Why does Paul say the gospel concerns “his Son”?

Explanation:

The Israelites knew from the Old Testament that there was an intimate connection between God and the rulers of the people. This is established most clearly by the fact that God refers to the king of Israel as his Son. For example, in Psalm 2:7, about the king of Israel we read, You are my Son; today I have begotten you. So it was common to believe that some Israelites were designated as God’s son. Still, there are two important events in the life and ministry of Jesus that demonstrate that Jesus is God’s Son in a unique sense. These two events include Jesus’ baptism, and his transfiguration.³ Because of these events, when Paul says that the gospel concerns God’s Son in Romans 1:3, he does not have in mind that Jesus is God’s son in the generic sense that kings of Israel were God’s son. Rather, he has in mind that Jesus is uniquely God’s Son.

We can see why Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration demonstrate that Jesus is God’s unique Son, because at both Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration, in a pivotal moment, a voice from heaven declares, This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. That a voice from heaven declares Jesus’ sonship suggests that Jesus is God’s Son in a unique sense.⁴

Counterargument:

That God the Father publicly affirms that Jesus is his Son is not enough to demonstrate Jesus’ unique sonship. We know from the Old Testament that the kings of Israel were considered God’s sons.⁵ An explicit example of this comes from 2 Samuel 7:12–14 where God promises to David that someone from David’s line will always sit on the throne. God then says that he would be a father to him, and he shall be a son to God. In other words, David’s son, Solomon, and the descendants that follow, would be a son to God. So the Israelites expected certain segments of the population, namely, the kings, to be known as God’s son. Of course, Jesus is the ultimate king of Israel, but because of the humble orientation of his ministry, there is no formal coronation ceremony where he is named king. Thus, God establishes the kingship, and therefore sonship of Jesus, not through an elaborate coronation ceremony, but by announcing that Jesus is God’s Son. By publicly naming Jesus his Son, God was declaring that Jesus is the king of Israel.

Response to counterargument:

There is a problem with thinking that God names Jesus Son in the generic sense of the term son, as opposed to naming him as God’s unique Son. The problem is that the early church did not interpret God’s public announcements that Jesus is God’s Son in a generic sense, as argued above. Rather, they understood that Jesus is God’s Son in a unique sense. We can deduce that the early church believed Jesus to be God’s Son in a unique sense from several passages in Hebrews. In Hebrews 1:2 the author says that in previous times God’s spoke through the prophets, but now he speaks through his Son, through whom he created the world. That God created the world through the Son affirms the Son’s uniqueness. Further, the author goes on to say that the Son is the radiance of God’s glory, and the exact representation of his being (Hebrews 1:3). That implies that the Son is unique. Finally, after articulating the unique nature of the Son, the author quotes Psalm 2:7 to affirm that Jesus is God’s unique Son.⁶ Thus, not only did God announce that Jesus is his Son, but the early church interpreted this to mean that Jesus is God’s unique Son.

Explanation:

When Paul says that the gospel concerns God’s Son, we can deduce that Paul has in mind the unique sonship of Jesus. We can deduce this because the early church came to believe that Jesus is uniquely God’s Son for two important reasons. First, Jesus himself taught that he was God’s Son in a unique sense, and second, his resurrection affirmed what he taught about himself.⁷ We know that Jesus taught himself to be God’s unique Son through passages such as John 10:29–30, where he explains that the Father has given him those who would come to believe in him, and that he and the Father are one. Later in the same chapter, Jesus is accused of blasphemy because he refers to himself as the Son of God (John 10:36). Other passages that imply that Jesus taught he was the Son of God is Matthew 14:32–33 when his disciples worship him as the Son of God, and Matthew 16:13–17 where Peter confesses that Jesus is Son of the living God. So there is a sense throughout the Gospels that Jesus taught himself to be the unique Son of God. Now some of Jesus’ followers, such as Peter and those who worshipped him on the boat, understood that Jesus was the unique Son of God during Jesus’ lifetime. Others came to this realization when God raised Jesus from the dead.⁸ For when Jesus was raised from the dead, it was affirmed to all that whatever Jesus taught about himself was true. And one aspect of Jesus’ teaching is that he is the unique Son of God.

Counterargument:

In fact, when Paul refers to Jesus as God’s Son, he likely has in mind the fact that he is the Messiah. Of course, the resurrection has no bearing on Jesus’ messiahship because we know that Peter believed Jesus was the Messiah even before the resurrection. The reason we can deduce that when Paul characterizes the gospel as concerning God’s Son, he has in mind Jesus’ messiahship, is because the Jews associated the title Son with the Messiah, and they associated the Messiah as coming from the line of David.⁹ Of course, Paul is about to note that Jesus was descended from David in the flesh. As such, he is the Messiah, and therefore God’s Son.

Response to counterargument:

It is a mistake to think that when Paul characterizes the gospel as concerning God’s Son, he has in mind that Jesus is God’s Son in the sense that he is the Messiah descended from David.¹⁰ That is because of what follows in Romans 1:4. For in Romans 1:4, Paul writes that Jesus is appointed Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead. In other words, Jesus is not only a Son of David, and therefore the Messiah, but Jesus is Son of God, proved by the resurrection, and therefore God’s unique Son. Thus, when Paul says that the gospel concerns God’s Son, combined with the fact that Jesus is both Son of David and Son of God as demonstrated by the resurrection, we can see that Paul has Jesus’ unique sonship in mind.

It is hard to see what the weakness of this view might be. Jesus explicitly taught that he had a unique relationship with the Father on a level much more intimate than the kings and prophets of Israel. He also referred to himself as the Son of God, for which he was accused of blasphemy. Thus, that the gospel concerns God’s Son clearly has to do with the fact that the gospel has to do with Jesus Christ who has a uniquely intimate relationship with the Father. The only possible weakness of this view is the fact that sometimes people or angels are referred to as sons of God, so maybe Paul has this generic sense in mind. Still, as this argument shows, the early church interpreted Jesus’ sonship in a unique sense.

Explanation:

To understand why Paul says the gospel concerns God’s Son, we need to understand his motives. Most likely, Paul wants to demonstrate that Christianity fulfills the Jewish expectations for a Messiah. Paul does this by associating Christianity and Jesus Christ with the Old Testament, to show that there is continuity between traditional Jewish beliefs and Jesus’ ministry. For instance, there are several Old Testament passages that teach that the kings of Israel are adopted by God, and therefore considered sons of God (Psalm 2:7; 2 Samuel 7:12–14; Psalm 89:26–27). Of course, there was also an expectation from the Old Testament for a messiah. Now, it is only natural to think that the Messiah, who is God’s royal deliverer, is God’s Son.¹² Thus, to connect with his Jewish audience and show that Christianity is the fulfillment of God’s promise for a messiah, Paul characterizes the gospel as concerning God’s Son.

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that it misses the parallelism that Paul develops in Romans 1:3–4. First Paul characterizes the gospel as concerning God’s Son, and then he develops an antithetical parallelism in Romans 1:3–4 to draw out what this means.¹³ As will be made clear, the sharpness of the parallelism is lost if we take it that Paul simply associates sonship with messiahship. For he says in Romans 1:3 that the Son is descended from David. We know that the Jews expected the Messiah to come from David’s line, so by saying that the Son is descended from David, Paul affirms that the Son is the Messiah. Still, Paul not only says that the Son is descended from David and is therefore the Messiah, but he goes on to say that Jesus was declared Son of God in power. Now, if Paul’s point in characterizing the gospel as concerning God’s Son is to demonstrate that Jesus is the promised Messiah, Romans 1:4 only makes sense if we equate the Son of David with weakness.¹⁴ That is, unless we equate the Son of David with weakness, there seems to be no reason for Paul to assert that Jesus was declared Son of God in power. For if he was born of David, and being born of David meant that he was the powerful Messiah, there is no reason to state further that he was declared Son of God in power. On the other hand, if we consider Romans 1:3–4 as antithetical parallelism used by Paul to further explain what it means for Jesus to be God’s unique Son, Paul’s comments all make sense.¹⁵ For he is saying that Jesus is God’s unique Son, both descended from David, and declared Son of God in power.

Response to counterargument:

When we read the rest of Romans 1:4 we can see that the antithetical parallelism remains intact, even if Paul is associating sonship and messiahship. That is, this interpretation has it that Paul is associating Christianity with the traditional Jewish expectation for the Messiah by characterizing the gospel as concerning God’s Son. By characterizing the gospel as concerning God’s Son, Paul’s audience will recognize that the gospel has to do with the Messiah. Paul then uses Romans 1:3–4 to expand on the nature of the Messiah, reminding his readers that the Messiah is a descendant of David, but is also Son of God in power, shown by the fact that he was raised from the dead. That is, Paul is not contrasting the notion that because the Messiah is born of David he is weak against the notion that because he is Son of God, he is strong. Rather, he is saying that the Messiah is born of David and therefore human, but also raised from the dead, and therefore divine. So by associating the sonship of Christ with messiahship, and then clarifying that the Son is born of David and raised from the dead, he explains that the Messiah is both human and divine.¹⁶

There is truth in this view, for there is continuity between the Old Testament promise for a messiah and God’s Son, Jesus Christ. Still, the weakness of this view is that by the time Paul is writing, Jesus has clarified the nature and character of the Messiah. The Messiah is not only a generic son of God who would bring the Israelites prosperity, but he is the unique Son of God who is able to forgive sins, consider himself God, and who was raised from the dead. So when Paul refers to God’s Son, his concept not only aligns with the Old Testament, but also with the reality of Jesus’ ministry.

Explanation:

Paul says that the gospel concerns God’s Son because he wants his audience to understand that the Son existed eternally with the Father before the incarnation.¹⁹ That is, the title Son can be used to denote things like the kings of Israel, but it can also be used to denote the fact that the Son pre-existed eternally before the incarnation. Thus, Paul signals to his audience that Jesus Christ is the eternal one who pre-exists the incarnation.

Counterargument:

Unfortunately, this argument offers no evidence that the term Son was used to designate the Son as preexisting with the Father. We know that this designation will appear in the prologue of John’s Gospel, when John says that the Word is God. For the Word was called by Jewish philosopher Philo God’s firstborn son. John’s Gospel was written after the letter to the Romans, so we cannot deduce from the prologue of John that Son was used to refer to the pre-existent one.²⁰

Response to counterargument:

It was well known that being God’s unique Son implies his pre-existence. We can deduce this from the author of Hebrews in particular who says that the Son is the radiance of God’s glory and exact representation of his being (Hebrews 1:3) (see interpretation 1, argument a, response to counterargument). Further, we know that Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God, and for doing this he is called a blasphemer for making himself equal with God (John 10:33–36). Of course, to be equal with God is to exist for eternity, so the term Son was associated with the pre-existent one even during Jesus’ ministry, which is before the letter to the Romans is written.

The weakness of this view is that it risks importing theological themes which, although true, may not have been on Paul’s mind when he wrote Romans 1:3. Our job as interpreters is to identify the original author’s meaning. It’s more likely that Paul intended to note that Jesus is God’s unique Son because this is what Jesus taught about himself, than that he wants the Romans to see that the Son is pre-existent for eternity. That Jesus is God’s unique Son implies that Jesus pre-existed for eternity, so Paul’s audience could draw this conclusion from the fact that Jesus is God’s unique Son. Still, it is unlikely that Paul specifically had the Son’s pre-existence in mind when he wrote that the gospel concerns God’s Son.