Is Romans 1:3-4 Proof Yahushua Has Dual Natures?

Romans 1:1-4 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Yahushua, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of Yahuwah, ² which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, ³ concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, ⁴ who was declared the Son of Yahuwah with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Yahushua Christ our Lord…

The purported evidence centers on verses three and four:

who was born of a descendant of David, according to the flesh

who was declared the Son of Yahuwah with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness

Many understand these two clauses to be either a pre-Pauline creedal confession or possibly a portion of a hymn concerning Yahuwah’s Son. Others view them as Paul’s summation of an existing creedal statement, noting that a similar theme appears in his letters to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Timothy 2:8). Regardless of whether the phrases predate the apostle or originated with him, Trinitarians say the juxtaposing of the phrases convey Paul’s belief that Yahushua possessed two natures, one human and one divine. In other words, his human nature is thought to be depicted by the phrase “according to the flesh,” while a supposed divine nature is represented by the phrase “Son of Yahuwah…according to the Spirit of holiness.”

Translating vs. Interpretation Romans 1:3-4

The Amplified Bible puts its total weight behind the notion that these verses refer to a dual-natured Yahushua when it freely adds its interpretation to the Biblical text:

Romans 1:3-4 (Amplified Bible) [the good news] regarding His Son, who, as to the flesh [His human nature], was born a descendant of David [to fulfill the covenant promises], 4 and [as to His divine nature] according to the Spirit of holiness was openly designated to be the Son of Yahuwah with power [triumphantly and miraculously] by His resurrection from the dead: Yahushua Christ our Lord.

At one time, the NIV Bible added a similar interpretation to verse 3:

Regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David.

A more recent version of the NIV has rightly amended the translation to downplay its bias.

Some Bible commentators undergird these and other translations by explaining Paul’s language to mean the Messiah has two natures. For example, Bension writes in his commentary on Romans, “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 [sic] after his resurrection.”¹

Coffman joins the chorus with his interpretation of the passage:

Paul affirms the dual nature of Christ, both his divinity and humanity, in this passage. As for the body that Yahushua took when he decided to enter our earth life, it descended through David, as attested by the genealogies of Matthew and Luke, the very first verse of the New Testament hailing him as “the Son of David.” However, it was only the humanity of Yahushua that descended through David. In his totality, Christ descended from no man but was co-existent with the Father… [verse 4] is the antithesis of the preceding verse, which deals with Christ's human nature, and this with his heavenly nature.²

In another often-sourced commentary, the author states that according to the flesh refers to Yahushua’s human nature, “implying, of course, that He had another nature, of which the apostle immediately proceeds to speak.”[3] The author clarifies by saying that if:

“according to the flesh” means here, “in His human nature,” this uncommon expression [according to the spirit of holiness] must mean “in His other nature,” which we have seen to be that “of the Son of God”—an eternal, uncreated nature.⁴

Interestingly, the author admits, “One is apt to wonder if this being the meaning, it was not expressed more simply.”⁵ Indeed, Paul could have plainly expressed a belief in the dual nature of Christology if he had embraced such a position. But he did not. Instead, Paul considered the belief that a god could become a man an abhorrent theology, and he strongly refuted it when he preached against it in the city of Lystra in Acts 14. Paul did not hold to a dual nature Christology because the doctrine developed during the second to fourth centuries among those who had converted from Greek philosophy to Christianity.

While previous scholarship interpreted Paul’s parallel statements as evidence of Christ’s so-called two natures, more recent scholarship provides a more objective view. New Testament scholar Douglas Moo notes that the “[dual-natured] interpretation has some supporters, but their numbers are dwindling.”⁶

For example, instead of referring to a dual-natured Christ, theologian Ernst Kasemann says the two phrases speak to the two stages of Yahushua’s ministry:

Suppose the phrases Son of David according to the flesh and Son of God according to the spirit of holiness are not references to a dual-natured Messiah. What was Paul communicating to his first-century audience? An examination of these phrases in light of the context of Romans 1 and other Pauline passages will help us arrive at a proper understanding of their meaning and the apostle’s theology and Christology.

Is According to the Flesh Proof of a Dual Nature?

Paul’s use of the word flesh (Greek: sarx) reflects the various meanings in Scripture. For example, the word denotes one’s literal physical flesh, the human body. It also can refer to humanity in general. Moreover, in the Bible, flesh is used to describe man’s frailty and vulnerability to sin.

The phrase according to the flesh, occurs eighteen times in the New Testament, eight of which appear in Romans. Without exception, the phrase describes things or desires that pertain to temporal flesh. This contrasts things or desires that pertain to the spirit, i.e., the realm of Yahuwah. Paul uses according to the flesh four times to indicate one’s ancestry. Such is the case in the text we are considering:

Romans 1:3b concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh.

Contrary to those who believe in the deity of Christ, according to the flesh is not a unique expression used to describe a supposedly incarnational being. The apostle uses the same phrase to indicate his lineage. Unquestionably, Paul and Yahushua share a common Israelite ancestry that is according to the flesh:

Romans 9:3-5 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my countrymen, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and daughters, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the temple service, and the promises; 5 whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

In yet another occurrence in Romans, the apostle uses according to the flesh to describe the Jews’ ancestry, this time tracing it back to Father Abraham:

Romans 4:1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found?

Thus, if according to the flesh indicates that Yahushua preexisted before he became flesh, then so did Abraham, Paul, the Jews, and believers since the phrase is used to describe these people as well. But indeed, no one would defend such an interpretation.

Paul’s use of according to the flesh in Romans 1 is not a unique description intended to explain the human lineage of the supposed god-man. To be sure, nowhere in Scripture does according to the flesh describe or imply an incarnational state, nor is it used to delineate between theorized dual natures. In this case, it is simply descriptive of one’s historical roots. First-century Jews would have readily identified Paul’s remarks as evidence that Yahushua fulfilled Yahuwah’s promise that the Messiah would be a descendant of David.

Is Spirit of Holiness Proof of a Divine Nature?

While many may agree that the use of according to the flesh does not in and of itself support the post-Biblical doctrine of a dual-natured Christ, they insist that when coupled with the phrase Son of Yahuwah…according to the Spirit of holiness, it strongly supports a God-man Christology. But does this phrase indicate Yahushua has a divine nature?

Many unsuspecting Bible readers interpret the title Son of God [Elohim/Yahuwah] to be the equivalent of God the Son, a title that never appears in Scripture. In addition to Yahushua, the term son of Yahuwah is used for Israel, angels, kings, and Christians. What differentiates Yahushua from other sons of Yahuwah is that he is said to be the only begotten Son of Yahuwah. He is the only one chosen and anointed by Yahuwah to be the Messiah. To this end, Son of Yahuwah is synonymous with Messiah, Christ, and King of Israel. For example:

John 1:47-51 Yahushua saw Nathanael coming to Him, and *said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” ⁴⁸ Nathanael *said to Him, “How do You know me?” Yahushua answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” ⁴⁹ Nathanael answered Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of Yahuwah; You are the King of Israel.”

Luke 4:40-41 While the sun was setting, all those who had any who were sick with various diseases brought them to Him; and laying His hands on each one of them, He was healing them. ⁴¹ Demons also were coming out of many, shouting, “You are the Son of Yahuwah!” But rebuking them, He would not allow them to speak, because they knew Him to be the Christ.

Those living in the first century would never have understood the Son of Yahuwah to mean that Yahushua was himself a deity. Biblical scholar N. T. Wright agrees:

“Messiah” or “Christ’, does not mean ‘the/a divine one.” Using the words as shorthands [sic] for the divine name or being of Yahushua is very misleading. It is comparatively easy to argue that Yahushua (like several other first-century Jews) believed he was the Messiah. It is much harder, and a very different thing, to argue that he thought he was in some sense identified with Israel’s God. In this context, the phrase ‘son of God’ is systematically misleading because in pre- and non-Christian Judaism its primary referent is either Israel or the Messiah, and it retains these meanings in early Christianity…¹⁶

Theology professor Douglas McCready concurs:

While some have used the title Son of God to denote Yahushua’s deity, neither Judaism nor the paganism of Yahushua’s day understood the title in this way, nor did the early church.¹⁷

To understand the Son of Yahuwah to mean Yahushua has a divine nature is a position that cannot be supported Biblically.

Concerning the phrase Spirit of holiness, a survey reveals Romans 1:4 to be the only time it is used in Scripture. However, to gain clarity, we can look to other passages where Paul uses a similar phrase, according to the Spirit. For instance:

Romans 8:4-5 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. ⁵ For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

In this and other passages, according to the Spirit is simply a reference to the Holy Spirit, that is, the Spirit of Yahuwah. Paul never uses the word Spirit or the phrase according to the Spirit to reference Yahushua’ supposed divine nature. But rather, it is a synonym for the Holy Spirit.

New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner agrees. He writes in his commentary on Romans:

Nowhere does the phrase denote the divine nature of Yahushua. We are more likely to have a reference here to the Holy Spirit…. The contrast is not between the two natures of Yahushua but between the flesh and the Holy Spirit.¹⁸

New Testament scholar James D.G. Dunn writes that the Spirit of holiness “…would almost certainly be understood by Paul and the first Century Christians as denoting the Holy Spirit, [that is,] the Spirit characterized by holiness, [or one who is a] partaker of God’s holiness…”¹⁹

The context of Romans 1:4 further supports this understanding. It reveals that Paul’s use of Spirit of holiness is not in reference to a divine nature but rather to Yahushua’s resurrection from the dead, a miracle that served to prove the man from Nazareth was the Messiah.

Paul’s Purpose

Paul’s juxtaposing of the flesh and the spirit in Romans 1:3-4 is not unique. To be sure, the contrast between the two elements is a central theme in Romans. Thus, Paul’s use of the terms is not intended to depict a theorized god-man. Rather, the apostle uses the phrases to emphasize the transition Yahushua made when Yahuwah raised him from the dead. The Messiah went from being a descendant or son of David to the Son of Yahuwah in power.

Theologian Colin Kruse, in his commentary on Romans, writes, “Some have taken [the pairing of according to the flesh and according to the Spirit] to distinguish the human and divine natures of Christ, that is, his humanity and his deity, but this is unlikely.” Kruse, like Kasemann, sees it as a reference to how Yahushua is to be understood before and after his resurrection.²⁰

Moreover, New Testament scholar Ben Witherington writes:

[Spirit of holiness] is not about what Christ is according to his divine nature but about what happened to Yahushua at the resurrection when God’s Spirit raised him from the dead and designated or marked him out as Son of God in power….The unusual phrase Spirit of holiness…refers to the effect of the Holy Spirit on Yahushua—Yahushua enters an entirely sanctified or glorified condition when he is raised from the dead by the Spirit.²¹

Paul’s Christology

Paul’s Christology, as stated in Romans, must also be examined to determine if we are to properly understand the meaning according to the flesh and according to the Spirit. We need to look no further than his introductory remarks in Chapter 1 to discover who he believes Yahushua is. Twice in Romans 1, the apostle clearly distinguishes between Yahuwah, who he says is the Father, and Yahushua, who he thinks is the Christ.

Romans 1:7 to all who are beloved of Yahuwah in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from Yahuwah our Father and the Lord Yahushua Christ.

Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Yahushua Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world.

Paul’s God is not Paul’s Christ. Rather, the apostle thanked his God through Yahushua, who is the Christ, not that he thanked God, who is the Christ. The same theology and Christology are also seen, among other places, in First Timothy:

1 Timothy 1:2 and 2:5 To Timothy, my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Yahushua our Lord…For there is one God, and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Yahushua.

For Paul, there is one God. Yahushua is not the one God, but rather, he is the man whom the one God anointed to mediate between this singular God and humanity. That Yahushua is not the one God is also seen in the last chapter of Romans as well.

Romans 16:27 to the only wise God, through Yahushua Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.

Most remarkably, Paul writes to the church in Rome, not that Yahushua is God [Yahuwah] but that Yahushua has a God:

Romans 15:5-6 Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another, according to Christ Yahushua, so that with one purpose and one voice you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Yahushua Christ.

To interpret according to the flesh and the Spirit of holiness to mean that Paul believed Yahushua to be a god-man is to ignore the context of Romans and his Christology as stated in the rest of his epistles.

Conclusion

Contrary to what some Trinitarians believe, the contrasting phrases found in Romans 1:3-4 do not indicate, nor imply, a theorized dual-natured Yahushua as evidenced by Paul’s use of the same or similar phrases in his other writings. Moreover, the context of Romans chapters 1 and 16, coupled with Paul’s theology and Christology elsewhere in the New Testament, demonstrates that the Christ of Paul was not the God of Paul.

Instead, Paul’s purpose in Romans 1:3-4 was to instruct the church at Rome that Yahushua is the fulfillment of Yahuwah’s promise to raise up a descendant of David to be the Messiah. Yahushua’s resurrection from the dead was Yahuwah’s powerful way to demonstrate that the man Yahushua is Yahuwah’s exalted Son.

¹ Benson Commentary of Old and New Testaments, Romans 1:3-4, StudyLight.org

² James Burton Coffman, Romans, Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible, StudyLight.org

³ Romans 1, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary, Biblehub.com

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ Douglas J. Moo, The Challenge for the Translator, appearing in The Challenge of Bible Translation: Communicating God’s Word to the World, Zondervan, 2003, page. 374.

¹⁰ Ernst Kasemann, Commentary on Romans, William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI, 1980, page 11-12.

¹¹ 1 Corinthians 15:39; 2 Corinthians 12:7.

¹² Romans 3:20 KJV; Galatians 2:16.

¹³ 1 Peter 1:24; Romans 7:14-20.

¹⁴ Some believe the phrase “who is over all God blessed forever” in verse 5 is in reference to Yahushua. This theory is specifically addressed in this article.

¹⁵ For example, see 2 Samuel 7:12-13, 16; Psalms 89:3-4, 19-37, 49; 132:11-12.

¹⁶ N.T. Wright, “Yahushua’ Self-Understanding” NTWrightPage – blog post accessed on 4-15-19.

¹⁷ Douglas McCready, He Came Down From Heaven, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005), p. 56.

¹⁸ Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, MI, 1998, page 43.

¹⁹ James D.G. Dunn, 38 A World Biblical Commentary, Thomas Nelson, 1988, page 15.

²⁰ Colin Kruse, Paul’s Letters to the Romans, Pillar New Testament Commentary, Wm. B. Eerdman’s, Grand Rapids, MI, 2012, page 42.

²¹ Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, Wm B Eerdman’s Publishing, Grans Rapids, 2004, page 32.

²⁷ Yahuwah made Yahushua both Lord and Christ. Acts 2:22-23, 36.

This is a non-WLC article. Source: https://onegodworship.com/is-romans-13-4-proof-jesus-has-dual-natures/

We have taken out from the original article all pagan names and titles of the Father and Son, and have replaced them with the original given names. Furthermore, we have restored in the Scriptures quoted the names of the Father and Son, as they were originally written by the inspired authors of the Bible. -WLC Team