PAUL’S CHRISTOLOGY: “THE SON OF GOD”
Romans 1:1-7
the gospel of God . . . regarding his Son . . . who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.
Introduction
We continue our study of Paul’s letter to the Romans with primary reference to William M. Greathouse’s new two volume commentary on that great book. As we study Paul’s message to the Romans, we encounter as well the mind and spirit of William M. Greathouse--how he understands Romans, his theological perspective, and his heart for the gospel.
1.
As you know, William M. Greathouse, now almost 90, is retired from the office of General Superintendent in the Church of the Nazarene. My first clear memory of meeting Dr. Greathouse took place when I first came to Pasadena College to teach in August, 1961. Bill, as I have been privileged to call him over the years, was the principal preacher for the annual Los Angeles District Campmeeting on campus that year. At the time he was pastor of First Church of the Nazarene in Nashville, Tennessee. As we conversed I felt free to ask him a question, crucial for me.
But first, some background--I was born and raised a Methodist and remained so until 1950 when, between college and seminary, I joined the Church of the Nazarene. As a Methodist I was impacted by the fundamentalist/modernist controversy then going on and found myself at home in conservative Wesleyanism. This was the main reason that I became a Nazarene; I wanted to remain loyal to what I understood and identified with as my Methodist heritage, learned at my Methodist mother’s knee.
But with the wider reading and greater exposure of my graduate study years, to speak also of the soul-struggle of my spiritual and theological journey, I became uncomfortable with a strictly fundamentalist approach to Scripture. As a result I began to have hesitations about my suitability for a life-time of teaching in the Church of the Nazarene, being at that time unaware of the Church’s history on that issue. Yet previously, at Nazarene Theological Seminary (1951-1954), I had already changed ecclesiastical worlds. Although not fully aware of it, no longer was I a part of those who were on the defensive, fighting a theological battle, but was among those who were seeking to understand their inherited message and how best to proclaim the gospel to a dying world. Tolerance and a degree of open-mindedness toward others, not conflict with other Christians, was the ethos of the day.
As I began to think about my understanding of what Scripture is, and how I could approach it in my teaching and ministry, early in 1961 I came across an article in The Scottish Journal of Theology on “The Holy Spirit and the Word of God” by William G. Young. He wrote that the Bible speaks of a threefold action of the Holy Spirit by which he fulfills his ministry of conveying or presenting the living Word of God to us. There is a past action of inspiration relating to the original penning of Scripture, there is a present action of communication as the Spirit bears witness to us through the Word, and there is a second present action of illumination of our minds to receive the truth of the Scriptures for our lives. All three sovereign actions of the Spirit belong inherently together as the authority of Scripture is ultimately the authority of the Holy Spirit. This inherit and transforming relation of the Holy Spirit to Scripture struck a familiar and welcome chord in my mind and heart as I had come to know and experience Scripture in my own journey of faith.
That first August in Pasadena I approached Bill Greathouse on the PC campus, confessed my theological concerns, and gave him this article to read. When he saw me the next day, the word on his lips was “precisely”! That, precisely, he reported, is our view of Scripture and you are perfectly compatible with the Church of the Nazarene. So then and there he liberated me for a lifetime of joyous teaching of the word of God in the classrooms and pulpits of the Church of the Nazarene. And I discovered him to be correct in his assessment as I lived and worked with my peers at Pasadena College and throughout the Church in the years to come. That was my first great debt to William M. Greathouse. Thanks, Bill! 2.
Next question, who was Paul? William Greathouse tells us in “Behind the Text”:
“Born Saul of Hebrew parents (Phil 3:4-6), Paul was his Roman name. He was both a Roman citizen, and a diaspora Jew of the sect of the Pharisees. The former placed him in the elite category of Greco-Roman society, the latter potentially among the elite of Jewish society (Acts 16:37-39; 22:22-29). Acts indicates that Paul received his elementary education in Jerusalem, not in Tarsus—"I am a Jew, born in Cilicia, but brought up in this city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in the law of our fathers" (Acts 22:3). . . . As a child from a well-connected Jewish family, Paul would have learned to speak, read and write in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. His ministry in Illyricum (Rom 15:19) and his plans to evangelize in Spain (15:28), both Latin-speaking regions, suggests that he also spoke that language. Under Herod the Great, Jerusalem had become a cosmopolitan and Hellenistic city, with both a hippodrome and a Greek theater. It was an important city to Greek-speaking Jews of the Diaspora like Paul's parents as well as a great pilgrimage destination for pious Jews from all over the Mediterranean. Formal education began at age six for both Jewish and pagan boys. Jews of both Palestine and the Diaspora were early grounded in Jewish traditions. Paul would have been thoroughly grounded in Holy Scripture. Paul's Old Testament citations indicate that he regularly consulted and followed the Septuagint (LXX: "seventy," designating a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible begun in the third century BC), as well as the Hebrew text. Paul's theological education would have been comparable to that of today's seminary students (Gal 1:14; Acts 5:33-39). Paul embraced the eschatology of the Pharisees, but his understanding of it was radically altered by his conversion to Christ (see Gal 1:3-5). Pharisees divided salvation history into two epochs: the old age before the coming of the Messiah was considered evil and unredeemable due to Adam's Fall; the new age would inaugurate the future rule of God that was to be good and incorruptible. As a result of his encounter with the risen Christ, Paul came to share the Christian view that the future age had broken into history in the person and work of Jesus Christ, while the present age persisted. Thus, there was an overlapping of the ages, referred to in the NT as "the last days" (see Acts 2:16-21). In this "time between the times," those who have been "rescued from the present evil age" (Gal 1:4) may experience the blessings of the future here and now (Heb 6:5), as they await the final consummation at Christ's return in glory (Rom 8:18-25). Paul would also have learned methods of debate and persuasion from his teachers, such as argument from current experience to scriptural proof in midrashic [haggadah, halachah] fashion (1 Cor 9:7-14) and the use of allegory (Gal 4:21-31). In his oral culture, rhetoric was a fundamental staple of ancient education. Paul's oratorical skills suggest influences from both Jewish and pagan rhetoricians. In addressing a church he had neither founded nor visited, Paul introduced himself and his gospel with obvious rhetorical sensitivities. His apostolic greeting in 1:1-7, one sentence in Greek, is the longest salutation in the Pauline letters.”
We return now to the text of last Sunday’s lesson, the one-sentence text that Herb Prince so interestingly opened up to us as it begins the letter to the Romans.
I. Letter Prescript (1:1-15)
A. The Apostolic Greeting (1:1-7)
1 Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— 2 the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures 3 regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, 4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. 5 Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to faith and obedience for his name's sake. 6 And you also are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. 7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. We give primary attention today to the phrases from verse 4 that have given rise to very differing opinions as to who Jesus was as the Son of God. What did Paul have in mind when he called Jesus the Son of God? Paul, as he begins his letter to the Romans, identifies himself as an apostle. . . set apart for the gospel of God . . . regarding his Son . . . who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord (1:1-3) We look first at Greathouse’s explanation from his “In the Text” section on verse 4:
In the Text
“Jesus, as a human descendant of David was declared with power to be the Son of God. His prior divine status was recognized by his resurrection from the dead (v 4); it did not make one who was merely human divine. Declared (horisthentos) is elsewhere translated "decreed" (Luke 22:22), "determined" (Acts 17:26), and "appointed" (Acts 17:31). . . .
Paul's point is similar to that expressed in Heb 1:5, on which H. Orton Wiley comments:
The words, "This day have I begotten thee," (1:5a) are applied by St. Paul to the Resurrection in Acts 13:33, and by St. John in Rev. 1:5. The Son is indeed the "only begotten of the Father" before all worlds, and the deity of the Son necessarily underlies the Incarnation and the Resurrection; otherwise, it would exclude His work as Mediator. But the Son was also begotten again in the Resurrection, which marked the full out-birth of the humanity of Jesus from a state of humiliation to that of glorification and exaltation (1959, 52-53; emphasis added. Wiley quotes Rom 1:3-4 as parallel to Heb 1:5.)
Whether horisthentos means declared, "designated" (RSV), or "proclaimed" (REB) does not threaten belief in Christ's essential deity. The debated issue is whether the resurrection confirmed an existing status or conferred a new one.
What does the phrase with power modify? Should it be translated declared with power to be the Son of God (NIV) or "designated Son of God with power" (KJV [so NRSV & NASB])? The Greek allows either rendering. The majority of modern versions follow the KJV. The phrase en dynamei (with power) elsewhere in the NT (see Mark 9:21; 1 Cor 15:43, 45; and 1 Thess 1:5) is used in the sense of "invested with power."
The meaning of the first six words of this clause then is probably "who was appointed Son-of-God-in power" (that is, in contrast with His being Son of God in apparent weakness and poverty in the period of his earthly existence (Cranfield 1975, 1:62).
"The divine glory, which formerly was hidden, was manifest after the resurrection" (Nygren 1949, 48).
The most difficult phrase in the formula is rendered literally and accurately the Spirit of holiness. [kata pneuma hagiōsynés in parallel with kata sarka] Is this a reference to Jesus' human spirit or to the Holy Spirit? Is a contrast between Jesus' flesh and spirit intended? Is his human nature ("the sphere of flesh") contrasted with his heavenly nature ("the sphere of the Holy Spirit")? By capitalizing Spirit of holiness the NIVerse correctly identifies the phrase with "the Holy Spirit." Although Paul nowhere else refers to the Holy Spirit in this way, the Semitic expression probably quotes a Palestinian formula (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls), accounting for the unique terminology. Rom 8:11 similarly mentions the activity of the Holy Spirit in the resurrection.
A second surprising phrase, By [ex “as a result of”] his resurrection from the dead, in Greek is literally "by resurrection of those who are dead." Nygren understands Paul to mean: "Through Christ the resurrection age has burst upon us" (1949, 50). Eph 1:19—2:7 notes that the same power that raised Christ from the dead has resurrected us from the death of sin. So also in 1 Cor 15:19-58, Paul insists that
the resurrection is the turning point in the existence of the Son of God. Before this the whole race was under the sovereign sway of death; but in the resurrection of Christ life burst forth victoriously, and a new aeon began, the aeon of the resurrection and life (Nygren 1949, 51).” We ask the question of why the meaning of this verse is significant in the present ecclesiastical/theological (political?) scene as we move now from Greathouse’s “in the text” exegesis of verse 4 to his exposition of the current relevance of verse 4 in the section
From the Text ”Paul's understanding of "the gospel of God regarding his Son," and of himself as an apostle set apart for the proclamation of that gospel "among all the Gentiles," is the central theme of this passage. At least four theologically significant assertions arise naturally from the introduction to Romans.
First, the Christological formula defining the gospel in Rom 1:3-4 stands at the center of orthodox Christian faith. In the early years the Church Fathers wrote learned treatises on the subject, emphasizing the meaning of Christ's deity and incarnation. The Church condemned the Jewish teaching that Jesus was a man who became the Son of God, either by the Spirit coming upon him at his baptism or by his resurrection from the dead. This doctrinal error became known later in history as Adoptionism, a denial of the incarnation (John 1:14).
On the other extreme, the Church condemned the error, arising from the gnostic notion that matter is essentially evil. Gnostics held that Jesus was a phantom, having only the appearance of human flesh. This doctrine became known as Docetism, from the Greek word dokein, meaning to "seem" or "appear."
Another heresy known as Sabellianism, is more properly a Trinitarian error, but it does affect Christology. Sabellius taught that there was but one God, who manifested himself, first as Father, then as Son, and finally as the Holy Spirit. This error, also called Modalism, has been popularized in recent history by the "Jesus only" doctrine, which denies the Trinity, insisting that Jesus alone is truly God.
As the Christological discussions of the church continued, a very serious challenge to Christ's essential deity arose, which threatened the Christian faith. It was fostered by Arius (256-336), a Greek theologian. Arius taught that while Christ was divine, and was incarnate, there was a time when he was not. Arius' Christ was a demigod, not the eternal Son of God.
The triumph of orthodox Christian faith over Arianism was accomplished chiefly by the skillful biblical argumentation of Athanasius (293-373). The issue was officially settled by the Council of Constantinople in 381, and enshrined in the Nicene Creed, to which all orthodox Christian churches subscribe.
A close examination of the Christological formulas in Rom 1:3-4 reveals that the essential elements of the Creed are confessed there in germinal form. But Paul's concerns in Romans go well beyond confessional considerations. Not only faith as opinions, but faith as obedience matters” [as his second assertion affirms].
Conclusion
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made;
who for us and our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried, and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worship and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe in one holy universal and apostolic church; I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen
Threats to Nicene Christology are still with us, the issue is alive and well. There is the “Third Quest” for the historical Jesus with its various christologies, and the impact of certain philosophical approaches to Christian theology—another lesson by a theologian! Greathouse’s three other “theologically significant assertions” from Romans 1:1-7.
Second, to obey the gospel requires that believers must live obediently as those who belong to Jesus Christ (vv 5-7). To obey fully means not only to hear, but to hearken to God. It requires "submission" to his lordship and purposes (Fitzmyer 1993, 137). To understand the gospel and proclaim it with saving power, we must be convinced and thoroughly changed by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 2:12-14). . . .
Third, what the Lord called Israel to become at Sinai, he makes universally possible through Christ and the Church: a priestly kingdom and a holy nation (vv 5-7; see Gen 12:1-4; Exod 19:5-8). God's concerns extend well beyond salvaging random individuals to the creating of a holy community. "Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exod 19:5-6). . . .
Fourth, Paul is confident that his gospel was no novelty. It was "promised through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures" (v 2). If he explains this claim in Gal 3:6-9, the gospel merely continues what God set out to do in Israel. Paul appeals to Abraham, the father of Israel, in Gen 12 (esp. vv 1-3) and 15 (esp. vv 4-6), on whom he will elaborate at length in Rom 4. The gospel was not an unexpected irruption into history; it was the culmination and fulfillment of God's redemptive plan for humanity. . . .
The God of history invites his people to join him in carrying out his ultimate goal: "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Phil 2:10-11).”
William M. Greathouse: Outline I. Letter Prescript (1:1-15) A. The Apostolic Greeting (1:1-7) B. Paul's Interest in the Roman Church (1:8-15) 1. Paul's Prayer (1:8-12) 2. Paul’s Plans (1:13-15) II. The Gospel of God's Righteousness (1:16—15:13) The Thesis of the Letter (1:16-17) A. God's Righteousness Needed (1:18—3:20) B. God's Righteousness Provided (3:21—8:39) C. God's Righteousness in History (9:1—11:36) D. God's Righteousness in Practice (12:1—15:13) III. Conclusion: Romans 15:14—16:27 Soon to be published, it is edited by George Lyons, New Beacon Bible Commentary, general editors Alex Varughese and Roger Hahn (Kansas City, Missouri: Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, © 2008). Two works on Romans have preceded this new work, "Romans," Beacon Bible Commentary, 1968, and in 1975 a devotional commentary in Beacon Bible Expositions.
The defensive and polemical attitude toward Calvinism had by now lessoned considerably, at least in the academic circles of the Church of the Nazarene—except for Ross E. Price!. (March 1961), 40-59. My memory says Young was a missionary. The texts on which he based his article are 1 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; Hebrews 3:7-8; 10:15-17; and 1 Corinthians 2:12-16. See “A Wesleyan Hermeneutic: Personal Reflections,” lesson for May 4, 3003. As was pointed out later by Paul M. Bassett in his "The Fundamentalist Leavening of the Holiness Movement, 1914-1940. The Church of the Nazarene: A Case Study," Wesleyan Theological Journal (Spring 1978), 65-85. We include the whole only of the theological assertion that deals with1:4. Homouousion, not homoiousion, that is, of the “same” rather than “like” substance or being, the Arian debate. Or “catholic” From Sing to the Lord: Hymnal (Kansas City, Missouri: Lillenas Publishing Company, 1993), 15.
5.2.? DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy" 2/25/2009 TIME \@ "h:mm:ss am/pm" 4:09:52 PM
PAGE 27 Romans 2: January 20, 2008 fgc sdfc c&g