Romans 1:3 - Collection of Biblical Commentaries

Romans 1:3
1 wanderean ©2024
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of
the seed of David according to the flesh;
Romans 1:3
Concerning His son
Connect with promised afore. Christ is the great personal object
to which the promise referred.
Romans 1:3
Who was of the seed of David according to the flesh - That is,
with regard to his human nature. Both the natures of our
Saviour are here mentioned; but the human is mentioned first,
because the divine was not manifested in its full evidence till
after his resurrection.
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son (peri tou huiou autou). Just as Jesus
found himself in the O.T. (Luk 24:27, Luk 24:46). The deity of
Christ here stated.
According to the flesh (kata sarka). His real humanity
alongside of his real deity. For the descent from David see Mat
1:1, Mat 1:6, Mat 1:20; Luk 1:27; Joh 7:42; Act 13:23, etc.
Romans 1:3
seed
See note on the Davidic descent of Christ, (See Scofield on Luk
3:23).
Romans 1:3
To the flesh.—ζάπξ denotes a living being in distinction from
the dead, which is κπέαρ. It denotes also body as distinguished
from mind (Stuart). Our Lord.—Supreme Ruler of the Church.
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord — the grand

Romans 1:3
2 wanderean ©2024
burden of this ―Gospel of God.‖
made of the seed of David — as, according to ―the holy
scriptures,‖ He behooved to be. (See on Mat 1:1).
according to the flesh — that is, in His human nature
(compare Rom 9:5; Joh 1:14); implying, of course, that He had
another nature, of which the apostle immediately proceeds to
speak.
Concerning his Son. The Son of God is the very center of the
gospel, and the promises are all concerning him.
Romans 1:3
Born of the seed of David. The two natures combined in the
Son, according to the flesh, are pointed out in this and the
next verse. As to his human body, he was a descendant of
David, his mother being of David's lineage.b. Concerning His
Son Jesus Christ our Lord: This is the center of Paul’s gospel,
the ―sun‖ that everything else orbits around. The center of
Christianity is not a teaching or a moral system, it is a Person:
Jesus Christ.
i. This Jesus has both a human origin (born of the seed
of David according to the flesh), and an eternal
existence (declared to be the Son of God). The
evidence of Jesus’ humanity is His human birth; the
evidence of His deity is His resurrection from the dead.
ii. The resurrection of Jesus shows His divine power
because He rose by His own power: Destroy this temple
and in three days I will raise it up again (
Joh 2:19).
iii. ―There is a sense in which Jesus was the Son of God in
weakness before the resurrection but the Son of God in
power thereafter.‖ (Morris)

Romans 1:3
3 wanderean ©2024
Romans 1:3
Who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the
flesh. The sense is, that God promised, that he who was his true
and only Son from eternity, should also become his son, as
man; that the same son should be man, as well as God, when
the word was made flesh, or when that divine person should be
united to our human nature. Thus the same person, who was
his only begotten Son from eternity, being made man, and of
the seed of David, by his incarnation, was still his Son, both as
God, and also as man. (Witham) --- The Greek text has not the
particle ei, (to him) but only Greek: tou genomenou ek
spermatos David. But St. Irenæus, (lib. iii. chap. 18.) St.
Ambrose, St. Jerome read, Qui factus est ei. And also St.
Augustine in his unfinished exposition of the epistle to the
Romans; though before in his book against Faustus, (lib. xi.
chap. 14.) he reads it otherwise. (Calmet)
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son - That is, the Gospel relates every thing
concerning the conception, birth, preaching, miracles, passion,
death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, who was of
the seed-royal, being, as far as his humanity was considered,
the son of David, and then the only rightful heir to the
Israelitish throne.
Romans 1:3
(3) Concerning his (d) Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was (e)
made of the seed of David (f) according to the flesh;
(3) By declaring the sum of the doctrine of the Gospel, he stirs
up the Romans to consider well the matter about which he is
entreating them: so then he shows that Christ (who is the very
substance and sum of the gospel) is the only Son of God the
Father, who with regard to his humanity is born of the seed of
David, but with regard to his divine and spiritual nature, by
which he sanctified himself, is begotten of the Father from

Romans 1:3
4 wanderean ©2024
everlasting, as also manifestly appears by his mighty
resurrection.
(d) This is a plain testimony of the person of Christ, that he is
but one, and also a testimony of his two natures, and their
properties.
(e) Who received flesh from the virgin who was David's
daughter.
(f) As he is man: for this word "flesh", by the figure of speech
synecdoche, is taken for man.
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord,.... These words
are in connection with "the Gospel of God", Rom 1:1, and
express the subject matter of it, the Son of God, Jesus Christ
our Lord; for Christ, as the Son of God, the Saviour of sinners,
the only Mediator between God and men, who is Lord both of
the dead and living, is the sum and substance of the Gospel: he
is here described by his relation to God, his Son, of the same
nature with him, equal to him, and distinct from him; by his
usual names, "Jesus Christ", the one signifying a "Saviour", the
other "anointed", and both, that he was anointed of God to be
the Saviour of his people; and by his dominion over the saints
our Lord, not merely by creation, but by redemption and grace,
and happy is the person that can claim interest in him, as is
here done; and by the distinction of natures in him:
which was made of the seed of David according to the
flesh; this respects Christ in his human nature, who was made
flesh, and of a woman; and shows his existence before his
incarnation, and the immediate power and hand of God in it;
and which was done, not by transmutation of him into flesh, but
by an assumption of human nature into union with his divine
person: he is said to be made "of the seed of David"; this points
out the family from whence he sprung; designs the posterity of

Romans 1:3
5 wanderean ©2024
David, particularly Mary; has regard to the promise made to
David, which God fulfilled; and shows the royal descent of
Christ: it is added, "according to the flesh"; that is, according to
his human nature; which phrase does not denote the corruption,
but the truth of that nature; and supposes that he had another
nature, otherwise there would have been no need of this limiting
and restrictive clause.
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son - This is connected with the first verse,
with the word ―gospel.‖ The gospel of God concerning his Son.
The design of the gospel was to make a communication relative
to his Son Jesus Christ. This is the whole of it. There is no ―good
news‖ to man respecting salvation except what comes by Jesus
Christ.
Which was made - The word translated ―was made‖ means
usually ―to be,‖ or ―to become.‖ It is used, however, in the
sense of being born. Thus, Gal 4:4, ―God sent forth his Son
made of a woman,‖ born of a woman. Joh 8:58, ―before
Abraham was (born), I am.‖ In this sense it seems to be used
here, who was born, or descended from the seed of David.
Of the seed of David - Of the posterity or lineage of David. He
was a descendant of David. David was perhaps the most
illustrious of the kings of Israel. The promise to him was that
there should not fail a man to sit on this throne; 1Ki 2:4; 1Ki
8:25; 1Ki 9:5; 2Ch 6:16. This ancient promise was understood
as referring to the Messiah, and hence, in the New Testament
he is called the descendant of David, and so much pains is taken
to show that he was of his line; Luk 1:27; Mat 9:27; Mat 15:22;
Mat 12:23; Mat 21:9, Mat 21:15; Mat 22:42, Mat 22:45; Joh
7:42; 2Ti 2:8. As the Jews universally believed that the Messiah
would be descended from David Joh 7:42, it was of great
importance for the sacred writers to make it out clearly that
Jesus of Nazareth was of that line and family. Hence, it
happened, that though our Saviour was humble, and poor, and

Romans 1:3
6 wanderean ©2024
obscure, yet he had that on which no small part of the world
have been accustomed so much to pride themselves, an
illustrious ancestry. To a Jew there could be scarcely any honor
so high as to be descended from the best of their kings; and it
shows how little the Lord Jesus esteemed the honors of this
world, that he could always evince his deep humility in
circumstances where people are usually proud; and that when
he spoke of the honors of this world, and told how little they
were worth, he was not denouncing what was not within his
reach.
According to the flesh - The word ―flesh,‖ ζάπξ sarx, is used
in the Scriptures in a great variety of significations.
(1) It denotes, as with us, the flesh literally of any living being;
Luk 24:39, ―A spirit hath not flesh and bones,‖ etc.
(2) The animal system, the body, including flesh and bones, the
visible part of man, in distinction from the invisible, or the soul;
Act 2:31, ―Neither did his flesh (his body) ―see corruption.‖ 1Co
5:5; 1Co 15:39.
(3) The man, the whole animated system, body and soul; Rom
8:3, ―In the likeness of sinful flesh. 1Co 15:50; Mat 16:17; Luk
3:6.
(4) Human nature. As a man. Thus, Act 2:30, ―God hath sworn
with an oath that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh,
that is, in his human nature, he would raise up Christ to sit on
his throne.‖ Rom 9:5, ―whose are the fathers, and of whom, as
concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed
forever.‖ The same is its meaning here. He was a descendant of
David in his human nature, or as a man. This implies, of course,
that he had another nature besides his human, or that while he
was a man he was also something else; that there was a nature
in which he was not descended from David.

Romans 1:3
7 wanderean ©2024
That this is its meaning will still further appear by the following
observations.
(1) The apostle expressly makes a contrast between his
condition according to the flesh, and that according to the spirit
of holiness.
(2) The expression ―according to the flesh‖ is applied to no other
one in the New Testament but to Jesus Christ. Though the word
―flesh‖ often occurs, and is often used to denote man, yet the
special expression, ―according to the flesh‖ occurs in no other
connection.
In all the Scriptures it is never said of any prophet or apostle,
any lawgiver or king, or any man in any capacity, that he came
in the flesh, or that he was descended from certain ancestors
according to the flesh. Nor is such an expression ever used any
where else. If it were applied to a mere man, we should
instantly ask in what other way could he come than in the flesh?
Has he a higher nature? Is he an angel, or a seraph? The
expression would be unmeaningful. And when, therefore, it is
applied to Jesus Christ, it implies, if language has any meaning,
that there was a sense in which Jesus was not descended from
David. What that was, appears in the next verse.
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son Jesus Christ — The gospel is good news
from God, concerning the coming of his Son to save the world.
The Son of God, therefore, is the subject of the gospel, as well
as its author: who was made — Gr. ηος γενομενος, who was,
or, who was born, as the word also properly signifies; of the
seed of David according to the flesh — That is, with regard to
his human nature. Both the natures of our Lord are here
mentioned; but the human is mentioned first, because the
divine was not manifested in its full evidence till after his
resurrection.

Romans 1:3
8 wanderean ©2024
Romans 1:3
Concerning. Greek. peri. App-104.
Son. Greek. huios. App-108.
Jesus ... Lord. In the Greek these words follow after "dead" in
Rom 1:4. Figure of speech Hyperbaton. App-6.
Lord. App-98.
Which was made. Who was born (Gal 1:4, Gal 1:4, Revised
Version.)
seed: i.e. of David’s line, but ending specifically in Mary, who
was here the "seed" of David. App-99. And Christ was "the
Seed" of the woman (Gen 3:15. Isa 7:14. Mat 1:23).
David. Compare Joh 7:42. 2Ti 2:8.
according to. Greek. kata. App-104.
Flesh. human nature. Greek. sarx. See Rom 9:3, Rom 9:5.
Romans 1:3
In the statement it is about his Son, it refers back to the Good
News, not to the Holy Scriptures as a whole (see JB ―this news
is about the Son of God‖).
In a number of languages is about must be rendered as ―tells
about,‖ ―speaks about,‖ or even ―describes.‖
The phrase our Lord Jesus Christ is introduced from verse 4 in
order to show its connection with his Son and with the
description that follows. Although neither the JB nor the NEB
JB Jerusalem Bible
NEB New English Bible

Romans 1:3
9 wanderean ©2024
shifts this phrase from the following verse, they each make the
relation explicit by the statement ―it is about Jesus Christ our
Lord.‖
Special care must be exercised in the use of so-called
possessive relations with words such as Lord and God. In some
languages, for example, one cannot say our Lord. One cannot,
as it were, possess someone who rules over him. The closest
equivalent in such languages may be ―the one who lords (over)
us‖ or ―the one who rules us.‖ Similarly, ―our God‖ must be
rendered in some languages as ―the God whom we worship.‖
Romans 1.3b–4.
It is helpful to take the last half of verse 3 and all of verse 4
together, since the exegetical and translational problems are
closely interrelated. As to his humanity (literally ―according to
the flesh‖) is taken by most commentators and translators in
the same sense as by the TEV (NEB ―on the human level‖; JB
―according to the human nature‖). As a man Jesus was born
(literally ―became‖; Galatians 4.4 uses this verb in the same
way, literally ―he became of a woman‖). Our Lord is further
qualified as a descendant of David (literally ―from the seed of
David‖; NEB ―he was born of David’s stock‖; JB ―was a
descendant of David‖; Goodspeed combines this and the
previous statement ―who was physically descended from
David‖).
The phrase as to his humanity is variously rendered in different
receptor languages. The two principal equivalent expressions
are ―as a man‖ or ―as far as his body was concerned.‖ In some
instances this is combined directly with the following phrase:
―he had the same kind of body as the offspring of David.‖
References to the lineage of David may be expressed as ―he was
a grandson of David‖ (in languages in which the term
―grandson‖ is a generic term for any male descendant). On the
TEV Today’s English Version

Romans 1:3
10 wanderean ©2024
other hand, David may be made the subject of such a phrase—
for example, ―David was his grandfather‖ or ―David was his
ancestor.‖ Again, one may simply specify lineage: ―he belonged
to David’s family.‖ It is frequently, however, very difficult to
translate literally he was born a descendant; such a passive
phrase could be quite misleading.
As to his divine holiness (literally according to [the] spirit of
holiness‖) may be understood in either of two ways. (1) It may
be understood along with the TEV as a reference to our Lord’s
own (divine) nature; that is, his ―holiness‖ was the quality that
most closely identified him with God (Goodspeed ―in his holiness
of spirit‖; Knox ―in respect of the sanctified spirit that was his‖;
JB ―the spirit of holiness that was in him‖). Or (2) it may be
understood as a reference to the Holy Spirit (NEB ―on the level
of the spirit—the Holy Spirit‖; RSV ―according to the Spirit of
holiness‖; see also Moffatt). Some few interpreters take the
phrase ―spirit of holiness‖ as a reference to the Lord’s own spirit
which enabled him to ―set apart people for God. That is, the
phrase is taken by them as a reference to the saving power or
function of the Son of God, and not as a reference to his nature;
however, no translation seems to go in that direction.
In support of the exegesis represented in the TEV there are at
least two observations. (1) This phrase stands in formal contrast
with as to his humanity, which definitely refers to one aspect of
Jesus’ person. (2) Paul nowhere else uses this phrase to refer to
the Holy Spirit, and though some scholars maintain that Paul
took it over as a set formula from Palestinian Christians, there is
no clear evidence in the New Testament or in other early
Christian literature that it was used of the Holy Spirit.
Though the phrase as to his divine holiness seems to be a
particularly appropriate expression in English, it is extremely
difficult to render such an expression in some other languages.
RSV Revised Standard Version

Romans 1:3
11 wanderean ©2024
An abstract such as ―holiness‖ would rarely, if ever, have as an
attributive an adjective such as ―divine.‖ Moreover, in many
languages there is simply no attributive term such as ―divine‖;
the closest equivalent would be ―from God.‖ Therefore, in some
languages the closest equivalent of as to his divine holiness
would be ―as far as his being from God and his being holy is
concerned.‖ Some translators have followed a type of
compromise rendering; ―as far as his spirit, which was holy, is
concerned.‖
The verb shown literally means ―to set limits (or boundaries),‖
and so ―define,‖ ―decide,‖ ―determine.‖ It is quite often used of
God’s will and decision (Luke 22.22; Acts 2.23; 10.42; 17.26,
31; Hebrews 4.7). In English translations the verb appears in a
variety of renderings: ―declared,‖ ―designated,‖ ―appointed,‖
―marked out,‖ ―demonstrated,‖ ―installed,‖ ―proclaimed,‖ and
―foreordained.‖ This passive expression was shown may be
transformed into an active expression—for example, ―God
showed with great power that he was his Son.‖
With great power (literally ―in power‖) is usually taken either
with the verb as in the TEV (see Goodspeed ―decisively
declared‖) or as a qualifier of the Son of God (Moffatt ―Son of
God with power‖; JB ―Son of God in all his power‖). Some
translations make it independent (NEB ―by a mighty act‖), while
Phillips connects it with the Holy Spirit (―marked out.. by the
power of that Spirit of holiness‖).
The phrase by being raised from death presents at least three
problems, (1) The phrase may be taken either in a temporal
sense, ―from the time of the resurrection,‖ or, as in most
translations, in a causal sense. (2) Though this phrase (literally
―resurrection of dead ones‖) may be taken as a general
resurrection of the dead, most exegetes take it to refer to
Christ’s resurrection (RSV ―by his resurrection from the dead‖).
(3) It is possible to understand this phrase either in an active
sense (NEB ―he rose from the dead‖) or in a passive sense, with

Romans 1:3
12 wanderean ©2024
God understood as the one who raised him from the dead
(Moffatt ―he was raised from the dead‖; see also Goodspeed and
Phillips). In light of the fact that Paul elsewhere in Romans
speaks of God raising Christ from the dead (see verse 4.24; and
verse 6.4, as well as verse 9; and verse 8.11), it seems best to
understand the present passage in a passive sense with God as
the agent. This passive expression may be rendered as active,
particularly if the preceding clause is transformed into an active
expression. One may thus render the last part of verse 4 as ―by
the fact that God raised him from death‖ or ―by the fact that
God caused him to live again.‖ In some languages one cannot
be ―raised from death,‖ but one can be ―caused to live again.‖
The mention of the Good news in the last past of verse 1 led
Paul to a further statement about the Good News in verse 2,
and this in turn led to a Christological statement in verses 3 and
4. Paul now returns to the theme of his apostleship which he
mentioned in verse 1.1
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son. NRSV
After introducing the messenger
(himself), the message (gospel), and the source (God), Paul
turns to the subject of the message. In verses 3–5, Paul
summarizes the good news about Jesus Christ, who came as a
human by natural descent (1:3), was part of the Jewish royal
line through David (1:3), died and was raised from the dead
(1:4), and opened the door for God’s grace and kindness to be
poured even on the Gentiles (1:5). Paul is simply outlining what
he will return to describe at length later in the letter.
1
Barclay Moon Newman and Eugene Albert Nida, A Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans, Originally Published: A
Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letter to the Romans. 1973., UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (New York:
United Bible Societies, 1994), 9.
NRSV
Scripture quotations marked NRSV are taken from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyrighted,
1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of
America, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

Romans 1:3
13 wanderean ©2024
As to his human nature, he was a descendant of David. NIV
The central focus of the gospel is Jesus Christ, God’s Son, who
was both human and divine (see Luke 3:31; 2 Timothy 2:8).
Jesus was born in David’s line, in Bethlehem, and of David’s
tribe (Judah). King David, ―a man after [God’s] own heart,‖ was
promised a kingdom without end. In the birth of Jesus Christ,
the eternal King of kings, that promise was fulfilled (2 Samuel
7:12–16). Jesus truly fulfilled the Old Testament Scriptures that
predicted that the Messiah would come through David’s line.
With this statement of faith, Paul declares his agreement with
the teaching of all Scripture and of the other apostles.
The unique dual nature of Jesus (the God-man) was a
constant part of Paul’s thinking. The historical human life of
Christ was essential to the gospel. The Messiah was not a god
like those of the Greeks and Romans, a product of legends. He
was the flesh-andblood founder of the Christian faith. Here
Jesus is described as David’s descendant as to his human
nature, but the phrase is surrounded by the term Son, used
both in verses 3 and 4 and connecting Christ’s sonship with
God. Maintaining a clear emphasis on both Christ’s human
nature and his divine nature is important for a complete
understanding of the gospel. In Christ’s humanity we see his
identification with us and his excellence as our example. In
Christ’s divinity we see his worthiness to take our place in
receiving the punishment for sin that is due us. We separate
Christ’s human and divine natures for understanding and
discussion, but in fact, they cannot be separated. Jesus is and
will always be the God-man, our Lord and Savior.2
Romans 1:3
NIV
Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®
. NIV®
. Copyright ©
1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights
reserved.
2
Bruce B. Barton, David Veerman and Neil S. Wilson, Romans, Life application Bible commentary (Wheaton, IL:
Tyndale House Publishers, 1992), 5.

Romans 1:3
14 wanderean ©2024
Regarding his Son. These words should either be linked with
the gospel or with he promised. The sense in either case is
much the same. As most commentators and editors regard the
second verse as a parenthesis, they of course adopt the former
construction; but as there is no necessity for assuming any
parenthesis, the natural grammatical connection is with he
promised: the personal object of the ancient promises is the
Son of God.
It is well known that in Scripture the designations given to our
Lord are sometimes applied to him as a historical person, God
and man, and sometimes exclusively to one or the other of the
two natures, the divine and human, which enter into the
constitution of the God-Man. Thus the term Son designates the
Logos in all those passages in which he is spoken of as the
Creator of all things; at other times it designates the incarnate
Logos, as when it is said, ―the Son sets you free‖ (John 8:36).
Sometimes the same term is used in the same passage,
referring first to the incarnate Word, and then to the Word as
the second person of the Trinity. Thus in Hebrews 1:2 it is said,
―he has spoken to us by his Son‖ (the historical person, Jesus
Christ), ―through whom‖ (the eternal Word) ―he made the
universe.‖
So here regarding his Son means the Son of God as clothed
in our nature, the Word made flesh; but in the next clause,
declared … to be the Son of God (verse 4), the word Son
designates the divine nature of Christ. In all cases, however, it
is a designation implying participation in the divine nature.
Christ is called the Son of God because he is consubstantial with
the Father and therefore equal to him in power and glory. The
term expresses the relation of the second to the first person in
the Trinity, as it exists from eternity. It is therefore, as applied
to Christ, not a term of office, nor an expression of any relation
assumed in time. He was and is the Eternal Son.
This is proved from John 1:1–14, where the term ―Son‖ is
interchanged with ―Word.‖ It was the Son, therefore, who in the
beginning was with God, who was God, who created all things,

Romans 1:3
15 wanderean ©2024
in whom was life, who is the light of men, who is by the side of
the Father. In John 5:17–31, Christ calls himself the Son of God
in a sense which made him equal to the Father, having the
same power, the same authority, and a right to the same honor.
In John 10:29–42, Christ declares God to be his Father. His
meaning here is that he is making himself God, one with the
Father; and he vindicates his claim to this participation in the
divine nature by appealing to his works.
In Colossians 1:13–17, he is said as Son to be the image of
the invisible God, the exact copy and the revealer of the divine
nature, the Creator of all things that are in heaven and in earth,
visible and invisible.
In Hebrews 1:4–6, the title ―Son‖ is adduced as proof that he
is superior to the angels and entitled to their worship. He is
therefore called God’s own Son (8:32; compare the words
―calling God his own Father‖ in John 5:18, ―his own Son‖ in 8:3,
―his one and only Son‖ in John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9).
Hence giving, sending, not sparing this Son is said to be the
highest conceivable evidence of the love of God (John 3:16;
Romans 8:32; 1 John 4:9). The historical sense of the terms
―Word,‖ ―image,‖ ―Son,‖ ―firstborn,‖ as understood in the
Scriptures and from their use in the apostolic age, shows that
they must, in their application to Christ, be understood to refer
to his divine nature.
Who as to his human nature was a descendant of
David. As the Greek word translated descendant, derived from
the verb ―to have children,‖ signifies ―to begin to be, to come
into existence,‖ it is often used in reference to descent or birth
(―born of a woman,‖ Galatians 4:4; ―You are her daughters,‖ 1
Peter 3:6). The Old Testament predicted and the New
Testament affirmed that the Messiah would come from the
family of David (Isaiah 11:1; Jeremiah 23:5; Matthew 22:45;
John 7:42; Acts 13:23).
The limitation of as to his human nature (Greek, sarx;
translated ―flesh‖ in the KJV) obviously implies the superhuman
character of Jesus Christ. Were he a mere man, it would have
been enough to say that he was a descendant of David, but as

Romans 1:3
16 wanderean ©2024
he is more than a man, it was necessary to limit his descent
from David to his human nature.
It is obvious, both from the scriptural use of the word and
from the nature of the case, that the word sarx here means
―human nature‖ (see John 1:14; 9:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; 1 John
4:2–3). It is not the flesh or the body, as opposed to the soul,
but human nature as opposed to divine nature that is intended.
Neither does the Greek word sarx here mean the purely material
element with its organic life, the body and soul, to the exclusion
of the spirit or rational principle, as the Apollinarians teach. But
sarx refers to the entire humanity of Christ. This is the sense of
the word in all the parallel passages where the incarnation is the
subject: ―The Word became flesh‖ (John 1:14); or, ―He
appeared in a body‖ (1 Timothy 3:16). These are explained by
saying, ―being found in appearance as a man‖ (Philippians 2:8).
The word therefore includes everything which constitutes the
nature a child derives from its parents.
3
3 πεπὶ ηος ςἱος αὐηος , ―concerning his Son,‖ further
defines ―the gospel of God‖ (v 1)—another example of Paul
contriving to make an opening statement in which God and
Christ are balancing elements—perhaps prompted in part by the
thought of God as Father with which he always begins his letters
(see on 1:7). The title is not particularly prominent in Paul’s
thought but occurs quite naturally when Paul wants to speak of
the relation between God and Jesus (1:4, 9; 1 Cor 15:28), or of
God’s concern for people expressed through or in relation to
Jesus (8:29; 1 Cor 1:9; 2 Cor 1:19), particularly in its decisive
moments (5:10; 8:3, 32; Gal 1:16; 2:20; 4:4; Col 1:13; 1
Thess 1:10; see further on 5:10). It is clear enough that already
Jesus was understood as God’s Son in a quite distinctive way—
―his Son,‖ where even before Paul embarks on the confessional
elaboration (vv 3–4), it is obvious that a sonship is envisaged
different from that affirmed of believers in the regular opening
greeting (v 7). This is significant since as a title or description at
3
Charles Hodge, Romans, Originally Published: Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 1835., The Crossway
classic commentaries (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1993), Ro 1:3.

Romans 1:3
17 wanderean ©2024
the time of Paul it had a much wider potential reference—being
used of oriental rulers, including occasionally the king of Israel
(2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7; 89:26–27), of great philosophers or in
Jewish circles of a famous rabbi (m. Ta˓an. 3.8), and indeed of
mankind as a whole (Stoic thought) or in Judaism of Israel as a
whole (Exod 4:22–23; Jer 31:9; Hos 11:1; Wisd Sol
9:7; 18:13; Jub. 1.24–25; Pss. Sol. 17.30; 18.4; T. Mos.
10.3; Sib. Or. 3.702) or of the righteous in particular (Wisd Sol
2:13, 16, 18; 5:5; Sir 4:10; 51:10; 2 Macc 7:34; Pss. Sol.
13.8; the Qumran covenanters thought of themselves as God’s
―sons of truth‖—1QM 17.8; 1QH 7.29–30; 9.35; 10.27; 11.11).
See further on 8:14 and 9:4; Str-B, 3:15–22; TDNT 8:335–62;
Hengel, Son; Dunn, Christology, 14–15.
Just how it came about that the earliest Christians
acknowledged or recognized Jesus as uniquely God’s Son is not
entirely clear. (1) The simplest reading of the evidence is that it
was rooted in the well-remembered fact of Jesus’ own sense of
sonship as expressed particularly in prayer (to which 8:15–17
and Gal 4:6–7 bear ample testimony), a sonship which the
resurrection of Jesus rendered unique in the eyes of the first
followers of Jesus (so the force of the following formula—see
on 1:4). (2) An alternative possibility is that the recognition of
Jesus as Messiah carried the implication of a unique sonship
m. Mishna tractate
Jub. Jubilees
Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
T. Mos. Testament of Moses
Sib. Or. Sibylline Oracles
1QM (War Scroll) from Qumran
1QH (Thanksgiving Hymns) from Qumran Cave 1
Str-B H. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 4 vols. (Munich: Beck’sche, 1926–28)
TDNT G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, eds., tr. G. W. Bromiley Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols., ET
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–76)

Romans 1:3
18 wanderean ©2024
with it, since Messiah, Son of David, was also called God’s Son
in a quite distinctive sense (see below). However, the more an
identification between Messiahship and Sonship is asserted, the
more difficult it is to give weight to the second clause of the
following formula, unless we allow that it implies Son of David =
Son of God in weakness—but then the formula loses its
sharpness and its antithetical parallelism becomes confused. (3)
A third possibility is that the assertion of Jesus’ uniqueness as
God’s Son stems from a recognition that he came from heaven
(cf. the usual interpretation of 8:3 and Gal 4:4). This is less
likely (despite its common assertion today—as, e.g.,
Stuhlmacher, ―Probleme,‖ 382–83; Murray; Eichholz, Theologie,
126; Ridderbos, Paul, 68–69; Hengel, Son, 60; Becker 19–20;
Goppelt, Theology, 2:67, 69). The title itself would not be seen
to carry that implication of itself. A reference to Jesus as an
angelic being would not be sufficiently distinctive, since angels
as a whole were called ―sons of God‖ (Gen 6:2, 4; Deut
32:8; Job 1:6–12; etc.; Pss 29:1; 89:6). We would have to
presuppose an identification of Jesus with the Logos; called
―God’s first-born Son‖ by Philo (Conf. 146; Som. 1.215), though
we have no evidence of such an identification prior to the
prologue of the Fourth Gospel (John 1:1–18). That an
identification of Jesus as Wisdom (cf. 1 Cor 1:24, 30; 8:6; Col
1:15–20) would be recognized under the summary title ―Son‖ is
unlikely since ―Wisdom‖ is a female figure (ζοθία). As the
identification of the Man of Dan 7’s vision as ―my Son‖ seems to
have been fairly late in Jewish circles (4 Ezra 13.32, 37, 52), so
the explicit assertion of Christ’s preexistence as God’s Son from
eternity seems to be post-Pauline in Christian circles
(John; cf. Heb 1:3). See also on 8:3 and further Dunn,
Christology.
cf. confer, compare
e.g. exempli gratia, for example
Conf. Philo, De Confusione Linguarum
Som. Philo, De Somniis

Romans 1:3
19 wanderean ©2024
ἐκ ζπέπμαηορ Δαςίδ, ―came into being, born.‖ Since γίνεζθαι
(―become, come to be‖) merges into ει ναι (―to be‖), the
participle phrase has in view more the state of man (= ―born of
woman‖—Job 14:1; 15:14; 1QS 11.20–21; IQH 13.14; 18.12–
13, 16) than the event of giving birth itself, for which γεννάω
would be the more appropriate word (see Notes).
ἐκ ζπέπμαηορ Δαςίδ, ―from the seed of David‖—a clear
assertion that Jesus was the anointed Son of David, the royal
Messiah, the fulfillment of prophetic hopes long cherished
among the people of Israel for the age to come (Isa 11; Jer
23:5–6; 33:14–18; Ezek 34:23–31; 37:24–28; Pss. Sol. 17.23–
51; 4QFlor 1.10–13; 4QpGen 49; 4QpIsaa
2.21–28; Shemoneh
Esreh 14–15). That Jesus was descended from David’s line is a
common assertion in the NT, including the tradition lying behind
the different birth narratives of Matthew and Luke (Matt 1:1–
16, 20; Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4; 3:23–31) and the older
formulations quoted here and in 2 Tim 2:8 (see also Acts
2:30; Rev 5:5; 22:16 and regularly in Matt—
1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:9, 15). The degree to
which Jesus’ Davidic pedigree was simply taken for granted is
striking; there was evidently no consciousness of a need to
argue for Jesus’ Messiahship despite his not being of David’s line
(contrast Hebrews’ special pleading for Jesus’ priesthood). If
anything there is rather a suggestion of some embarrassment
over the title, reflected in Mark 12:35–37a, possibly in John
7:42, and here in the καηὰ ζάπκα qualification (cf. Barn.
12.10)—if so, presumably because of its strongly this-worldly
character (καηὰ ζάπκα) and its nationalistic and political
overtones (Dunn, ―Jesus,‖ 49–51). At all events Jesus’ Davidic
descent seems to have been a secure point in earliest Christian
1QS (Rule of the Community, Manual of Discipline)
4QFlor Florilegium (or Eschatological Midrashim) from Qumran Cave 4
NT New Testament
Barn. Barnabas

Romans 1:3
20 wanderean ©2024
apologetic claims that Jesus was Messiah. Cf. on both points
Eusebius, HE 3.12, 19–20. See further Brown, Birth, 505–12,
with bibliography.
καηὰ ζάπκα, ―in terms of the flesh,‖ that is, probably, insofar
as he and his role were determined by the flesh or are to be
understood in terms of the flesh (see on 1:4—καηὰ πνες μα).
Σάπξ in Paul denotes man as characterized and conditioned by
his mortality—its weakness, relationships, needs, and desires.
In the Pauline letters its range of meaning extends from a more
or less neutral usage, denoting the physical body, or physical
relationship/kinship at the one end (particularly 11:14; 1 Cor
6:16; 15:39; Col 2:1), to a much more negative usage where
man’s fleshliness is understood as itself a source of corruption
and hostility to God at the other end (8:5, 7, 12; 13:14; Gal
5:13, 24; 6:8; Col 2:11, 13, 18, 23); though see on 11:14. The
negative side is particularly clear when ζάπξ is set in antithesis
with πνες μα, ―Spirit‖ (2:28; 8:6, 9; Gal 3:3; 5:16, 17, 19; Phil
3:3, 4), not least when the antithesis has the form καηὰ
ζάπκα/καηὰ πνες μα (8:4–5; Gal 4:29) as here. It is very
probable therefore that Paul read the formula he quotes here
with at least some negative connotation attaching to the καηὰ
ζάπκα: that so far as Jesus’ role in God’s saving purpose
through the gospel was concerned, Jesus’ physical descent,
however integral to that role, was not so decisive as his status
καηὰ πνες μα. This would match the slightly negative overtone
of καηὰ ζάπκα later in the letter (4:1; 9:3, 5) where on both
occasions Paul immediately goes on to stress that καηὰ ζάπκα
relationships are not the determinative factor in God’s eyes
(4:11–12, 16–17; 9:8). And it would fit well with Paul’s opening
emphasis: the gospel, which transcends the boundaries of
Judaism (vv 5–7), concerns a Christ who transcends the role of
a merely Jewish Messiah (vv 3–4; cf. particularly Theobald,
386–89, who draws attention to the answering emphasis
in 15:8–9). Whether the original formula had such a negative
overtone is disputed, but it seems to be implicit in the
ζάπξ/πνες μα antithesis (cf. Isa 31:3; Mark 14:38; John 3:6),

Romans 1:3
21 wanderean ©2024
and Paul presumably would not want to jeopardize the reception
of his letter at Rome by imposing a different sense on a
common creedal form. See further Dunn, ―Jesus,‖ esp. 43–49,
with its qualification of earlier literature; and on 7:5 and 7:18.4
Romans 1:3
Concerning his Son (πεπι ηος ςἱος αὐηος [peri tou huiou
autou]). Just as Jesus found himself in the O.T. (Luke 24:27,
46). The deity of Christ here stated. According to the flesh
(καηα ζαπκα [kata sarka]). His real humanity alongside of his
real deity. For the descent from David see Matt. 1:1, 6, 20;
Luke 1:27; John 7:42; Acts 13:23, etc. 5
Romans 1:3
Concerning His son. Connect with promised afore. Christ is
the great personal object to which the promise referred.6
Romans 1:3
God’s good news is about his Son. Paul stresses first his
humanity: who was born from the seed of David as far as
his physical descent was concerned. Here is a stress upon
his birth. He became man.7
esp. especially
4
James D. G. Dunn, vol. 38A, Word Biblical Commentary : Romans 1-8, electronic ed., Logos Library System; Word
Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 11.
5
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.V c1932, Vol.VI c1933 by Sunday School Board of the
Southern Baptist Convention. (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, 1997), Ro 1:3.
6
Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.,
2002), 3:i-3.
7
Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett Falconer Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary : New Testament (Chicago: Moody
Press, 1962), Ro 1:3.

Romans 1:3 - Collection of Biblical Commentaries

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Romans 1:3 - Collection of Biblical Commentaries

Similar to Romans 1:3 - Collection of Biblical Commentaries (20)

More from Berean Wanderean

More from Berean Wanderean (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Romans 1:3 - Collection of Biblical Commentaries