirit of the testimony that bears witness to the truth of God, as the Redeemer of Israel, is in every case the spirit of the accomplished process of sanctification, "the spirit of holiness", as Paul writes. No testimony has this spirit more than the resurrection of Yehoshua itself.

Read more on this subject in my commentary notes on the Book of Hebrews.