Rom 1:4, 1Ti 3:16, 1Pe 3:18 | Barnes | STEP | Verse 4. And declared . In the margin, determined . τουορισθεντος. The ancient Syriac has, "And he was known to be the Son of God by might and by the Holy Spirit, who rose from the house of the dead." The Latin Vulgate, "Who was predestinated the Son of God," etc. The Arabic, "The Son of God destined by power peculiar to the Holy Spirit," etc. The word translated "declared to be" means, properly, to bound, to fix limits to , as to a field, to determine its proper limits or boundaries, to define, etc. , "And hath determined the bounds of their habitation." Hence it means, to determine, constitute, ordain, decree; i.e., to fix or designate the proper boundaries of a truth, or a doctrine; to distinguish its lines and marks from error; or to show or declare a thing to be so by any action. , "The Son of man goeth as it was determined ," as it was fixed, purposed, defined, in the purpose of God, and declared in the prophets. , "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel ," the definite, constituted will, or design of God. , "He limiteth a certain day," fixes it, defines it. In this sense it is clearly used in this place. The act of raising him from the dead designated him, or constituted him the Son of God. It was such an act as in the circumstances of the case showed that he was the Son of God in regard to a nature which was not "according to the flesh." The ordinary resurrection of a man, like that of Lazarus, would not show that he was the Son of God; but in the circumstances of Jesus Christ it did; for he had claimed to be so; he had taught it; and God now attested the truth of his teaching by raising him from the dead. The Son of God . The word son is used in a great variety of senses, denoting literally a son, then a descendant, posterity near or remote, a disciple or ward, an adopted son, or one that imitates or resembles another. . The expression sons of God , or son of God, is used in an almost equal latitude of signification. It is (1.) applied to Adam, as being immediately created by God, without an earthly father, . (2.) It is applied to saints or Christians, as being adopted into his family, and sustaining to him the relation of children, ; , etc. This name is given to them because they resemble him in their moral character, . (3.) It is given to strong men as resembling God in strength. , "The sons of God saw the daughters of men," etc. Here these men of violence and strength are called sons of God, just as the high hills are called hills of God , the lofty trees of Lebanon are called cedars of God , etc. (4.) Kings are sometimes called his sons, as resembling him in dominion and power, . (5.) The name is given to angels, because they resemble God; because he is their Creator and Father, etc., . But the name THE Son of God is, in the New Testament, given by way of eminence to the Lord Jesus Christ. This was the common and favourite name by which the apostles designated him. The expression Son of God is applied to him no less than twenty-seven times in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and fifteen times in the Epistles and the Revelation. The expression my Son , and his Son, thy Son , etc., is applied to him in his peculiar relation to God, times almost without number. The other most common appellation which is given to him is Son of man . By this name he commonly designated himself. There can be no doubt that that was assumed to denote that he was a man, that he sustained a peculiar relation to man, and that he chose to speak of himself as a man. The first, the most obvious, impression on the use of the name Son of man is, that he was truly a man ; and it was used, doubtless, to guard against the impression that one who manifested so many other qualities, and did so many things like a celestial being, was not truly a human being. The phrase Son of God stands in contrast with the title Son of man ; and as the natural and obvious import of that is that he was a man , so the natural and obvious import of the title Son of God is that he was Divine; or that he sustained relations to God, designated by the name Son of God, corresponding to the relations which he sustained to man, designated by the name Son of Man . The natural idea of the term Son of God therefore is, that he sustained a relation to God in his nature which implied more than was human or angelic; which implied equality with God. Accordingly, this idea was naturally suggested to the Jews by his calling God his Father: , "But said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God ." This idea Jesus immediately proceeded to confirm. and . The same idea is also suggested in , "Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest: because I said I am the Son of God? " There is, in these places, the fullest proof that the title suggested naturally the idea of equality with God; or the idea of his sustaining a relation to God corresponding to the relation of equality to man, suggested by the title Son of man. This view is still further sustained in the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, . God hath spoken unto US BY HIS SON. He is the brightness of his glory , and the express image of his person , . He is higher than the angels, and they are required to worship him, . He is called God, and his throne is for ever and ever, . He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth , and is IMMUTABLY THE SAME, . Thus the rank, or title, of the Son of God , suggests the ideas and attributes of the Divinity. This idea is sustained throughout the New Testament. See , "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;" , "That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the father." , "It hath pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" , "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." ; . It is not affirmed that this title was given to the Second Person of the Trinity before he became incarnate , or to suggest the idea of any derivation or extraction before he was made flesh. There is no instance in which the appellation is not conferred to express the relation after he assumed human flesh. Of any derivation from God, or emanation from him in eternity, the Scriptures are silent. The title is conferred on him, it is supposed, with reference to his condition in this world as the Messiah. And it is conferred, it is believed, for the following reasons, or to denote the following thing, viz: (1.) To designate his peculiar relation to God, as equal with him, ( ;) or as sustaining a most intimate and close connexion with him, such as neither man nor angels could do--an acquaintance with his nature, ( ,) plans, and counsels, such as no being but one who was equal with God could possess. In this sense I regard it as conferred on him in the passage under consideration. (2.) It designates him as the anointed King, or the Messiah. In this sense it accords with the use of the word in . See , "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God ." , "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God ." ; , "He preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God ." (3.) It was conferred on him to denote his miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. , "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, THEREFORE (διο) also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God ." With power . ενδυναμει. By some, this expression has been supposed to mean in power or authority, after his resurrection from the dead. It is said, that he was before a man of sorrows; now he was clothed with power and authority. But I have seen no instance in which the expression in power denotes office , or authority. It denotes physical energy and might--and this was bestowed on Jesus before his resurrection as well as after. , "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power ." . With such power Jesus will come to judgment, . If there is any passage in which the word power means authority, office, etc., it is , "All power in heaven and earth is given unto me." But this is not a power which was given unto him after his resurrection, or which he did not possess before. The same authority to commission his disciples he had exercised before this on the same ground, . I am inclined to believe, therefore, that the expression means powerfully , efficiently ; he was with great power, or conclusiveness, shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. Thus the phrase in power is used to qualify a verb in , "Which worketh in me mightily "-- Greek , in power i.e., operating in me effectually, or powerfully. The ancient versions seem to have understood it in the same way. Syriac , "He was known to be the Son of God by power, and by the Holy Ghost." AEthiopic, "Whom he declared to be the Son of God by his own power, and by his Holy Spirit," etc. Arabic, "Designated the Son of God by power appropriate to the Holy Spirit." According to the spirit of holiness . καταπνευμααγιωσυνης. This expression has been variously understood. We may arrive at its meaning by the following considerations. (1.) It is not the Third Person in the Trinity that is referred to here. The designation of that person is always in a different form. It is the Holy Spirit , the Holy Ghost-- πνευμααγιον, or τοπνευματοαγιον; never the Spirit of holiness . (2.) It stands in contrast with the flesh , , "According to the flesh, the seed of David: according to the spirit of holiness, the Son of God." As the former refers doubtless to his human nature, so this must refer to the nature designated by the title Son of God, that is, to his superior or Divine nature. (3.) The expression is altogether peculiar to the Lord Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Scriptures, or in any other writings, is there an affirmation like this. What would be meant by it if affirmed of a mere man? (4.) It cannot mean that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity, showed that Jesus was the Son of God by raising him from the dead, because that act is nowhere attributed to him. It is uniformly ascribed either to God, as God , ( ; ,) or to the rather, ( ,) or to Jesus himself, ( .) In no instance is this act ascribed to the Holy Ghost. (5.) It indicates a state far more elevated than any human dignity, or honour. In regard to his earthly descent, he was of a royal race; in regard to the Spirit of holiness, much more than that, he was the Son of God. (6.) The word Spirit is used often to designate God, the holy God, as distinguished from all the material forms of idol worship, . (7.) The word Spirit is applied to the Messiah in his more elevated or Divine nature. , "The last Adam was made a quickening Spirit." , "Now the Lord (Jesus) is that Spirit." , Christ is said to have "offered himself through the eternal Spirit." , he is said to have been "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." , he is said to have been "justified in the Spirit." In most of these passages there is the same contrast noticed between his flesh , his human nature, and his other state, which occurs in . In all these instances, the design is, doubtless, to speak of him as a man , and as something more than a man; he was one thing as a man; he was another thing in his other nature. In the one, he was of David; was put to death, etc. In the other, he was of God; he was manifested to be such; he was restored to the elevation which he had sustained before his incarnation and death, . The expression, according to the spirit of holiness , does not indeed of itself imply Divinity. It denotes that holy and more exalted nature which he possessed as distinguished from the human. What that is, is to be learned from other declarations. This expression implies simply that it was such as to make proper the appellation, the Son of God . Other places, as we have seen, show that that designation naturally implied Divinity. And that this was the true idea couched under the expression, according to the spirit of holiness, appears from those numerous texts of Scripture which explicitly assert his Divinity. See , etc., and . By the resurrection from the dead . This has been also variously understood. Some have maintained that the word by --εξ--denotes AFTER. He was declared to be the Son of God in power after he rose from the dead; that is, he was solemnly invested with the dignity that became the Son of God after he had been so long in a state of voluntary humiliation. But to this view there are some insuperable objections. (1.) It is not the natural and usual meaning of the word by . (2.) It is not the object of the apostle to state the time when the thing was done, or the order, but evidently to declare the fact , and the evidence of the fact. If such had been his design, he would have said, that previous to his death he was shown to be of the seed of David, but afterwards that he was invested with power. (3.) Though it must be admitted that the preposition by εξ sometimes means AFTER, ( ) yet its proper and usual meaning is to denote the efficient cause, or the agent, or origin of a thing. . "Of him are all things." , "One God, the Father, of whom are all things," etc. In this sense I suppose it is used here; and that the apostle means to affirm that he was clearly or decisively shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. But here it will be asked, how did his resurrection show this? Was not Lazarus raised from the dead? And did not many saints rise also after Jesus? And were not the dead raised by the apostles, by Elijah, by the bones of Elisha, and by Christ himself? And did their being raised prove that they were the sons of God? I answer, that the mere fact of the resurrection of the body proves nothing in itself about the character and rank of the being that is raised. But in the circumstances in which Jesus was placed it might show it conclusively. When Lazarus was raised, it was not in attestation of anything which he had taught or done. It was a mere display of the power and benevolence of Christ. But, in regard to the resurrection of Jesus, let the following circumstances be taken into the account. (1.) He came as the Messiah. (2.) He uniformly taught that he was the Son of God. (3.) He maintained that God was his Father in such a sense as to imply equality with him, . (4.) He claimed authority to abolish the laws of the Jews, to change their customs, and to be himself absolved from the observance of those laws, even as his Father was, ; . (5.) When God raised Him up, therefore, it was not an ordinary event. It was a public attestation, in the face of the universe, of the truth of his claims to be the Son of God . God would not sanction the doings and doctrines of an impostor. And when, therefore, he raised up Jesus, he, by this act, showed the truth of his claims, that he was the Son of God. Further; in the view of the apostles, the resurrection was intimately connected with the ascension and exaltation of Jesus. The one made the other certain. And it is not improbable that, when they spoke of his resurrection, they meant to include not merely that single act, but the entire series of doings of which that was the first , and which was the pledge of the elevation and majesty of the Son of God. Hence, when they had proved his resurrection , they assumed that all the others would follow. That involved and supposed all And the series , of which that was the first, proved that he was the Son of God. See : "He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given ASSURANCE, unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead ." The one involves the other. See . Thus Peter, ( ) having proved that Jesus was raised up, adds, , "THEREFORE being by the right hand exalted, he hath shed forth this," etc.; and , "THEREFORE let all the house of Israel KNOW ASSUREDLY, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, Both LORD AND CHRIST." This verse is a remarkable instance of the apostle Paul's manner of writing. Having mentioned a subject, his mind seems to catch fire; he presents it in new forms, and amplifies it, until he seems to forget for a time the subject on which he was writing. It is from this cause that his writings abound so with parentheses, and that there is so much difficulty in following and understanding him. (1) "declared" or "determined" (e) "to be the Son" (f) "to the spirit"

Romans 1:4

Verse 4. And declared. In the margin, determined. τουορισθεντος. The ancient Syriac has, "And he was known to be the Son of God by might and by the Holy Spirit, who rose from the house of the dead." The Latin Vulgate, "Who was predestinated the Son of God," etc. The Arabic, "The Son of God destined by power peculiar to the Holy Spirit," etc. The word translated "declared to be" means, properly, to bound, to fix limits to, as to a field, to determine its proper limits or boundaries, to define, etc. Acts 17:26, "And hath determined the bounds of their habitation." Hence it means, to determine, constitute, ordain, decree; i.e., to fix or designate the proper boundaries of a truth, or a doctrine; to distinguish its lines and marks from error; or to show or declare a thing to be so by any action. Lk 22:22, "The Son of man goeth as it was determined," as it was fixed, purposed, defined, in the purpose of God, and declared in the prophets. Acts 2:23, "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel," the definite, constituted will, or design of God. Acts 4:28, Heb 4:7, "He limiteth a certain day," fixes it, defines it. In this sense it is clearly used in this place. The act of raising him from the dead designated him, or constituted him the Son of God. It was such an act as in the circumstances of the case showed that he was the Son of God in regard to a nature which was not "according to the flesh." The ordinary resurrection of a man, like that of Lazarus, would not show that he was the Son of God; but in the circumstances of Jesus Christ it did; for he had claimed to be so; he had taught it; and God now attested the truth of his teaching by raising him from the dead.

The Son of God. The word son is used in a great variety of senses, denoting literally a son, then a descendant, posterity near or remote, a disciple or ward, an adopted son, or one that imitates or resembles another. Mt 1:1. The expression sons of God, or son of God, is used in an almost equal latitude of signification. It is

(1.) applied to Adam, as being immediately created by God, without an earthly father, Lk 3:38.

(2.) It is applied to saints or Christians, as being adopted into his family, and sustaining to him the relation of children, Jn 1:12,13; 1Jn 3:1,2, etc. This name is given to them because they resemble him in their moral character, Mt 5:45.

(3.) It is given to strong men as resembling God in strength. Gen 6:2, "The sons of God saw the daughters of men," etc. Here these men of violence and strength are called sons of God, just as the high hills are called hills of God, the lofty trees of Lebanon are called cedars of God, etc.

(4.) Kings are sometimes called his sons, as resembling him in dominion and power, Ps 82:6.

(5.) The name is given to angels, because they resemble God; because he is their Creator and Father, etc., Job 1:6, 2:1, Dan 3:25.

But the name THE Son of God is, in the New Testament, given by way of eminence to the Lord Jesus Christ. This was the common and favourite name by which the apostles designated him. The expression Son of God is applied to him no less than twenty-seven times in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and fifteen times in the Epistles and the Revelation. The expression my Son, and his Son, thy Son, etc., is applied to him in his peculiar relation to God, times almost without number. The other most common appellation which is given to him is Son of man. By this name he commonly designated himself. There can be no doubt that that was assumed to denote that he was a man, that he sustained a peculiar relation to man, and that he chose to speak of himself as a man. The first, the most obvious, impression on the use of the name Son of man is, that he was truly a man; and it was used, doubtless, to guard against the impression that one who manifested so many other qualities, and did so many things like a celestial being, was not truly a human being. The phrase Son of God stands in contrast with the title Son of man; and as the natural and obvious import of that is that he was a man, so the natural and obvious import of the title Son of God is that he was Divine; or that he sustained relations to God, designated by the name Son of God, corresponding to the relations which he sustained to man, designated by the name Son of Man. The natural idea of the term Son of God therefore is, that he sustained a relation to God in his nature which implied more than was human or angelic; which implied equality with God. Accordingly, this idea was naturally suggested to the Jews by his calling God his Father: Jn 5:18, "But said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." This idea Jesus immediately proceeded to confirm. Jn 5:19 and Jn 5:20-30. The same idea is also suggested in Jn 10:29,30,31,33,36, "Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, thou blasphemest: because I said I am the Son of God?" There is, in these places, the fullest proof that the title suggested naturally the idea of equality with God; or the idea of his sustaining a relation to God corresponding to the relation of equality to man, suggested by the title Son of man. This view is still further sustained in the first chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews, Heb 1:1,2. God hath spoken unto US BY HIS SON. He is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, Heb 1:3. He is higher than the angels, and they are required to worship him, Heb 1:4,5,6. He is called God, and his throne is for ever and ever, Heb 1:8. He is the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and is IMMUTABLY THE SAME, Heb 1:10-12. Thus the rank, or title, of the Son of God, suggests the ideas and attributes of the Divinity. This idea is sustained throughout the New Testament. See Jn 14:9, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;" Jn 5:23, "That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the father." Col 1:19, "It hath pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" Col 2:9, "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Php 2:2-11, Rev 5:13,14; Rev 21:23. It is not affirmed that this title was given to the Second Person of the Trinity before he became incarnate, or to suggest the idea of any derivation or extraction before he was made flesh. There is no instance in which the appellation is not conferred to express the relation after he assumed human flesh. Of any derivation from God, or emanation from him in eternity, the Scriptures are silent. The title is conferred on him, it is supposed, with reference to his condition in this world as the Messiah. And it is conferred, it is believed, for the following reasons, or to denote the following thing, viz:

(1.) To designate his peculiar relation to God, as equal with him, (Jn 1:14,18, Mt 11:27, Lk 10:22, 3:22, 2Pet 1:17;) or as sustaining a most intimate and close connexion with him, such as neither man nor angels could do--an acquaintance with his nature, (Mt 11:27,) plans, and counsels, such as no being but one who was equal with God could possess. In this sense I regard it as conferred on him in the passage under consideration.

(2.) It designates him as the anointed King, or the Messiah. In this sense it accords with the use of the word in Ps 82:6. See Mt 16:16, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Mt 26:63, "I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God." Mk 14:61; Lk 22:70, Jn 1:34, Acts 9:20, "He preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God."

(3.) It was conferred on him to denote his miraculous conception in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Lk 1:35, "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, THEREFORE (διο) also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."

With power. ενδυναμει. By some, this expression has been supposed to mean in power or authority, after his resurrection from the dead. It is said, that he was before a man of sorrows; now he was clothed with power and authority. But I have seen no instance in which the expression in power denotes office, or authority. It denotes physical energy and might--and this was bestowed on Jesus before his resurrection as well as after. Acts 10:38, "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost, and with power." Rom 15:19, 1Cor 15:43. With such power Jesus will come to judgment, Mt 24:30. If there is any passage in which the word power means authority, office, etc., it is Mt 28:18, "All power in heaven and earth is given unto me." But this is not a power which was given unto him after his resurrection, or which he did not possess before. The same authority to commission his disciples he had exercised before this on the same ground, Mt 10:7,8. I am inclined to believe, therefore, that the expression means powerfully, efficiently; he was with great power, or conclusiveness, shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. Thus the phrase in power is used to qualify a verb in Col 1:29, "Which worketh in me mightily"--Greek, in power i.e., operating in me effectually, or powerfully. The ancient versions seem to have understood it in the same way. Syriac, "He was known to be the Son of God by power, and by the Holy Ghost." AEthiopic, "Whom he declared to be the Son of God by his own power, and by his Holy Spirit," etc. Arabic, "Designated the Son of God by power appropriate to the Holy Spirit."

According to the spirit of holiness. καταπνευμααγιωσυνης. This expression has been variously understood. We may arrive at its meaning by the following considerations.

(1.) It is not the Third Person in the Trinity that is referred to here. The designation of that person is always in a different form. It is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost-- πνευμααγιον, or τοπνευματοαγιον; never the Spirit of holiness.

(2.) It stands in contrast with the flesh, Rom 1:3, "According to the flesh, the seed of David: according to the spirit of holiness, the Son of God." As the former refers doubtless to his human nature, so this must refer to the nature designated by the title Son of God, that is, to his superior or Divine nature.

(3.) The expression is altogether peculiar to the Lord Jesus Christ. Nowhere in the Scriptures, or in any other writings, is there an affirmation like this. What would be meant by it if affirmed of a mere man?

(4.) It cannot mean that the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity, showed that Jesus was the Son of God by raising him from the dead, because that act is nowhere attributed to him. It is uniformly ascribed either to God, as God, (Acts 2:24,32, 3:15,26, 4:10, 5:30, 10:40, 13:30,33,34, 17:31, Rom 10:9; Eph 1:20,) or to the rather, (Rom 6:4,) or to Jesus himself, (Jn 10:18.) In no instance is this act ascribed to the Holy Ghost.

(5.) It indicates a state far more elevated than any human dignity, or honour. In regard to his earthly descent, he was of a royal race; in regard to the Spirit of holiness, much more than that, he was the Son of God.

(6.) The word Spirit is used often to designate God, the holy God, as distinguished from all the material forms of idol worship, Jn 4:24.

(7.) The word Spirit is applied to the Messiah in his more elevated or Divine nature. 1Cor 15:45, "The last Adam was made a quickening Spirit." 2Cor 3:17, "Now the Lord (Jesus) is that Spirit." Heb 9:14, Christ is said to have "offered himself through the eternal Spirit." 1Pet 3:18, he is said to have been "put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." 1Timm 3:16, he is said to have been "justified in the Spirit." In most of these passages there is the same contrast noticed between his flesh, his human nature, and his other state, which occurs in Rom 1:3,4. In all these instances, the design is, doubtless, to speak of him as a man, and as something more than a man; he was one thing as a man; he was another thing in his other nature. In the one, he was of David; was put to death, etc. In the other, he was of God; he was manifested to be such; he was restored to the elevation which he had sustained before his incarnation and death, Jn 17:1-5, Php 2:2-11. The expression, according to the spirit of holiness, does not indeed of itself imply Divinity. It denotes that holy and more exalted nature which he possessed as distinguished from the human. What that is, is to be learned from other declarations. This expression implies simply that it was such as to make proper the appellation, the Son of God. Other places, as we have seen, show that that designation naturally implied Divinity. And that this was the true idea couched under the expression, according to the spirit of holiness, appears from those numerous texts of Scripture which explicitly assert his Divinity. See Jn 1:1, etc., and Jn 1:1.

By the resurrection from the dead. This has been also variously understood. Some have maintained that the word by--εξ--denotes AFTER. He was declared to be the Son of God in power after he rose from the dead; that is, he was solemnly invested with the dignity that became the Son of God after he had been so long in a state of voluntary humiliation. But to this view there are some insuperable objections.

(1.) It is not the natural and usual meaning of the word by.

(2.) It is not the object of the apostle to state the time when the thing was done, or the order, but evidently to declare the fact, and the evidence of the fact. If such had been his design, he would have said, that previous to his death he was shown to be of the seed of David, but afterwards that he was invested with power.

(3.) Though it must be admitted that the preposition by εξ sometimes means AFTER, (Mt 19:20, Lk 8:27, 23:8) yet its proper and usual meaning is to denote the efficient cause, or the agent, or origin of a thing. Mt 1:3,18, 21:25, Jn 3:5, Rom 5:16, Rom 11:36. "Of him are all things." 1Cor 8:6, "One God, the Father, of whom are all things," etc. In this sense I suppose it is used here; and that the apostle means to affirm that he was clearly or decisively shown to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead. But here it will be asked, how did his resurrection show this? Was not Lazarus raised from the dead? And did not many saints rise also after Jesus? And were not the dead raised by the apostles, by Elijah, by the bones of Elisha, and by Christ himself? And did their being raised prove that they were the sons of God? I answer, that the mere fact of the resurrection of the body proves nothing in itself about the character and rank of the being that is raised. But in the circumstances in which Jesus was placed it might show it conclusively. When Lazarus was raised, it was not in attestation of anything which he had taught or done. It was a mere display of the power and benevolence of Christ. But, in regard to the resurrection of Jesus, let the following circumstances be taken into the account.

(1.) He came as the Messiah.

(2.) He uniformly taught that he was the Son of God.

(3.) He maintained that God was his Father in such a sense as to imply equality with him, Jn 5:17-30; 10:36.

(4.) He claimed authority to abolish the laws of the Jews, to change their customs, and to be himself absolved from the observance of those laws, even as his Father was, Jn 5:1-17; Mk 2:28.

(5.) When God raised Him up, therefore, it was not an ordinary event. It was a public attestation, in the face of the universe, of the truth of his claims to be the Son of God. God would not sanction the doings and doctrines of an impostor. And when, therefore, he raised up Jesus, he, by this act, showed the truth of his claims, that he was the Son of God. Further; in the view of the apostles, the resurrection was intimately connected with the ascension and exaltation of Jesus. The one made the other certain. And it is not improbable that, when they spoke of his resurrection, they meant to include not merely that single act, but the entire series of doings of which that was the first, and which was the pledge of the elevation and majesty of the Son of God. Hence, when they had proved his resurrection, they assumed that all the others would follow. That involved and supposed all And the series, of which that was the first, proved that he was the Son of God. See Acts 17:31: "He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained, whereof he hath given ASSURANCE, unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." The one involves the other. See Acts 1:6. Thus Peter, (Acts 2:22-32) having proved that Jesus was raised up, adds, Acts 2:33, "THEREFORE being by the right hand exalted, he hath shed forth this," etc.; and Acts 2:36, "THEREFORE let all the house of Israel KNOW ASSUREDLY, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, Both LORD AND CHRIST."

This verse is a remarkable instance of the apostle Paul's manner of writing. Having mentioned a subject, his mind seems to catch fire; he presents it in new forms, and amplifies it, until he seems to forget for a time the subject on which he was writing. It is from this cause that his writings abound so with parentheses, and that there is so much difficulty in following and understanding him.

(1) "declared" or "determined" (e) "to be the Son" Acts 13:33,34, Rev 1:18 (f) "to the spirit" Heb 9:14

1 Timothy 3:16

Verse 16. And, without controversy. Undeniably, certainly. The object of the apostle is to say that the truth which he was about to state admitted of no dispute.

Great is the mystery. On the meaning of the word mystery, 1Cor 2:7. The word means that which had been hidden or concealed. The meaning here is not that the proposition which he affirms was mysterious, in the sense that it was unintelligible, or impossible to be understood; but that the doctrine respecting the incarnation and the work of the Messiah, which had been so long kept hidden from the world, was a subject of the deepest importance. This passage, therefore, should not be used to prove that there is anything unintelligible, or anything that surpasses human comprehension, in that doctrine, whatever may be the truth on that point; but that the doctrine which he now proceeds to state, and which had been so long concealed from mankind, was of the utmost consequence.

Of godliness. The word godliness means, properly, piety, reverence or religiousness. It is used here, however, for the gospel scheme, to wit, that which the apostle proceeds to state. This "mystery" which had "been hidden from ages and from generations, and which was now manifest," Col 1:26, was the great doctrine on which depended religion everywhere, or was that which constituted the Christian scheme.

God. Probably there is no passage in the New Testament which has excited so much discussion among critics as this, and none in reference to which it is so difficult to determine the true reading. It is the only one, it is believed, in which the microscope has been employed to determine the lines of the letters used in a manuscript; and, after all that has been done to ascertain the exact truth in regard to it, still the question remains undecided. It is not the object of these Notes to enter into the examination of questions of this nature. A full investigation may be found in Wetstein. The question which has excited so much controversy is, whether the original Greek was θεος, God, or whether it was ος, who, or ο, which. The controversy has turned, to a considerable degree, on the reading in the Codex Alexandrinus; and a remark or two on the method in which the manuscripts of the New Testament were written, will show the true nature of the controversy. Greek manuscripts were formerly written entirely in capital letters, and without breaks or intervals between the words, and without accents. See a full description of the methods of writing the New Testament, in an article by Prof. Stuart in Dr. Robinson's Bibliotheca Sacra, No. 2, pp. 254, seq. The small, cursive Greek letters which are now used, were not commonly employed in transcribing the New Testament, if at all, until the ninth or tenth centuries. It was a common thing to abridge or contract words in the manuscript. Thus, πρ would be used for, πατηρ, father; κς for κυριος, Lord; θς for θεος, God, etc. The words thus contracted were designated by a faint line or dash over them. In this place, therefore, if the original were θΧ, standing for θεος, God, and the line in the θ and the faint line over it, were obliterated from any cause, it would be easily mistaken for ος, who. To ascertain which of these is the true reading, has been the great question; and it is with reference to this that the microscope has been resorted to in the examination of the Alexandrian manuscript. It is now generally admitted that the faint line over the word has been added by some later hand, though not improbably by one who found that the line was nearly obliterated, and who meant merely to restore it. Whether the letter O was originally written with a line within it, making the reading, God, it is now said to be impossible to determine, in consequence of the manuscript at this place having become so much worn by frequent examination. The Vulgate and the Syriac read it, who, or which. The Vulgate is, "Great is the sacrament of piety which was manifested in the flesh." The Syriac, "Great is the mystery of godliness, that he was manifested in the flesh." The probability in regard to the correct reading here, as it seems to me, is, that the word, as originally written, was θεος --God. At the same time, however, the evidence is not so clear that it can be properly used in an argument. But the passage is not necessary to prove the doctrine which is affirmed, on the supposition that that is the correct reading. The same truth is abundantly taught elsewhere. Comp. Mt 1:23, Jn 1:14.

Was manifest. Marg., Manifested. The meaning is, appeared in the flesh.

In the flesh. In human nature. See this explained Rom 1:3. The expression here looks as though the true reading of the much disputed word was God. It could not have been, it would seem evident, ο, which, referring to "mystery," for how could a 'mystery'" be manifested in the flesh? Nor could it be ος, who, unless that should refer to one who was more than a man; for how absurd would it be to say that a "a man was manifested, or appeared in the flesh!" How else could a man appear? The phrase here means that God appeared in human form, or with human nature; and this is declared to be the "great" truth so long concealed from human view, but now revealed as constituting the fundamental doctrine of the gospel. The expressions which follow in this verse refer to God as thus manifested in the flesh; to the Saviour as he appeared on earth, regarded as a divine and human Being. It was the fact that he thus appeared and sustained this character, which made the things which are immediately specified so remarkable, and so worthy of attention.

Justified in the Spirit. That is, the incarnate Person above referred to; the Redeemer, regarded as God and man. The word Spirit here, it is evident, refers to the Holy Spirit; for

(1.) it is not possible to attach any intelligible idea to the phrase, "he was justified by his own spirit, or soul,"

(2.) as the Holy Spirit performed so important a part in the work of Christ, it is natural to suppose there would be some allusion here to him; and

(3.) as the "angels" are mentioned here as having been with him, and as the Holy Spirit is often mentioned in connection with him, it is natural to suppose that there would be some allusion to Him here. The word justified, here, is not used in the sense in which it is when applied to Christians, but in its more common signification. It means to indicate, and the sense is, that he was shown to be the Son of God by the agency of the Holy Ghost; he was thus vindicated from the charges alleged against him. The Holy Spirit furnished the evidence that he was the Son of God, or justified his claims. Thus he descended on him at his baptism, Mt 3:16; he was sent To convince the world of sin, because it did not believe on him, Jn 16:8,9; the Saviour cast out devils by him, Mt 12:28; the Spirit was given to him without measure, Jn 3:34; and the Spirit was sent down, in accordance with his promise, to convert the hearts of men, Acts 2:33. All the manifestations of God to him; all the power of working miracles by his agency; all the influences imparted to the man Christ Jesus, endowing him with such a wisdom as man never had before, may be regarded as an attestation of the Holy Ghost to the divine mission of the Lord Jesus, and of course as a vindication from all the charges against him. In like manner, the descent of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, and his agency in the conversion of every sinner, prove the same thing, and furnish the grand argument in vindication of the Redeemer that he was sent from God. To this the apostle refers as a part of the glorious truth of the Christian scheme now revealed--the "mystery of religion;" as a portion of the amazing records, the memory of which the church was to preserve as connected with the redemption of the world.

Seen of angels. They were attendants on his ministry, and came to him in times of distress, peril, and want. Comp. Lk 2:9-13, 22:43; Lk 24:4, Heb 1:6, Mt 4:11. They felt an interest in him and his work, and they gladly came to him in his sorrows and troubles. The design of the apostle is to give an impressive view of the grandeur and glory of that work which attracted the attention of the heavenly hosts, and which drew them from the skies that they might proclaim his advent, sustain him in his temptations, witness his crucifixion, and watch over him in the tomb. The work of Christ, though despised by men, excited the deepest interest in heaven. Comp. 1Pet 1:12.

Preached unto the Gentiles. This is placed by the apostle among the "great" things which constituted the "mystery" of religion. The meaning is, that it was a glorious truth that salvation might be, and should be, proclaimed to all mankind, and that this was a part of the important truths made known in the gospel. Elsewhere this is called, by way of eminence, "the mystery of the gospel;" that is, the grand truth, which had not been known until the coming of the Saviour. Eph 6:19; Col 1:26, Col 1:27; Col 4:3. Before his coming, a wall of partition had divided the Jewish and Gentile world. The Jews regarded the rest of mankind as excluded from the covenant mercies of God, and it was one of the principal stumbling-blocks in their way, in regard to the gospel, that it proclaimed that all the race was on a level, that that middle wall of partition was broken down, and that salvation might now be published to all men. Comp. Acts 22:21, Eph 2:14,15, Rom 3:22, 10:11-20. The Jew had no peculiar advantage for salvation by being a Jew; the Gentile was not excluded from the hope of salvation. The plan of redemption was adapted to man as such--without regard to his complexion, country, customs, or laws. The blood of Christ was shed for all, and wherever a human being could be found salvation might be freely offered him. This is a glorious truth; and, taken in all its bearings, and in reference to the views which then prevailed, and which have always more or less prevailed, about the distinctions made among men by caste and rank, there is scarcely any more glorious truth connected with the Christian revelation, or one which will exert a wider influence in promoting the welfare of man. It is a great privilege to be permitted to proclaim that all men in one respect--and that the most important--are on a level; that they are all equally the objects of the Divine compassion; that Christ died for one as really as for another; that birth, wealth, elevated rank, or beauty of complexion, contribute nothing to the salvation of one man; and that poverty, a darker skin, slavery, or a meaner rank, do nothing to exclude another from the favour of his Maker:

Believed on in the world. This also is mentioned among the "great" things which constitute the mystery of revealed religion. But why is this regarded as so remarkable as to be mentioned thus? In point of importance, how can it be mentioned in connection with the fact that God was manifest in the flesh; that he was vindicated by the Holy Ghost; that he was an object of intense interest to angelic hosts; and that his coming had broken down the walls which had separated the world, and placed them now on a level? I answer, perhaps the following circumstances may have induced the apostle to place this among the remarkable things evincing the greatness of this truth:

(1.) The strong improbability arising from the greatness of the "mystery," that the doctrines respecting the incarnate Deity would be believed. Such is the incomprehensible nature of many of the truths connected with the incarnation; so strange does it seem that God would become incarnate; so amazing that he should appear in human flesh and blood, and that the incarnate Son of God should die, that it might be regarded as a wonderful thing that such a doctrine had in fact obtained credence in the world. But it was a glorious truth that all the natural improbabilities in the case had been overcome, and that men had accredited the announcement.

(2.) The strong improbability that his message would be believed, arising from the wickedness of the human heart. Man, in all his history, had shown a strong reluctance to believe any message from God, or any truth whatever revealed by him. The Jews had rejected his prophets, and put them to death, Mt 23, Acts 7, and had at last put his own Son--their Messiah--to death. Man everywhere had shown his strong inclination to unbelief. There is in the human soul no elementary principle or germ of faith in God. Every man is an unbeliever by nature--an infidel first, a Christian afterwards; an infidel as he comes into the world; a believer only as he is made so by grace. The apostle, therefore, regarded it as a glorious fact that the message respecting the Saviour had been believed in the world. It overcame such a strong and universal reluctance to confide in God, that it showed that there was more than human power in operation to overcome this reluctance.

(3.) The extent to which this had been done may have been a reason why he thought it worthy of the place which he gives it here. It had been embraced, not by a few, but by thousands in all lands where the gospel had been published; and it was proof of the truth of the doctrine, and of the great power of God, that such high mysteries as those relating to redemption, and so much opposed to the natural feelings of the human heart, should have been embraced by so many. The same thing occurs now. The gospel makes its way against the native incredulity of the world, and every new convert is an additional demonstration that it is from God, and a new illustration of the greatness of this mystery.

Received up into glory. To heaven. Comp. Jn 17:5. Acts 1:9. This is mentioned as among the "great," or remarkable things pertaining to "godliness," or the Christian revelation, because it was an event which had not elsewhere occurred, and was the crowning grandeur of the work of Christ. It was an event that was fitted to excite the deepest interest in heaven itself. No event of more importance has ever occurred in the universe, of which we have any knowledge, than the re-ascension of the triumphant Son of God to glory, after having accomplished the redemption of a world.

In view of the instructions of this chapter, we may make the following remarks:--

1. The word bishop in the New Testament never means what is now commonly understood by it--a Prelate. It does not denote here, or anywhere else in the New Testament, one who has charge over a diocese composed of a certain district of country, embracing a number of churches with their clergy.

2. There are not "three orders" of clergy in the New Testament. The apostle Paul, in this chapter, expressly designates the characteristics of those who should have charge of the church, but mentions only two--"bishops" and "deacons." The former are ministers of the word, having charge of the spiritual interests of the church; the other are deacons, of whom there is no evidence that they were appointed to preach.--There is no "third" order. There is no allusion to any one who was to be "superior" to the "bishops" and "deacons." As the apostle Paul was expressly giving instructions in regard to the organization of the church, such an omission is unaccountable if he supposed there was to be an order of "prelates" in the church. Why is there no allusion to them? Why is there no mention of their qualifications? If Timothy was himself a prelate, was he to have nothing to do in transmitting the office to others? Were there no peculiar qualifications required in such an order of men which it would be proper to mention? Would it not be respectful, at least, in Paul to have made some allusion to such an office, if Timothy himself held it?

3. There is only one order of preachers in the church. The qualifications of that order are specified with great minuteness and particularity, as well as beauty, 1Timm 3:2-7. No man really needs to know more of the qualifications for this office than could be learned from a prayerful study of this passage.

4. A man who enters the ministry ought to have high qualifications, 1Timm 3:2-7. No man ought, under any pretence, to be put into the ministry who has not the qualifications here specified. Nothing is gained in any department of human labour, by appointing incompetent persons to fill it. A farmer gains nothing by employing a man on his farm who has no proper qualifications for his business; a carpenter, a shoemaker, or a blacksmith, gains nothing by employing a man who knows nothing about his trade; and a neighbourhood gains nothing by employing a man as a teacher of a school who has no qualifications to teach, or who has a bad character. Such a man would do more mischief on a farm, or in a workshop, or in a school, than all the good which he could do would compensate. And so it is in the ministry. The true object is not to increase the number of ministers, it is to increase the number of those who are qualified for their work, and if a man has not the qualifications laid down by the inspired apostle, he had better seek some other calling.

5. The church is the guardian of the truth, 1Timm 3:15. It is appointed to preserve it pure, and to transmit it to future ages. The world is dependent on it for any just views of truth. The church has the power, and is intrusted with the duty, of preserving on earth a just knowledge of God and of eternal things; of the way of salvation; of the requirements of pure morality:--to keep up the knowledge of that truth which tends to elevate society and to save man. It is intrusted with the Bible, to preserve uncorrupted, and to transmit to distant ages and lands. It is bound to maintain and assert the truth in its creeds and confessions of faith. And it is to preserve the truth by the holy lives of its members, and to show in their walk what is the appropriate influence of truth on the soul. Whatever religious truth there is now on the earth, has been thus preserved and transmitted, and it still devolves on the church to bear the truth of God on to future times and to diffuse it abroad to distant lands.

6. The closing verse of this chapter 1Timm 3:16 gives us a most elevated view of the plan of salvation, and of its grandeur and glory. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to condense more interesting and sublime thought into so narrow a compass as this. The great mystery of the incarnation; the interest of angelic beings in the events of redemption; the effect of the gospel on the heathen world; the tendency of the Christian religion to break down every barrier among men, and to place all the race on a level; its power in overcoming the unbelief of mankind; and the re-ascension of the Son of God to heaven, present a series of most wonderful facts to our contemplation. These things are found in no other system of religion, and these are worthy of the profound attention of every human being. The manifestation of God in the flesh! What a thought! It was worthy of the deepest interest among the angels, and it claims the attention of men, for it was for men and not for angels that he thus appeared in human form. Comp. 1Pet 1:12.

7. How strange it is that man feels no more interest in these things! God was manifest in the flesh for his salvation, but he does not regard it. Angels looked upon it with wonder; but man, for whom he came, feels little interest in his advent or his work? The Christian religion has broken down the barrier among nations, and has proclaimed that all men may be saved; yet the mass of men look on this with entire unconcern. The Redeemer ascended to heaven, having finished his great work; but how little interest do the mass of mankind feel in this! He will come again to judge the world; but the race moves on, regardless of this truth; unalarmed at the prospect of meeting him; feeling no interest in the assurance that he has come and died for sinners, and no apprehension in view of the fact that he will come again, and that they must stand at his bar. All heaven was moved with his first advent, and will be with his second; but the earth regards it with unconcern. Angelic beings look upon this with the deepest anxiety, though they have no personal interest in it: man, though all his great interests are concentrated on it, regards it as a fable, disbelieves it all, and treats it with contempt and scorn. Such is the difference between heaven and earth--angels and men!

(a) "mystery of godliness" 1Cor 2:7 (1) "manifest" "manifested" (b) "flesh" Jn 1:14, 1Jn 1:2 (c) "Spirit" Mt 3:16, Jn 16:8,9, Rom 1:4, 1Pet 3:18, 1Jn 5:6 (d) "seen of angels" Mt 4:11, Lk 2:13, Eph 3:10, 1Pet 1:12 (e) "believed" Acts 13:46,48, Rom 10:12,18 (f) "world" Col 1:6 (g) "into glory" Lk 24:51, Acts 1:9

1 Peter 3:18

Verse 18. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins. Comp. 1Pet 2:21. The design of the apostle in this reference to the sufferings of Christ, is evidently to remind them that he suffered as an innocent being, and not for any wrong-doing, and to encourage and comfort them in their sufferings by his example. The reference to his sufferings leads him (1Pet 2:18-22) into a statement of the various ways in which Christ suffered, and of his ultimate triumph. By his example in his sufferings, and by his final triumph, the apostle would encourage those whom he addressed to bear with patience the sorrows to which their religion exposed them. He assumes that all suffering for adhering to the gospel is the result of well-doing; and for an encouragement in their trials, he refers them to the example of Christ, the highest instance that ever was, or ever will be, both of well-doing, and of suffering on account of it. The expression, "hath once suffered," in the New Testament, means once for all; once, in the sense that it is not to occur again. Comp. Heb 7:27. The particular point here, however, is not that he once suffered; it is that he had in fact suffered, and that in doing it he had left an example for them to follow.

The just for the unjust. The one who was just, (δικαιος) on account of, or in the place of, those who were unjust, (υπεραδικων;) or one who was righteous, on account of those who were wicked. Comp. Rom 5:6; 2Cor 5:21; Heb 9:28. The idea on which the apostle would particularly fix their attention was, that he was just or innocent. Thus he was an example to those who suffered for well-doing.

That he might bring us to God. That his death might be the means of reconciling sinners to God. Comp. Jn 3:14; Jn 12:32. It is through that death that mercy is proclaimed to the guilty; it is by that alone that God can be reconciled to men; and the fact that the Son of God loved men, and gave himself a sacrifice for them, enduring such bitter sorrows, is the most powerful appeal which can be made to mankind to induce them to return to God. There is no appeal which can be made to us more powerful than one drawn from the fact that another suffers on our account. We could resist the argument which a father, a mother, or a sister would use to reclaim us from a course of sin; but if we perceive that our conduct involves them in suffering, that fact has a power over us which no mere argument could have.

Being put to death in the flesh. As a man; in his human nature. Comp. Rom 1:3,4. There is evidently a contrast here between "the flesh" in which it is said he was "put to death," and "the spirit" by which it is said he was "quickened." The words "in the flesh" are clearly designed to denote something that was peculiar in his death; for it is a departure from the usual method of speaking of death. How singular would it be to say of Isaiah, Paul, or Peter, that they were put to death in the flesh! How obvious would it be to ask, In what other way are men usually put to death? What was there peculiar in their case, which would distinguish their death from the death of others? The use of this phrase would suggest the thought at once, that though, in regard to that which was properly expressed by the phrase, "the flesh," they died, yet that there was something else in respect to which they did not die. Thus, if it were said of a man that he was deprived of his rights as a father, it would be implied that in other respects he was not deprived of his rights; and this would be especially true if it were added that he continued to enjoy his rights as a neighbour, or as holding an office under the government. The only proper inquiry, then, in this place is, What is fairly implied in the phrase, the flesh? Does it mean simply his body, as distinguished from his human soul? or does it refer to him as a man, as distinguished from some higher nature, over which death had no power? Now, that the latter is the meaning seems to me to be apparent, for these reasons:

(1.) It is the usual way of denoting the human nature of the Lord Jesus, or of saying that he became incarnate, or was a man, to speak of his being in the flesh. See Rom 1:2: "Made of the seed of David according to the flesh." Jn 1:14: "And the Word was made flesh." 1Timm 3:16: "God was manifest in the flesh." 1Jn 4:2: "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God." 2Jn 1:7: "Who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh."

(2.) So far as appears, the effect of death on the human soul of the Redeemer was the same as in the case of the soul of any other person; in other words, the effect of death in his case was not confined to the mere body or the flesh. Death, with him, was what death is in any other case--the separation of the soul and body, with all the attendant pain of such dissolution. It is not true that his "flesh," as such, died without the ordinary accompaniments of death on the soul, so that it could be said that the one died, and the other was kept alive. The purposes of the atonement required that he should meet death in the usual form; that the great laws which operate everywhere else in regard to dissolution, should exist in his case; nor is there in the Scriptures any intimation that there was, in this respect, anything peculiar in his case. If his soul had been exempt from whatever there is involved in death in relation to the spirit, it is unaccountable that there is no hint on this point in the sacred narrative. But if this be so, then the expression "in the flesh" refers to him as a man, and means, that so far as his human nature was concerned, he died. In another important respect, he did not die. On the meaning of the word flesh in the New Testament, see Rom 1:3.

But quickened. Made alive-- ζωοποιηθεις. This does not mean kept alive, but made alive; recalled to life; reanimated. The word is never used in the sense of maintained alive, or preserved alive. Compare the following places, which are the only ones in which it occurs in the New Testament: Jn 5:21, twice; Jn 6:63; Rom 4:17, 8:11, 1Cor 15:36,45, 1Timm 6:13, 1Pet 3:18; in all which it is rendered quickened, quicken, quickeneth, 1Cor 15:22, be made alive; 2Cor 3:6, giveth life; and Gal 2:21, have given life. "Once the word refers to God, as he who giveth life to all creatures, 1Timm 6:13; three times it refers to the life-giving power of the Holy Ghost, or of the doctrines of the gospel, Jn 6:63, 2Cor 3:6, Gal 3:21; seven times it is used with direct reference to the raising of the dead, Jn 5:21, Rom 4:17, 8:11; 1Cor 15:22,36,45, 1Pet 3:18". See Biblical Repos., April, 1845, p. 269. See also Passow, and Robinson; Lex. The sense, then, cannot be that, in reference to his soul or spirit, he was preserved alive when his body died, but that there was some agency or power restoring him to life, or reanimating him after he was dead.

By the Spirit. According to the common reading in the Greek, this is τωπνευματι -- with the article the--"the Spirit." Hahn, Tittman, and Griesbach omit the article, and then the reading is, "quickened in spirit;" and thus the reading corresponds with the former expression, "in flesh" (σαρκι,) where the article also is wanting. The word spirit, so far as the mere use of the word is concerned, might refer to his own soul, to his Divine nature, or to the Holy Spirit. It is evident

(1.) that it does not refer to his own soul, for,

(a.) as we have seen, the reference in the former clause is to his human nature, including all that pertained to him as a man, body and soul;

(b.) there was no power in his own spirit, regarded as that appertaining to his human nature, to raise him up from the dead, any more than there is such a power in any other human soul. That power does not belong to a human soul in any of its relations or conditions.

(2.) It seems equally clear that this does not refer to the Holy Spirit, or the Third Person of the Trinity, for it may be doubted whether the work of raising the dead is anywhere ascribed to that Spirit. His peculiar province is to enlighten, awaken, convict, convert, and sanctify the soul; to apply the work of redemption to the hearts of men, and to lead them to God. This influence is moral, not physical; an influence accompanying the truth, not the exertion of mere physical power.

(3.) It remains, then, that the reference is to his own Divine nature--a nature by which he was restored to life after he was crucified; to the Son of God, regarded as the Second Person of the Trinity. This appears, not only from the facts above stated, but also

(a.) from the connexion. It is stated that it was in or by this spirit that he went and preached in the days of Noah. But it was not his spirit as a man that did this, for his human soul had then no existence. Yet it seems that he did this personally or directly, and not by the influences of the Holy Spirit, for it is said that "he went and preached." The reference, therefore, cannot be to the Holy Ghost, and the fair conclusion is that it refers to his Divine nature.

(b.) This accords with what the apostle Paul says, (Rom 1:3,4,) "which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,"--that is, in respect to his human nature,--"and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness,"--that is, in respect to his Divine nature,--" by the resurrection from the dead." See Notes on that passage.

(c.) It accords with what the Saviour himself says, Jn 10:17,18: "I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." This must refer to his Divine nature, for it is impossible to conceive that a human soul should have the power of restoring its former tenement, the body, to life. See Notes on the passage. The conclusion, then, to which we have come is, that the passage means, that as a man, a human being, he was put to death; in respect to a higher nature, or by a higher nature, here denominated Spirit, (πνευμα,) he was restored to life. As a man, he died; as the incarnate Son of God, the Messiah, he was made alive again by the power of his own Divine Spirit, and exalted to heaven. Comp. Robinson's Lex. on the word πνευμα.

(a) "Christ also" 1Pet 2:21 (b) "just for unjust" 2Cor 5:21 (a) "death" Rom 4:25