ON THE THREEFOLD SONSHIP OF CHRIST. ROMANS i. 3, 4. BY DANIEL BAGOT, B.D., DEAN OF DROMORE, &c.

THE style of the apostle Paul is peculiar and remarkable. It abounds with parentheses, or rather with digressions introduced for the purpose of illustrating his high conceptions of the greatness and vastness of the subjects of which he is treating; and so full is his mind with ideas of this description, that he cannot avoid giving expression to them, even frequently, in successive groups, although, in doing so, he is often obliged to turn aside from the immediate and current subjects that are before him. His thoughts come forth like successive peals of thunder, or like the prancings of a noble and spirited horse over an extensive plain. Thus, having mentioned "the Gospel" in the first verse of this chapter, he then states that the subject matter of it is concerning "Jesus Christ our Lord;" and no sooner had he mentioned the name of Christ, than his mind is instantly filled, by a sort of irresistible and magic influence, with an enthusiastic and overflowing conception of the mysterious dignity of the Saviour's person and the merciful condescension of His love, which constrains him to branch out into a concise description of Him in the third and fourth verses, which are thus rendered in the authorized translation :

Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead."

The construction and exposition of these verses have been regarded by commentators as involving much difficulty. Most of them understand the apostle as, in the first place, making a general mention of Christ in the words "Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord," and then introducing a parenthesis for the purpose of stating that Jesus had two natures or

a twofold Sonship; 1st, that He was of the seed of David as regarded the flesh; and 2ndly, that He was the Son of God as to His divine nature. There is a difference of opinion as to whether these two clauses should be understood as a climax or an antithesis, and as to the construction of several of the words of which they are composed. We shall, in giving an exposition of the passage, first explain in a general way the interpretation which we maintain; and secondly, make some critical observations upon the words of which the passage is composed, in vindication of the sense in which we understand it.

We do not, then, consider the fourth verse to have any reference whatever to the divine nature of Christ; for we cannot see how the phrase πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης can be identifed in signification with the phrase for divine nature. We understand the apostle as making a threefold assertion in these two verses, the 3rd and 4th, about the Saviour-as declaring what He was in three separate and distinct points of view-1st, as to His divine nature in ver. 3, that He was vioû avroù; 2ndly, as to His fleshly nature in ver. 3, that He was ÈK σTÉPμATOS Aaßiò; and 3rdly, as to His spiritual nature, that He was viov Ocoû, but not in the same sense in which He was said to be vioù avrou in ver. 3. We understand him as, in fact, asserting that Christ had, not a twofold merely, but a threefold Sonship, being, as the λóyos, the only begotten Son of God; being Kaтà σáρкa, or as regarded the flesh, the Son of David; and being κarà пνeûμa àyiwσúvns, not the Son of God, but a Son of God, inasmuch as He possessed a spiritual and holy nature in its perfection, similar in kind to that which dwells, in different degrees, in His regenerated people. We do not therefore construe the latter part of the 3rd verse and the 4th verse as a parenthesis brought in as subordinate to a more general assertion" concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord"-made in the former clause of ver. 3, with the view of stating, either in the form of climax or antithesis, that Christ had two natures, a human and a divine; but we understand the two verses as containing three distinct assertions in reference to three distinct natures which were united in the Saviour, in the enumeration of which His divine nature is mentioned, not last, but first in order. We would embody our view of the passage in the following translation:

"Separated unto the Gospel of God, which is concerning Jesus Christ our Lord-WHO WAS His own Son-WHO WAS made of the seed of David according to the flesh-WHO WAS declared to be a Son of God, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the power of His resurrection from amongst the dead- by whom we have received grace, &c."

We shall now examine the import of the several words of

which this important passage is constructed, keeping this, which is the literal translation of it, in view.

These verses are unquestionably connected with the phrase "Gospel of God," which occurs in the first verse. The apostle, having stated that he was specially delegated and set apart to preach the Gospel, here states what is the subject matter of the Gospel. We must here object to the insertion of any portion of the passage in a parenthesis. We do not mean to say that the apostle did not intend to make here what might be termed a parenthetic assertion; but we consider that the introduction of the marks of a parenthesis into the text is, in fact, determining a certain mode. of exposition, by defining the length and limits of a parenthetic clause, which ought to be left open to the judgment of commentators to determine for themselves. Some, for instance, introduce a parenthesis at the clause τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος κ. τ. λ. Whereas we consider that the parenthetic sentence begins with τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.

The preposition περὶ is supposed to govern τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, 50 that the clause is rendered in the authorized version, "concerning His Son," &c. If this preposition governs the first TOû in the commencement of the 3rd verse, we maintain that it should also govern the τοῦ γενομένου and the τοῦ ὁρισθέντος, with which the two remaining clauses commence. But we rather consider that Tepì should be construed with the phrase 'Inaoû Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, XpiTOU TOû Kupíov pov, "concerning Jesus Christ our Lord."

The phrase Toû vioû avroû should be rendered, "who was His own Son." AUTOû is evidently contracted for avrov, as in chap. viii. 3. As the Toû in the second and third clause has a participle immediately succeeding it in each case, so we may understand the participle ovros immediately after the Toû in this sentence; and the three assertions which are thus confined within a parenthetic sentence, which commences immediately after περὶ, are placed in apposition with the phrase Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν, because they are introduced for the purpose of stating what the Lord Jesus Christ was in three points of view. Tiov avrov, then, unquestionably denotes the true Deity of Christ. This will appear at once if we establish the two following propositions: 1st, that this phrase refers to a Sonship which Christ possessed, which was peculiar to Himself; and 2ndly, that this peculiar Sonship is equivalent to, or implies, His possession of the same attributes of Deity with the Father. First, then, the peculiarity of the Saviour's Sonship in one sense, is denoted by this very phrase Toû vioù avrou, in which the pronoun avrou is emphatic-His own Son, as He is also called in chap. viii. 3 and 32. He is also called His only begotten Son in John iii. 16 and 1 John iv. 9; and in the parable of the Vineyard (in which there must be an analogy between the leading circumstances mentioned in the parable, and the facts

denoted thereby) Christ is represented as the "One Son," the "well beloved" of the Father. (Mark xii. 6.)

2ndly. This peculiarity of signification by which Christ is called God's "own Son" implies his possession of uncreated Deity. Indeed, this follows necessarily from the peculiarity of His Sonship; for if He were only a created Son, where could there be any foundation for this peculiarity? Could not the Omnipotence of God have created many other sons of the same rank and dignity? or shall we limit the creative energy of Jehovah, and thus degrade the Father, because we are predetermined to degrade the Son? But we are not left even to this strong inference merely, for a support to this important doctrine. It is repeatedly asserted in the New Testament that the peculiar Sonship of Christ denotes His possession of the same Deity with the Father; and probably the very terms "Father" and "Son" are used with reference to the first and second persons for the express purpose of denoting their unity of nature. We refer to the following passages:- In Matt. xi. 27 and Luke x. 22, Christ says "All things are delivered unto Me of My Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." He is united with the Father and the Holy Ghost in the Baptismal form, as possessing the same dignity and prerogatives with them. In John i. 18, it is said, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." But how could the Son, as the Word or λóyos, declare the Father, unless He was the "image of the invisible God," (Col. i. 15); "the brightness or the off-shining splendour of His glory, and the express image of His person," (Heb. i. 3); so that we might have in the Son such an exact impression or counterpart of the Father's glory and manner of existence, that we might see "the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," (2 Cor. iv. 6); and that it might be true that He that hath seen Him hath seen the Father, "because He is in the Father and the Father in Him?" Again, in John v. 17, the Saviour associates Himself, as the Son, with the Father in the continuous and uninterrupted work of Providence, where He says, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," an assertion which the Jews understood as equivalent to His calling God His Father, Taτéρа iolov, in such a peculiar sense as to make "Himself equal with God:" an opinion which Jesus proceeds to confirm by asserting, in the following verses, that "the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do ;" which evidently implies that because the union between the Father and the Son is so close and compact, the Son could not act separate from the Father, but necessarily worked when He

worked, "for what things soever the Father' doeth, the same doeth the Son in like manner,” ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱος ὁμοίως ποιεῖ; that "as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will;" and that "the Father hath given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of man, that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father." Again, in John x. 15, the Saviour says that His knowledge of the Father was commensurate with the Father's knowledge of Him; and in verse 30, He declares that He and His Father "are one," which assertion he explains in the 38th verse, as implying that "the Father is in Him and He in the Father." Further, it is asserted in Hebrews i. 6, that, as the only begotten Son of God, Christ is to be worshipped by all the angels; and in Heb. iii. 2-6, there is a contrast drawn between Moses as a servant, and Christ as a Son, in the course of which it is shown that Moses was only, as it were, the house, but that Christ was the builder of the house, and not only the maker of Moses, but that He was the very God who made all things. These proofs are sufficient to support what we believe is contained in the first clause of the parenthetic sentence before us, that Christ, as God's "own Son," is one God with the Father.

The SECOND CLAUSE of this parenthetic assertion is as follows, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ κατὰ σάρκα. This attributes to Christ a second Sonship, which he possessed in common with all the family of David. This is the Sonship which St. Matthew establishes by producing his genealogy in order to show that he was "the Son of David," (Matt. i. 1). The Toû, with which this clause begins, stands in a grammatical position exactly analogous to that which the former Toû occupies, being placed in apposition, as well as it, with the phrase "Jesus Christ our Lord." Tevouévov is used in contradistinction to the participle OUTOS, which was understood in the former clause, and to opolévтos, which is expressed in the third. It denotes his becoming man in contradistinction to his being God, in the same way in which it is said in John i. 1, that the Aóyos "was God," and in John i. 14, that he "became flesh and dwelt among us." This assumption of the flesh was the act of the λóyos himself. It is incorrect to say, as Dr. Chalmers does, in his lectures on this epistle, that "it was through the operation of the Holy Spirit that the divine nature was infused into the human at the birth of Jesus Christ." No doubt, the formation of the human nature, out of the substance of the Virgin Mary, was by the operation of the Holy Ghost, in consequence of which that holy thing which was born of her was called a Son of God, that is, a Son of God in the sense of the third sonship, which we shall just now explain, Luke i. 35. But the assumption of humanity, by taking the human nature into union with the