And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
And declared to be the Son of God, х horisthentos (G3724)] - 'marked off,' 'pointed out,' and so 'declared,' or 'evinced'-as the best critics, ancient and modern, take the sense to be. [The Old Latin-apparently confounding horisthentos (G3724) with prooristhentos-rendered it proedestinatus, which Jerome unhappily retained in the Vulgate; and though Estius apologizes for it, he admits it to be a forced interpretation. Erasmus has some excellent remarks on this word.] It cannot escape the attentive observer of these words how warily the apostle changes his language here. "He was made (he says) of the seed of David according to the flesh;" but he does not say, 'He was made the Son of God;' on the contrary, he says, He was only "declared (or 'manifested') to be the Son of God" - precisely as in John 1:1; John 1:14, "In the beginning was the Word ... And the Word was made flesh;" and Isaiah 9:6, "Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given." Thus is the Sonship of Christ held forth, not as a thing of time and of human birth, but as an essential and uncreated Sonship; the Son of God being by His Incarnation only enshrined in our nature, and thus efflorescing into public manifestation. But not until His resurrection from the dead could even His most penetrating disciples say, in the fullest sense, "We beheld His glory." Then only, and thus, was He "manifested to be the Son of God" --
With power. If we connect this with the preceding words - "the Son of God with power" - the meaning is, that that power which He all along possessed, but which was veiled from human view until then, shone brightly forth when He arose from the dead. (So the Vulgate, Chrysostom, Melancthon, Calvin, Philippi, Lange, etc., understand it, as we ourselves did formerly.) But it seems better to connect these words with "declared;" and then the sense is, He was 'with power declared,' or gloriously evinced to be the Son of God by His resurrection. (So Luther, Beza, Bengel, Fritzsche, Meyer, Tholuck, etc.)
According to the Spirit of holiness, х kata (G2596) pneuma (G4151) hagioosunees (G42)] - an uncommon and somewhat difficult phrase, the sense of which depends on whether we have here a climax or a contrast. Those who would set aside the testimony here borne to the divinity of Christ hold that the apostle is not contrasting the lower and the higher natures of Christ, but describing the transition of Christ from a lower to a higher condition of existence, or out of his humbled state, from birth to death, into the exalted state of resurrection and glory. In this case, "the Spirit of holiness" is understood to mean either the Holy Spirit or that 'spiritual energy' which dwelt in him beyond other men, and manifested itself pre-eminently at his resurrection. Those who acknowledge nothing in Christ higher than mere Humanity, of course take this view; but some of the orthodox interpret this passage substantially in the same way.
But since beyond all doubt "the flesh," in such passages, means 'human nature' in its frailty and mortality (see the note at John 1:14, p. 348), and consequently Christ's being made of the seed of David "according to the flesh" must mean His being descended from David 'in respect of His human nature,' it follows that His being "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness," must mean that He was manifested to be such according to His other and higher nature, which we have seen to be that of the uncreated, essential "Son of God." But why should the apostle call this "the Spirit?" Doubtless because he had spoken of His human nature under the name of "the flesh;" and "flesh" and "spirit" are the usual contrasts to each other. In 2 Corinthians 3:17 (says Tholuck) - "Now the Lord is the Spirit" - the substance or element that constitutes the higher Personality of Christ is called Spirit.
And if "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24), why should not this incarnate God be entitled to the name of "Spirit" in an absolute sense? Clement of Rome (Eph 2, 100: 9) [or whoever wrote that letter] has these words, 'Christ the Lord, being first Spirit, became flesh' х Christos (G5547) ho (G3588) Kurios (G2962), oon (G5607) men (G3303) pneuma (G4151), egeneto (G1096) sarx (G4561)]. In the same sense are we to understand that expression in Hebrews 9:14, "the eternal Spirit;" and in 1 Timothy 3:16 we have the same contrast between "flesh" and "spirit" as here.' But one question more occurs, Why is this Higher Nature of Christ termed "the Spirit of holiness?" In all probability, because if he had said "according to the Holy Spirit," his readers would certainly have understood him to be speaking about the Holy Spirit; and it was to avoid this that we think he used the uncommon phrase, "according to the Spirit of holiness" [q.d., 'quoad spiritum sacrosanctum.' It may here be observed that hagioosunee (G42), as distinguished from hagiotees (G41), may be presumed from its form to denote 'the subjective condition,' as distinguished from 'the objective quality.']
By the resurrection from the dead, х ex (G1537) anastaseoos (G386) nekroon (G3498)] - literally, 'by the resurrection of the dead;' the risen Head being here regarded as but the First-fruits of them that sleep. [Luther wrongly renders ex (G1537) here, 'since,' or 'after'-misled probably by the Vulgate's ex, which, though capable of this sense, was in all likelihood intended to convey the idea of 'by' or 'through.']
(4) From this Glorious Person Flowed the Writer's Grace and Apostleship-The World-wide Scope of his Message-Its Efficacy at Rome