Romans 1:3-4
For a
number of reasons, scholars generally believe that Paul is alluding to earlier
Christian tradition in Romans 1:3-4. One reason for thinking Paul is citing
earlier tradition is the odd vocabulary and turns of phrase he uses that he
uses nowhere else even when he is saying similar things:
1. Except for 2 Timothy (which rightly or wrongly most argue to be
pseudonymous), Paul nowhere else refers to Jesus as the Son of David.
2. This use of flesh is not his most usual--more often than not he speaks of flesh
as the foothold of sin in a person's body, especially when it is in contrast to
spirit.
3. He nowhere else uses "appointed" or "Son of God in
power" in this way, although he makes analogous comments elsewhere in
relation to Jesus getting the title "Lord."
4. "Spirit of holiness" is completely unique to this passage, as he
simply says "Holy Spirit" elsewhere. This seems to be a Hebraism
found in the Hebrew of Isaiah and certain Psalms.
When you add to some of these verbal aspects the structure of the statement
(relative clauses with parallel affirmations, etc...), it seems more likely
than not that Paul is alluding to something he didn't compose but that the
original audience knew.
The parallel between body and spirit seems to form the heart of the contrast
between verses 3 and 4. Verse 3 presents Jesus according to the flesh; verse 4
presents Jesus in spiritual terms. The parallel is not exact, for the Spirit of
holiness is surely a reference to the Holy Spirit rather than Jesus' spirit
(and it seems highly anachronistic to see this in some Trinitarian sense since
Christians would not start thinking of these issues for at least another
hundred years later).
Dunn and perhaps most would see in these verses reflections of a "two
stage Christology." The first is the earthly phase: "Son of
David." But when Christ rises from the dead, he is enthroned "Son of
God in power." The normal use of "appointed" implies that Christ
attains a new "state" that he did not have in the "Son of
David" phase. However, the qualification "in power" may imply
that he was Son of God before--just not Son of God in power.
In NT Survey classes I sometimes point out that the early Jewish Christians got
a lot more in a Messiah than they bargained for. They would have been content
with a human Messiah who kicked the Romans out of
The appointment/enthronement of Jesus as Son of God in power is attested at
several points in the New Testament. Acts 13:33 is a noteable
parallel where a sermon considers Christ's exaltation to God's right hand to be
the place where God declares Christ "Son." Hebrews similarly at 1:5
locates the designation of Jesus as Son of God to the point of his exaltation.
We find also in Acts and Paul indicates that Jesus most meaningfully receives
the title "Lord" at his resurrection (e.g., Acts 2:35; Phil. 2 in the
hymn;
Some scholars think that the phrase "in power" is a Pauline addition
to the pre-existing formula (e.g., Fitzmeyer). Others
disagree (e.g., Dunn). I can accept it as original and pre-Pauline because the
two statements are not exactly parallel anyway.
Dunn argues that the way the comment "on the basis of the resurrection of
the dead" is worded points to a pre-Pauline origin, because it is worded
in terms of the general resurrection rather than Christ's specific
resurrection. Paul connects Christ's resurrection to the general resurrection
of all as well, but by his time they are clearly understood to occur in at
least two distinct phases (see 1 Cor.). Originally,
Dunn suggests, the first Christians would have seen Christ's resurrection as
the immediate or at least very
near commencement of the full blown final resurrection of the dead. The
pre-Pauline formula would thus embody what we find in Matthew 27 where the
resurrection of certain saints of renown occurs in the context of Christ's
death--an indication of the beginning of the general resurrection.
But other commentators (e.g., Fitzmeyer) think that
this phrase is similarly a Pauline addition to the formula on the basis of
Paul's focus on resurrection. If forced to conclude, I would go with Dunn,
since the expression does not seem to be Paul's normal way of referring to the
resurrection.