to me to be most agreeable with the context. We hence learn, that he who has made a due proficiency
in the knowledge of Christ, has acquired every thing which can be learned from the gospel; and,
on the other hand, that they who seek to be wise without Christ, are not only foolish, but even
completely insane.
Who was made,etc. — Two things must be found in Christ, in order that we may obtain salvation
in him, even divinity and humanity. His divinity possesses power, righteousness, life, which by his
humanity are conveyed to us. Hence the Apostle has expressly mentioned both in the Summary he
gives of the gospel, that Christ was manifested in the flesh — and that in it he declared himself to
be the Son of God. So John says; after having declared that the Word was made flesh, he adds, that
in that flesh there was a glory as of the only-begotten Son of God. (John 1:14.) That he specially
notices the descent and lineage of Christ from his ancestor David, is not superfluous; for by this
he calls back our attention to the promise, that we may not doubt but that he is the very person who
had been formerly promised. So well known was the promise made to David, that it appears to
have been a common thing among the Jews to call the Messiah the Son of David. This then — that
Christ did spring from David — was said for the purpose of confirming our faith.
He adds, according to the flesh; and he adds this, that we may understand that he had something
more excellent than flesh, which he brought from heaven, and did not take from David, even that
which he afterwards mentions, the glory of the divine nature. Paul does further by these words not
only declare that Christ had real flesh, but he also clearly distinguishes his human from his divine
nature; and thus he refutes the impious raving of Servetus, who assigned flesh to Christ, composed
of three untreated elements.
4.Declared^19 the Son of God, etc.: or, if you prefer, determined (definitus); as though he had
said, that the power, by which he was raised from the dead, was something like a decree by which
(^19) “Declaratus,”. Some of the ancients, such as Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others, have given to this verb the
meaning of is “proved — ;” demonstrated — ;” “exhibited — ;”etc. But it is said that the word has not
this meaning in the New Testament, and that it means, limited, determined, decreed, constituted. Besides here, it is found only
in Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; Acts 10:42; Acts 11:29; Acts 17:26; Hebrews 4:7. The word, determined, or constituted, if adopted
here, would amount to the same thing, that is, that Christ was visibly determined or constituted the Son of God through the
resurrection, or by that event. It was that which fixed, settled, determined, and manifestly exhibited him as the Son of God,
clothed and adorned with his own power. Professor Stuart has conjured a number of difficulties in connection with this verse,
for which there seems to be no solid reason. The phrase, the Son of God, is so well known from the usage of Scripture, that there
is no difficulty connected with it: the full phrase is the only-begotten Son. To say that Christ’s resurrection was no evidence of
his divine nature, as Lazarus and others had been raised from the dead, appears indeed very strange. Did Lazarus rise through
his own power? Did Lazarus rise again for our justification? Was his resurrection an attestation of any thing he had previously
declared? The Revelation A. Barnes very justly says, that the circumstances connected with Christ were those which rendered
his resurrection a proof of his divinity.
Professor Hodge gives what he conceives to be the import of the two verses in these words, “Jesus Christ was, as to his
human nature, the Son of David; but he was clearly demonstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by the resurrection
from the dead.” This view is taken by many, such as Pareus, Beza, Turrettin, etc. But the words, “according to the Spirit of
Holiness” — μ , are taken differently by others, as meaning the Holy Spirit. As the phrase is nowhere else found, it
may be taken in either sense. That the divine nature of Christ is called Spirit, is evident. See 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians
3:17; Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 3:18Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers, consider The Holy Spirit to be intended. The last gives this
paraphrase: — “Declared, or determinately marked out to be the Son of God and with power. The thing was demonstrated by
an evidence, the exhibition of which required a putting forth of power, which Paul in another place represents as a very great
and strenuous exertion, ‘According to the working of his mighty power when he raised him from the dead.’ — The Spirit of
Holiness, or the Holy Spirit. It was through the operation of the Holy Spirit that the divine nature was infused into the human at
the birth of Jesus Christ; and the very same agent, it is remarkable, was employed in the work of the resurrection. ‘Put to death
in the flesh,’ says Peter, and ‘quickened by the Spirit.’ We have only to do with the facts of the case. He was demonstrated to