Patheos

BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Patheos

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Euangelion

Rom 1:3-4 as a Non-Adoptionist Text with Christology of Incarnation and Enthronement

Last updated on: February 23, 2015 at 2:00 am   by Michael F. Bird

Rom 1:3-4 as a Non-Adoptionist Text with Christology of Incarnation and Enthronement 2015-02-22T23:34:12-04:00 Michael F. Bird

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I just read a most intriguing article by Matthew W. Bates on “A Christology of Incarnation and Enthronement: Romans 1:3-4 as unified, Nonadoptionist, and Nonconciliatory,” CBQ 77.1 (2015): 107-27 (FYI, follow the link and read it on Academia.edu).

3a  περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ // concerning his Son
3b τοῦ γενομένου // who was descended
3c  ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ // from David
3d  κατὰ σάρκα // according to the flesh
4a τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ // was declared the Son of God
4b  ἐν δυνάμει // with power
4c  κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης // according to the spirit of holiness
4d  ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν // by resurrection from the dead
4e  Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν // Jesus Christ our Lord

Bates basically contests the idea that Rom 1:3-4 is a proto-creed with an adoptionist christology (contra e.g., Rudolf Bultmann, Robert Jewett, James Dunn, A.Y. Collins, and Bart Ehrman). His argument moves in several steps:

1. The only Pauline glosses are 3a and 4e. The “in/with power” of 4b is not a gloss. According to Bates: “The whole protocreed can be more convincingly explained as one unified pre-Pauline source that supports rather than undermines the preexistence of the Son of God and the virgin birth.”

2.  Bates treats τοῦ γενομένου as “who came into existence” rather than as a synonym for gennao for “I beget”.  While he admits that ginomai can designate an ordinary birth, he points out the parallel language in  Gal 4:4 and Phil 2:6-7 which imply a change of status from a heavenly mode of existence to an earthly one. He also treats the preposition ek in ek spermatos Dauid as indicating Mary’s instrumental role in Jesus’ birth. He’s got some interesting reception history here from Ignatius and Irenaeus, but I find this to be the weakest plank of his argument.

3. The phrase kata sarka is not derogatory as it implies the Son’s pre-existence and speaks to his transition to the weak and frail human state.

4. The en dunamei modifies Huiou Theou rather than oristhentos and is best translated as “Son of God in power”. Therefore there is no adopionistic christology here since “the resurrection event was the occasion at which the Son of God, who was in fact already deemed the preexistent Son of God before the resurrection event, was appointed to a new office that was able to be described by the phrase Son-of-God-in-Power.”

He would paraphrase Rom 1:3-4 as follows:

The gospel concerning the Son of God, who was brought from preexistence into human existence by means of the Virgin Mary, the seed of David, as it pertains to the flesh, that is, to the fleshly realm characterized by human physicality with  all its limitations. This Son of God was installed into a new office – Son-of-God-in-Power – as it pertains to the realm dominated by life in the Holy Spirit – by means of his resurrection from among the dead ones. This Son-of-God-in-Power is Jesus Christ our Lord.

There is some good stuff here, I’m interested but not convinced by Bates’  reading of Mary as the instrument for incarnation, but it is certainly a good critique of many of the older theories about Rom 1:3-4 as adoptionistic.

It all reminds me of something Peter Stuhlmacher said: “The supposed two-stage adoptionistic Christology presumbed to lie behind Rom 1:3-4 has no more life setting in early Christianity that the adoptionism suspected behind Mark 1:9-11.”
Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblische Theologie, 1.188.

Also recommend to read is Joshua W. Jipp, “Ancient, Modern, and Future Interpretations of Romans 1:3-4: Reception History and Biblical Interpretation,” JTI 3 (2009): 241-59.

Uncategorized

Previous Post



February 21, 2015

Kierkegaard on Love without Hypocrisy

Next Post



February 24, 2015 Steve Walton Reviews Jesus is Lord, Caesar is Not


Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Bible Lands Blogosphere Book Review Calvinism Colleges & Universities Ecclesiology Emerging Adulthood Evangelicalism Foreign Affairs Gospel of John Greco-Roman World Humor Just War N. T. Wright Old Testament Resurrection Terrorism Theological Education Travel Uncategorized Writing

Select a Month September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 January 2011




TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who were Isaac and Rebekah's twin sons?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Cain and Abel Esau and Jacob Simeon and Levi Joseph and Benjamin

Books by This Author Books by Mike Bird

See All Titles »

Related posts from Euangelion

Evangelical

Rom 3:21-26 - Translates, Paraphrase, Notes

Euangelion

Evangelical

Studying the New Testament through Inscriptions

Euangelion

Evangelical

Is Paul's Christ an Angel?

Euangelion

Evangelical

Romans 13:1-7 - Translates, Paraphrase, and Notes

Euangelion

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical

Creation as Secondary to Judgment

Creating is a most human act. A good canonical (classical) education will...

The REST of Your Life: A Creative Wrestles...

This week I had a conversation with a good friend from church....

How the author of the world's best hymn...

I've been working with John Newton for a while now. This makes...

Psalm 130 | Lectio Divina

Long before this Lectio Divina, Psalm 130 - the song - started...

What About the Trees? Another Living Parable

After I finished writing the last article about falling leaves as a...

Why Classical Education Is a Conversation, Not a...

Come and Read: Joy in Classical Education When I was a little...

view all Evangelical blogs

Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos Patheos on Facebook Patheos on YouTube