Through the Spirit...appointed the Son of God

[makesends]

Romans 1:1-4 reads, in the NIV:

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.

My question is, How do you see this progression of thought Paul lays out? What particularly caught my eye was that Jesus Christ was "appointed" the Son of God, and that, BY his resurrection.

Just what DID happen, there, in Christ, our Lord and God, being appointed the Son of God? How would you diagram that sentence —"...who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead."

What does the interlinear say, and other translations besides the NIV? And, as always, I'm particularly interested in the literal versions.

 

[Binyawmene]

My question is, How do you see this progression of thought Paul lays out? What particularly caught my eye was that Jesus Christ was "appointed" the Son of God, and that, BY his resurrection.

Jesus is referring to as the Son of God (Luke 1:35), the Messiah, the Lord, and a Savior from birth (Acts 13:23, Luke 2:11, Romans 9:5). He is the author of the eternal salvation, but it wasn't official until he finishes the provision and work that was prepared by God the Father, which that was accomplished by what he did for us and for our salvation. In other words, he still has to complete or finish the character of the Savior through the sufferings of life, death, and resurrection into his exaltation. It begins at his birth, once the completeness is finished, then he is officially the Savior upon his exaltation (Acts 2:36, 5:31, Ephesians 5:23, Philippians 3:20).

 

[makesends]

Jesus is referring to as the Son of God (Luke 1:35), the Messiah, the Lord, and a Savior from birth (Acts 13:23, Luke 2:11, Romans 9:5). He is the author of the eternal salvation, but it wasn't official until he finishes the provision and work that was prepared by God the Father, which that was accomplished by what he did for us and for our salvation. In other words, he still has to complete or finish the character of the Savior through the sufferings of life, death, and resurrection into his exaltation. It begins at his birth, once the completeness is finished, then he is officially the Savior upon his exaltation (Acts 2:36, 5:31, Ephesians 5:23, Philippians 3:20).

So he hasn't forever been the Son of God from eternity past?

But, I think I get what you mean, although I'm not sure of your constructions there. The verses you referenced don't quite make your individual points, to me, except that he is forever hence appointed by the Father, as that Son of God.

Not that it is a problem to me that needs to be discarded or explained away, but such mentions in scripture and thoughts brought to bear by reason are used by those denying the full Godhood of Jesus, including those who even claim he became God by the Father's appointment. You've shown me nothing in your description, except the one verse mentioning (Romans 9.5) that he is God over all, to affirm that he was not mere creature. But you have shown that the idea (name?) of him being the Son is by his earthly life, by his physical birth.

That would make sense, then as another way to state what Romans 1 is saying there; but does "through the Spirit appointed Son of God" mean through the Spirit's seed planted in Mary (i.e. the Spirit of the Father), or is it talking about the name, Son of God, being affirmed by the Spirit's testimony, and by the fact of his resurrection?

 

[Binyawmene]

So he hasn't forever been the Son of God from eternity past?

Depends on what you mean by "eternity past."

1. I believe in the Bible concept of "eternal now."
2. And I also believe in the "Eternal Son."
3. I am not sure you want to get into that topic.
But I welcome it if you want to discuss it.

But, I think I get what you mean, although I'm not sure of your constructions there. The verses you referenced don't quite make your individual points, to me, except that he is forever hence appointed by the Father, as that Son of God.

Christ is the provision of what he did for us and for our salvation. In other words. I am talking about the work of Christ as the Son of God. Christ role as the Son of God was completed upon his resurrection (Hebrews 1:5, Acts 13:33). That is basic Christology 101. The resurrection is where Jesus being publicly declared and vindicated by the Father as the Son of God. A divine endorsement of His mission and identity so to speak.

Not that it is a problem to me that needs to be discarded or explained away, but such mentions in scripture and thoughts brought to bear by reason are used by those denying the full Godhood of Jesus, including those who even claim he became God by the Father's appointment.

Sounds like Unitarianism. But they won't admit that their Christology turns Jesus into some kind of demi-god. But if you dig underneath the surface of their Christology, then that is exactly what they did. It's also a form of the heretical view of Adoptionism too.

You've shown me nothing in your description, except the one verse mentioning (Romans 9.5) that he is God over all, to affirm that he was not mere creature. But you have shown that the idea (name?) of him being the Son is by his earthly life, by his physical birth.

You lost me here. Are you asking me to demonstrate the title Son of God is in reference to Jesus being God? There are Trinitarians that teaches that Son of Man means "man" and Son of God mean "God." I believe the title Son of God has a semantic domain in the Bible like being applied to angels, men, Jesus, etc. When the title is being applied to Jesus there are two Scriptures that comes to mind that demonstrates the Deity of Christ.

John 10:29-36 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”​

That would make sense, then as another way to state what Romans 1 is saying there; but does "through the Spirit appointed Son of God" mean through the Spirit's seed planted in Mary (i.e. the Spirit of the Father), or is it talking about the name, Son of God, being affirmed by the Spirit's testimony, and by the fact of his resurrection?

What do you teach and believe what Romans 1:4 is saying?

 

[makesends]

Depends on what you mean by "eternity past."

I used the term as it seems most generally held by believers; if he was the 'Son of God' from 'eternity past', and himself God, then it has always been so, and not merely a reference to his position from within temporal creation, born of Mary by the Spirit of God. Nor did he "become God."

1. I believe in the Bible concept of "eternal now."

Me too, though I'm not sure our implications are the same. And the talk there can get 'tangly'

2. And I also believe in the "Eternal Son."

Agreed. But we see these things backwards. I like to think that he became man by the Spirit BECAUSE of who he already was, and not the other way around.

3. I am not sure you want to get into that topic.
But I welcome it if you want to discuss it.

I'm game, for some of it, anyway, as long as it remains on-topic.

Christ is the provision of what he did for us and for our salvation. In other words. I am talking about the work of Christ as the Son of God. Christ role as the Son of God was completed upon his resurrection (Hebrews 1:5, Acts 13:33). That is basic Christology 101. The resurrection is where Jesus being publicly declared and vindicated by the Father as the Son of God. A divine endorsement of His mission and identity so to speak.

Very good.

Sounds like Unitarianism. But they won't admit that their Christology turns Jesus into some kind of demi-god. But if you dig underneath the surface of their Christology, then that is exactly what they did. It's also a form of the heretical view of Adoptionism too.

Yep. And me being me, I see it as logical nonsense.

Makesends said: You've shown me nothing in your description, except the one verse mentioning (Romans 9.5) that he is God over all, to affirm that he was not mere creature. But you have shown that the idea (name?) of him being the Son is by his earthly life, by his physical birth.

You lost me here. Are you asking me to demonstrate the title Son of God is in reference to Jesus being God?

No. I'm just saying you didn't, to such as are not inclined to believe it, except in that one verse.

There are Trinitarians that teaches that Son of Man means "man" and Son of God mean "God." I believe the title Son of God has a semantic domain in the Bible like being applied to angels, men, Jesus, etc. When the title is being applied to Jesus there are two Scriptures that comes to mind that demonstrates the Deity of Christ.

John 10:29-36 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?​

​

John 19:7 The Jews answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.”​

Completely agreed.

Makesends said: That would make sense, then as another way to state what Romans 1 is saying there; but does "through the Spirit appointed Son of God" mean through the Spirit's seed planted in Mary (i.e. the Spirit of the Father), or is it talking about the name, Son of God, being affirmed by the Spirit's testimony, and by the fact of his resurrection?

What do you teach and believe what Romans 1:4 is saying?

Never had Romans 1:4 jump out at me like it did today, but in the past I assumed a more-or-less vague notion, perhaps a mixture of his work by the power of the Spirit, and the Spirit's witness to his being God-become-man. I don't recall ever even noticing the word, 'appointed', there, before, but I don't always use the NIV —I enjoy the NIV because it often uses alternative renderings from what I'm used to (grew up on the NIV KJV), which makes me think.

Also, it is curious to me, about the prepositional phrase, "in power", whether it renders (per the interlinear) "declaring...in power" or the "Son of God in power". But, I guess, it could even be both, and probably not needed to know. I mean, anything he declares is declared in power, but to say so in this specific application, might be relevant, idk.

Edit: Typo, two paragraphs above: "(Grew up on the KJV)."

 

[Binyawmene]

I used the term as it seems most generally held by believers; if he was the 'Son of God' from 'eternity past', and himself God, then it has always been so, and not merely a reference to his position from within temporal creation, born of Mary by the Spirit of God. Nor did he "become God."

We might slightly differ on the concept of "eternal." To me, when I look at the word "eternity past" that makes me think of God being confine to the creation of time itself. As if God has a continuous duration and perpetual existence from the "past" up to this "present" age. The main thing is that we both believe the Eternal Son (Genesis 21:33, Micah 5:2, Psalms 90:2 4, Hebrews 1:10-12, 13:8, Revelations 1:8, 22:13, Matthew 28:20). The Son is before John the Baptist "he was before me" (John 1:30) and before Abraham "before Abraham was born" (John 8:58). But we shouldn't view pre-existence as an eternity past.

From my position, it wouldn't matter if he is "before the world began" (John 17:5) or "the very end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). The Eternal God has no time-sequence, no beginning or ending, no succession, no past, present, and future, but only an Eternal Now. We as humans are not eternal in our essential nature or "known the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:9-10). But the Son is an eternal now, the ending is like the beginning to him, who is without beginning and ending. The Son created time and is LORD over time. He can see all events equally and vividly simultaneously, and act within our timeframe, even the incarnation (John 3:31-33, 8:23-24).

Also, it is curious to me, about the prepositional phrase, "in power", whether it renders (per the interlinear) "declaring...in power" or the "Son of God in power". But, I guess, it could even be both, and probably not needed to know. I mean, anything he declares is declared in power, but to say so in this specific application, might be relevant, idk.

I don't want to go off-topic about the Eternal Son. I do believe the Bible mentions that the title "Son" in pre-existence prior to the incarnation (Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4, 1 John 3:8, John 11:27, 1 John 5:20). But you might be thinking why is the Son (who always been the Son eternally) being declare as the Son of God upon his resurrection. Especially when there is no succession in the Eternal Person of the Son. He remains the Son in pre-existence, birth, life, and death and resurrection. He always been the Son. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, states:

ὁρίζω is passive with a predicate nominative, Romans 1:4 (for although Christ was the Son of God before his resurrection, yet he was openly appointed (A. V. declared) such among men by this transcendent and crowning event);​

Based on the provision and work that was prepared in advanced by the Father. He carried out the role of the Son through the incarnation and resurrection. "...appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead..." This declaration is a statement and a affirmation of Jesus' divine sonship, authority, and victory over sin and death. The resurrection is proof of his claim and validating who he always been as the Son of God.

 

[makesends]

We might slightly differ on the concept of "eternal." To me, when I look at the word "eternity past" that makes me think of God being confine to the creation of time itself. As if God has a continuous duration and perpetual existence from the "past" up to this "present" age. The main thing is that we both believe the Eternal Son (Genesis 21:33, Micah 5:2, Psalms 90:2 4, Hebrews 1:10-12, 13:8, Revelations 1:8, 22:13, Matthew 28:20). The Son is before John the Baptist "he was before me" (John 1:30) and before Abraham "before Abraham was born" (John 8:58). But we shouldn't view pre-existence as an eternity past.

From my position, it wouldn't matter if he is "before the world began" (John 17:5) or "the very end of the age" (Matthew 28:20). The Eternal God has no time-sequence, no beginning or ending, no succession, no past, present, and future, but only an Eternal Now. We as humans are not eternal in our essential nature or "known the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:9-10). But the Son is an eternal now, the ending is like the beginning to him, who is without beginning and ending. The Son created time and is LORD over time. He can see all events equally and vividly simultaneously, and act within our timeframe, even the incarnation (John 3:31-33, 8:23-24).

I don't think we disagree there. The way I come at it is by simple logic. If God is God, there is nothing to which he must measure up or upon which he must depend ontologically. He is 'base fact' —even, 'raw fact', if that is better— no principle governs him. He is default fact, 'inventor' of reality and of the-way-of-things. First, there was only God. Then, as you would agree, he created everything else, just as John 1 says. He 'invented' maths and logic, and all principles were made by him. They do not govern him. They only help us to understand him.

He 'invented' sequence of events, and time, which govern us in this vapor of temporal existence. Thus, to say that he exists in infinite time doesn't work. It is only a way for thinking about him. I disagree with it, and with many things people usually think, but the Bible seems to use a lot of anthropomorphisms, such as that one, to help us cripples walk.

To my thinking, God spoke the end result into existence 'instantly' fully the perfect complete Bride of Christ; but it took this 6000 years+, (or 15 billion, if you wish), to accomplish it. Already, but not yet, God's dwelling is with man; they are his people, and he is their God.

I don't want to go off-topic about the Eternal Son. I do believe the Bible mentions that the title "Son" in pre-existence prior to the incarnation (Romans 8:3, Galatians 4:4, 1 John 3:8, John 11:27, 1 John 5:20). But you might be thinking why is the Son (who always been the Son eternally) being declare as the Son of God upon his resurrection. Especially when there is no succession in the Eternal Person of the Son. He remains the Son in pre-existence, birth, life, and death and resurrection. He always been the Son. According to Thayer's Greek Lexicon, states:

ὁρίζω is passive with a predicate nominative, Romans 1:4 (for although Christ was the Son of God before his resurrection, yet he was openly appointed (A. V. declared) such among men by this transcendent and crowning event);
Based on the provision and work that was prepared in advanced by the Father. He carried out the role of the Son through the incarnation and resurrection. "...appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead..." This declaration is a statement and a affirmation of Jesus' divine sonship, authority, and victory over sin and death. The resurrection is proof of his claim and validating who he always been as the Son of God.

Nicely laid out. Thank you.

 

[Mr GLee]

Romans 1:1-4 reads, in the NIV:

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.

My question is, How do you see this progression of thought Paul lays out? What particularly caught my eye was that Jesus Christ was "appointed" the Son of God, and that, BY his resurrection.

Just what DID happen, there, in Christ, our Lord and God, being appointed the Son of God? How would you diagram that sentence —"...who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead."

What does the interlinear say, and other translations besides the NIV? And, as always, I'm particularly interested in the literal versions.

Two appointments as seeds.

Born of Mary son of man Jesus dying mankind and born again as the Son of God . Power from the ressurection not birth . Must be born agin *the Spiritual seed Christ .

Not seed of woman Mary our sister in the Lord

 

[makesends]

Two appointments as seeds.

What do you mean by 'appointments', here? And what do you mean by 'seeds'? Maybe use other similar words, so I can try to follow where you're going below.

Born of Mary son of man Jesus dying mankind and born again as the Son of God . Power from the ressurection not birth . Must be born agin *the Spiritual seed Christ .

Where do you see Jesus being born again as the Son of God? Is he no different at birth from the rest of us at birth? If he is, in what ways is he different?

Not seed of woman Mary our sister in the Lord

 

[Binyawmene]

I don't think we disagree there. The way I come at it is by simple logic. If God is God, there is nothing to which he must measure up or upon which he must depend ontologically. He is 'base fact' —even, 'raw fact', if that is better— no principle governs him. He is default fact, 'inventor' of reality and of the-way-of-things. First, there was only God. Then, as you would agree, he created everything else, just as John 1 says. He 'invented' maths and logic, and all principles were made by him. They do not govern him. They only help us to understand him.

He 'invented' sequence of events, and time, which govern us in this vapor of temporal existence. Thus, to say that he exists in infinite time doesn't work. It is only a way for thinking about him. I disagree with it, and with many things people usually think, but the Bible seems to use a lot of anthropomorphisms, such as that one, to help us cripples walk.

To my thinking, God spoke the end result into existence 'instantly' fully the perfect complete Bride of Christ; but it took this 6000 years+, (or 15 billion, if you wish), to accomplish it. Already, but not yet, God's dwelling is with man; they are his people, and he is their God.

Nicely laid out. Thank you.

Glad that I can share of insight for you.

 

[Mr GLee]

What do you mean by 'appointments', here? And what do you mean by 'seeds'? Maybe use other similar words, so I can try to follow where you're going below.

Two seeds (Genesis 3:15)

Where do you see Jesus being born again as the Son of God? Is he no different at birth from the rest of us at birth? If he is, in what ways is he different?

Yes no different .Jesus is our brother in the Lord . By the ressurection .The Power of the father

 

[makesends]

Two seeds (Genesis 3:15)


Yes no different .Jesus is our brother in the Lord . By the ressurection .The Power of the father

Is Jesus God? Don't ride the fence.

 

[Mr GLee]

Is Jesus God? Don't ride the fence.

God is not a man.

 

[makesends]

God is not a man.

Is the man Jesus, also God?

 

[Mr GLee]

Is the man Jesus, also God?

The man Jesus had the Spirit of Christ the Holy Spirt o God in him .Just like all born again sons of God .

 

[makesends]

The man Jesus had the Spirit of Christ the Holy Spirt o God in him .Just like all born again sons of God .

But he was not himself God?

 

[Mr GLee]

But he was not himself God?

Not any more than you or I are not eternal God.

As sons of God we are called Christians by the Father .

Jesus the Son of man is not ashamed to call us brothers and sisters.

Believers are lovingly commanded to calling no dying man on earth Holy Father .

One is our adopting father (Abba) in heaven

 

[Arial]

Romans 1:1-4 reads, in the NIV:

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.

My question is, How do you see this progression of thought Paul lays out? What particularly caught my eye was that Jesus Christ was "appointed" the Son of God, and that, BY his resurrection.

Just what DID happen, there, in Christ, our Lord and God, being appointed the Son of God? How would you diagram that sentence —"...who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead."

What does the interlinear say, and other translations besides the NIV? And, as always, I'm particularly interested in the literal versions.

Maybe this will help:

New Living Translation
and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is Jesus Christ our Lord.

English Standard Version
and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,


Berean Standard Bible
and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Take the word "appointed" out and in changes the meaning to what it means. He was always the Son of God, the resurrection sealed the deal so to speak. He was the living proof of who he is and what he accomplished. He had finished his earthly work as Son of man.

 

[makesends]

duplication

 

[makesends]

Maybe this will help:

New Living Translation
and he was shown to be the Son of God when he was raised from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit. He is Jesus Christ our Lord.

English Standard Version
and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,


Berean Standard Bible
and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by His resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Take the word "appointed" out and in changes the meaning to what it means. He was always the Son of God, the resurrection sealed the deal so to speak. He was the living proof of who he is and what he accomplished. He had finished his earthly work as Son of man.

Yep. I spoke too quickly.