Is Jesus declared “Son of God in power,” or declared, in power, “Son of God”?

Explanation:

Paul explains that the gospel concerns God’s Son (Romans 1:3). He was descended from David according to the flesh and declared Son of God. After the noun phrase Son of God Paul adds in power. Grammatically, that phrase could modify either was declared or Son of God. If it modifies the former, Paul is saying that Jesus was declared, in power, Son of God, and if it modifies the latter, Paul says that Jesus was declared Son of God in power. Most likely, it modifies Son of God, so that Paul is saying Jesus was declared Son of God in power. The reason we can deduce this is that Paul wants to convey that not just the status but also the executive authority of Jesus matches that of the Father. Paul in Romans 1:4 introduces that Jesus has the same authority and power of the Father because he will use this theme in other sections of the letter to explain the power of Christ. For example, in Romans 8:10, Paul says that if Christ is in you, while the body is dead, the Spirit gives life.³ In other words, Christ has not only the status of God but also the active power. Paul makes similar statements in other letters. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:45 he says that the last Adam (Christ) became a life-giving spirit. Thus, when Paul says Jesus is Son of God in power, he is establishing the authority and power of Jesus Christ.

Counterargument:

The problem is that the title Son of God in power is not at all intuitive. In fact, the title is awkward and difficult to grasp. Added to this, Jesus does not need to be declared Son of God in power in order to establish that he has the status and power of God the Father, for the title Son of God is enough. Thus, we can avoid the awkwardness of the title Son of God in power by simply noting that Jesus was declared Son of God, a title that implies he has the same status and power as the Father.

Response to counterargument:

According to this counterargument, the title Son of God in power is awkward, so we should take it that Jesus is declared Son of God. When we consider the immediate context of the whole verse, this counterargument is saying that by the resurrection, Jesus is declared Son of God. The problem with this view is that Jesus already referred to himself as the Son of God before the resurrection during his earthly ministry. For example, when Jesus casts our demons, they declare him Son of God (Mark 4:11). Further, in Matthew 14:33, after Jesus walks on water, those in the boat refer to him as the Son of God, as does Peter when he confesses Jesus is the Christ in Matthew 16:15–16. So Jesus is already known as Son of God before the resurrection. Still, there is a sense in which Jesus, who is the Son of God, was in the form of weakness during his earthly ministry (Philippians 2:6–11).⁴ In particular, Jesus had a weak human body that was subject to temptation and death. Still, by the resurrection, Jesus is not only Son of God but Son of God in power, that is, Son of God without the weakness of humanity but with the full status and authority of God.⁵

Response to response to counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that if Jesus was already the Son of God before the resurrection, then it seems he did not gain any status or authority after the resurrection. That is, even before the resurrection, Jesus had the authority and power of God in that he was able to cast out demons and walk on water. Thus, Jesus does not gain any new authority after the resurrection. Perhaps the declaration that Jesus is Son of God in power refers to the fact that he is the firstborn from the dead with a powerful new resurrection body, but it is unlikely to mean that he gains some new authority.⁶

Explanation:

To understand whether the prepositional phrase in power modifies was declared or Son of God, we need to consider the immediately preceding verse. What we notice is that there is a parallelism between Romans 1:3 and Romans 1:4, which suggests that in power modifies Son of God so that Paul is saying Jesus was declared Son of God in power. So what is this parallelism between Romans 1:3 and Romans 1:4 and how does it decide that Paul is saying Jesus is declared Son of God in power?

We notice that in Romans 1:3, Paul says that God’s Son was descended from David according to the flesh. Then in Romans 1:4 he says he was declared Son of God (in power) according to the Spirit of holiness. Now, that the Son was descended from David according to the flesh implies that he is the Messiah. For there was a Jewish expectation for a Messiah born of the family of David. Still, Paul wants to say that Jesus is not only the Messiah, but that he is the Messiah who has power, and therefore reigns as Lord.⁷ Thus, he adds Romans 1:4 to highlight that Jesus is not only the Messiah, but is the Messiah in power.

Counterargument:

This argument overlooks a more plausible relationship between Romans 1:3 and Romans 1:4. There is parallelism between Romans 1:3 and Romans 1:4 but it is not the fact that in Romans 1:3, Paul says Jesus is Messiah and in Romans 1:4 he says he is Messiah with power. Rather, Paul seems to be highlighting the human and divine aspects in Jesus. In Romans 1:3 he says that Christ is human in the sense that he is born of the seed of David. Then in Romans 1:4 he says that he is Son of God, declared by the fact that God raised him from the dead. So there is parallel between Romans 1:3 and Romans 1:4, but the parallel suggests that in power should modify was declared and not Son of God.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument implies an adoptionist Christology, which is foreign to Paul, and the rest of the New Testament. For this counterargument implies that Paul is saying Jesus was a purely human Messiah before the resurrection but declared a divine Messiah after the resurrection.⁸ Paul would not accept that Jesus was merely human before the resurrection and human and divine after. Still, there is a parallel between these in that Paul is saying that the Messiah is not only descended of David and Son of God, but he is Son of God in power.⁹

Response to response to counterargument:

This response to the counterargument overlooks the fact that the participle can be translated declared. In other words, Paul is obviously not saying that Jesus was human before the resurrection and became divine after the resurrection. Jesus was always divine, but the resurrection declares it.¹⁰ That is, the Jews could determine by the lineage of Jesus that he was born of the line of David. And they could determine by the fact that God raised him from the dead that he is divine. So if they did not believe Jesus’ divinity during his ministry, the resurrection declares it.

This view stands on the notion that Jesus takes on a new authority after the resurrection. We have to be careful when we assert that Jesus takes on a new authority, because he had, and always will have the authority of God. Still, the New Testament does indicate that God the Father has given all authority and power to Jesus (Matthew 28:18), and that the Father has raised the Son above every name (Philippians 2:9).

Explanation:

Paul writes that Jesus was declared Son of God and follows this up with in power. At first, it is not clear whether the phrase is meant to modify Son of God or was declared. Most likely, the phrase modifies was declared, so that we should translate Romans 1:4 as was declared, in power, Son of God. We can detect that this is Paul’s meaning because he continues by saying that Jesus was declared Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. So it is the resurrection that declares Jesus is the Son of God. What is important to notice is that elsewhere, Paul writes that the resurrection displays the power of God.¹³ For example, in 1 Corinthians 6:14 he writes that God raised Jesus and will also raise us by his power. Likewise, in Ephesians 1:19–20 we read about the immeasurable greatness of God’s power, which he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead. And in 2 Corinthians 13:4 we read that Christ was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. Thus, based on these examples, it is clear that in Romans 1:4, Paul is saying that Jesus was declared, in power, Son of God, by his resurrection from the dead.

Counterargument:

While it is true that Paul writes elsewhere that God raised Jesus from the dead in power, nowhere does Paul say that Jesus was declared in power, raised from the dead. That is, Paul specifically uses the participle form of the verb to declare. In the context of Romans 1:4, the verb means something like appoint, designate, declare.¹⁴ In other words, through the resurrection it is made known to the world that Jesus is Son of God. Now, the notion that Jesus is raised in power and the notion that Jesus is declared Son of God by being raised are not equivalent. That God raises Jesus by his power is not equivalent to the notion that Jesus is declared Son of God. Thus, we cannot use passages which highlight God’s power in raising Jesus to establish that Jesus is declared in power, because being raised is not the same as being declared.

Response to counterargument:

This counterargument does not take into account the art of literature. By saying that Jesus is declared, in power, Son of God, Paul is essentially saying that raising Jesus from the dead is the same thing as declaring that Jesus is Son of God. The purpose of Jesus’ ministry is to reveal his saving identity to those who would believe in him so they would be saved. In order for Jesus’ identity to be revealed, things need to be declared about him. One of the most important things declared about Jesus, in the power of God, through his resurrection, is that he is Son of God. Thus, by saying that Jesus is declared, in power, Son of God, Paul is essentially saying in power, God raised Jesus from the dead, confirming that he is Son of God.¹⁵

Explanation:

Although the Son of God has existed with God for eternity, during his earthly ministry the Son took on the form of a servant. Jesus has divine glory, but this glory was veiled by his human flesh and could not be fully appreciated. Still, by the power of God, Jesus’ divinity is firmly declared when Jesus is raised from the dead. Thus, Paul is saying that the most conclusive evidence of Jesus’ divinity is the fact that with power, God raised Jesus from the dead.¹⁶

Counterargument:

That the Son existed for eternity with God but divested himself of his glory with the Father to take on human form reinforces a different interpretation. That is, Paul seems to be saying that while Jesus took on a weak human form, he was raised, Son of God in power. What Paul is saying in Romans 1:4 aligns nicely with the concept of resurrection as Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 15:43–44. There Paul explains the resurrection by saying that the body is sown in weakness and raised in power, sown natural and raised spiritual. Similarly, in not so many words, Paul is getting at the same concept in Romans 1:4. While Jesus was descended of the seed of David (Romans 1:3) and therefore in the weakness of the flesh, he was raised in power by the resurrection.

Response to counterargument:

The problem with this counterargument is that it is not consistent with the verb to declare. That is, Paul is not saying that Jesus was in the weakness of the flesh and then raised to be Son of God in power. Rather, he is saying that Jesus was in the weakness of the flesh, and then declared Son of God. The resurrection does not reveal Jesus’ power. It reveals God the Father’s power, who through his power declares Jesus as Son of God.

The weakness of this view is that Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God well before the resurrection. If Paul wanted to argue that the resurrection was evidence that Jesus is who he claimed to be, that is, the Son of God, he might have chosen the verb to confirm. That is, he might have said, Jesus was confirmed, in power, Son of God.