The Messianic Claim
who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord, Romans 1:4 NASB
Declared – Leon Morris is recognized as one of the premier Greek scholars of the New Testament. His commentary on Romans[1] demonstrates his facility with the language and the theology. He notes that the Greek term translated “declared” (horisthentos from horizo) generally means “to separate, distinguish, mark apart by boundaries.” It might also be translated “to appoint” or “to determine.” Morris discusses the possibility that Yeshua was “decreed” the Son of God at the resurrection, but he rejects this interpretation as unsubstantiated in other texts. For Morris, Yeshua was always the Son of God and the resurrection provided the proof of that claim.
But notice Paul’s approach to this matter. Paul does not say that Yeshua was declared God the Son. That might be how we superficially understand the text, but this is not Paul’s view. Paul is interested in what makes Yeshua the Messiah, and for him, that claim rests on the resurrection. The strength of this claim can be understood in two ways according to this text. It could be read, “powerfully declared the Son of God” or it could be read, “declared the powerful Son of God.” Morris prefers the latter, arguing that prior to the resurrection Yeshua demonstrated weakness and humility, but the resurrection changed this to power and authority. Either reading is legitimate. Both make Paul’s point: it is the resurrection that is the capstone of Messianic status.
There were many who claimed to be the Messiah, both before and after Yeshua. They all died. For Paul, Messianic claims are of no substance unless they are accompanied by divine endorsement, and in this case, that divine endorsement came through the resurrection from the dead. C. F. D. Moule provides an illustration. “one who is king by right of birth is yet ‘made’ king by being crowned.”[2] The resurrection is the “crowning” of the Messiah. It provides the necessary stamp of divine approval that validates Yeshua’s claim. What claim does it validate? That he is the Son of God, the true Messiah, the full manifestation of YHVH’s character in the flesh. For Paul, an orthodox Jewish scholar, this is absolutely necessary. Performing miracles, providing extraordinary insights, gathering passionate followers, even dying without just cause is not enough. Luke may provide us with the proof that Yeshua is Messiah by right of birth, but it is Paul who articulates the final act of the coronation. He is King Messiah now because YHVH raised him from the dead, appointing him Messiah.
Today it is possible to investigate the miracles of holy men, their lives, their influence and their character. None can claim to be king if they are dead and buried. Today the only real issue is the declaration by the resurrection. Without that, we are hopelessly deceived.
Topical Index: declared, horizo, resurrection, Messiah, Romans 1:4
[1] Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Eerdmans, 1988).
[2] As cited in Morris, Romans, p. 45. fn. 50.
Skip we agree on this specific claim.
Paul reiterates other possibilities concerning this Romans 6, Eph 2. 1 Cor 15.
Then was it Enoch that was taken up in heaven without even dying.
What death did Yeshua have victory over that concerns us today. Forgiveness of sin – it has always been possible. Resurrection of the dead done by others even in the OT. What happened to these after this is never mentioned…
Uniting the living dear in God’s kingdom… Now that wasn’t claimed before. Eph 4, 1Cor 12 etc.
So what is Paul specifically referring to here…
Seeker, you have probing questions that keep me thinking. Thank you! And the winning question of the day is: “what “death did Yeshua have victory over”, you ask? MINE! Halleluah!
Laurita for me he died for sin. So must we. It is not his death that saves me it is my death for sin that can save me. Not will only a possibility.
The truth is everything claimed to be unique in Jesus mission and life was already revealed in the scriptures. That is the crux here.
That he was divine and the messiah for that period of human life I do not dispute.
For us to remotely believe we are born of spirit and water, we need to do as he did as Skip reminds us so often even when referring to OT records as all they do is reveal proof of how God saves. If I am wrong then I need to seriously study other pagan views as they require worshipping of their forerunner. Christ does not ask this, he asks us to do as he does as he is a fellow servant and only God must be worshipped. And said believe in God and also believe in Him.
From the OP:
Morris prefers the latter [“declared the powerful Son of God”], arguing that prior to the resurrection Yeshua demonstrated weakness and humility, but the resurrection changed this to power and authority. Either reading is legitimate. Both make Paul’s point: it is the resurrection that is the capstone of Messianic status
…What claim does it validate? That he is the Son of God, the true Messiah, the full manifestation of YHVH’s character in the flesh. For Paul, an orthodox Jewish scholar, this is absolutely necessary. Performing miracles, providing extraordinary insights, gathering passionate followers, even dying without just cause is not enough. Luke may provide us with the proof that Yeshua is Messiah by right of birth, but it is Paul who articulates the final act of the coronation. He is King Messiah now because YHVH raised him from the dead, appointing him Messiah.
Douglas Moo [The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), pp 48-49] doesn’t disagree with Morris (first paragraph above) but clarifies this thought. However, Moo specifically disagrees with Skip here that the resurrection ‘appointed him Messiah’:
In making this distinction, Moo makes it clear that Yeshua was always the Messiah – from birth. He wasn’t ‘appointed’ Messiah at the resurrection. Moreover, He was always Son of God, but becomes the Son of God “in power”, attaining the name above every name [Philippians 2:9], and all will bend their knee and say “Messiah is Lord” [Philippians 2:11].
I’m not arguing the Yeshua wasn’t the Messiah from birth. Luke certainly believes that, as does Matthew. I’m simply pointing out that Paul considers the resurrection as the absolute proof that he is the Messiah, since obviously others had claimed that title. Paul’s view of the validation of the resurrection does not invalidate the claim that he was always king, but the crowning event demonstrated that to be true by hindsight (the best possible kind of sight).
Thanks for clarifying. With that clarification, we’re in full agreement on this particular point.
I agree that the crowning event, the proof of His position as Messiah was confirmed or established/proven at the resurrection. It would seem that due to free will and the trials and temptations Messiah endured at the hands of Ha Satan that he might have not passed those tests. This then is the proof of his humanity; yet I do not believe that a mere mortal’s blood and character could have the efficacy required to redeem all of mankind and indeed the Cosmos. The second Adam needed more juice than the first.(Isaiah 63:5;43:11). A component of true deity seems requisite for the part he played in the salvation drama although the Rabbi’s have always worked over time to dismiss this element of Yeshua.
Mike Parry,
You’ll get no objection from me on that point!
Sorry, in my haste I typed “Mike” instead of “Mark”!
Virgin birth? Sinless life? Speaking and stilling the storm? Lepers and lame completely healed? Dead raised to life? Crucified, buried, no small stone rolled away on the third day— all just as He said.. Over three hundred prophecies fulfilled? The best part yet? ~ He EVER LIVES to make intercession for us! Oh! But wait… – there’s more! So much more… (Philippians 3.10)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW3OpdmVfwg