# Was Christ declared or appointed?



## Barnpreacher (Jan 19, 2008)

In Romans 1:4 do you believe the correct exegesis is that Jesus Christ was declared to be the Son of God by the resurrection, or do you believe he was appointed to be the Son of God (in terms of going from Messiah to being Messiah, AND powerful, reigning Lord) by the resurrection?

And why do you feel your interpretation is correct? Thanks.


----------



## Casey (Jan 19, 2008)

1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David *according to the flesh*, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power *according to the Spirit* of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. (Rom. 1:1-4)

Seems to me it must be more than a simple testimony of his deity. Formerly, he was according to the flesh -- following the resurrection, he is according to the Spirit. Because of his birth, he was one -- because of the resurrection, he became the other.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jan 19, 2008)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Because of his birth, he was one -- because of the resurrection, he became the other.



But it's not as if he became the Son of God for the _first time_ after his resurrection, but more in terms of a "change in status or fuction", as Moo puts it.

So with that interpretation, why would a change from declared to appointed even be necessary?


----------



## Casey (Jan 19, 2008)

Perhaps it doesn't matter which word is used ("declared" or "appointed") . . seems to me they overlap semantically, no? You can be declared _or_ appointed to be serving in a new function.

I think this is what Paul is saying:

"according to the flesh" ---> RESURRECTION ---> "according to the Spirit"

He was the Son of God prior the resurrection, and continues as the Son of God -- the difference is what happened in the resurrection itself.

If you're interested, Gaffin has a section in his book (Resurrection and Redemption) on this very passage. You might want to check what John Murray has to say, too.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Jan 19, 2008)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Perhaps it doesn't matter which word is used ("declared" or "appointed") . . seems to me they overlap semantically, no? You can be declared _or_ appointed to be serving in a new function.



Right, I agree. I just wasn't sure if those who claim the term should be appointed were from coming from a different angle or not. I think you're right in that they overlap semantically. However, would not appointed be more confusing in this particular verse as opposed to declared? I would think people would get more tripped up with the translation of appointed. Even though we understand that the eternal Sonship of Christ is not being called into question with the translation of appointed, I would think that a lot of readers wouldn't see that. (I guess that's just the AV guy coming out in me.)



> I think this is what Paul is saying:
> 
> "according to the flesh" ---> RESURRECTION ---> "according to the Spirit"
> 
> He was the Son of God prior the resurrection, and continues as the Son of God -- the difference is what happened in the resurrection itself.



Agree.



> If you're interested, Gaffin has a section in his book (Resurrection and Redemption) on this very passage. You might want to check what John Murray has to say, too.



Thanks. I don't have Murray yet, but I've got to get him for sure. His commentary isn't available online anywhere is it?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 19, 2008)

Here are John Murray's remarks (pp. 9-10 of his commentary):



> (3) "Who was declared to be the Son of God with power." The word rendered "declared" is the word which elsewhere in the New Testament means to "determine," "appoint," "ordain" (Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:42; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Heb. 4:7). In none of these instances does it mean to "declare." It might be possible to derive the meaning "declare" from its use in the sense of "mark out" or "mark the boundaries". In this way Christ could be said to be marked out as the Son of God.[8] But this process of thought by which to arrive at the meaning "declared" is unnecessary and has little to commend it. There is neither need nor warrant to resort to any other rendering than that provided by the other New Testament instances, namely, that Jesus was "appointed" or "constituted" Son of God with power and points therefore to an investiture which had an historical beginning parallel to the historical beginning mentioned in verse 3. It might appear that this encounters an insuperable objection; Jesus was not _appointed_ Son of God; as we found, he is conceived to be the _eternal_ Son, and this sonship had no historical beginning. But this objection has validity only as we overlook the force of the expression "with power".[9] The apostle does not say that Jesus was appointed "Son of God" but "Son of God in power". This addition makes all the difference . Furthermore, we may not forget that already in verse 3 the Son of God is now viewed not simply as the eternal Son but as the eternal Son Incarnate, the eternal Son subject to the historical conditions introduced by his being born of the seed of David. Hence the action with which verse 4 is concerned is one that has respect to the Son of God incarnate, and it is not only proper but altogether reasonable to regard it as another phase of the historical process which provides the subject matter of the gospel. The apostle is dealing with some particular event in the history of the Son of God incarnate by which he was _instated_ in a position of sovereignty and invested with power, an event which in respect of investiture with power surpassed everything that could previously be ascribed to him in his incarnate state. What this event was and in what the investiture consisted will forthwith appear. And even if we associate the expression "in power" with the verb "appointed" rather than with the title "Son of God", this does not raise an insuperable obstacle to the interpretation in question. The apostle could still say that he was appointed Son of God with express allusion to the new phase of lordship and glory upon which Jesus as the incarnate Son entered by the resurrection without in the least implying that he then began to be the Son of God. The statement would be analogous to that of Peter, that by the resurrection God made Jesus "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:26). Peter cannot be understood to mean that then for the first time Jesus became Lord and Christ. He is referring to the new phase of his messianic lordship.
> 
> * Footnotes omitted.


----------

