Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God.

1. "Declared" may signify decreed or determined. But with what propriety could Christ be said to be decreed to be that which He was from eternity. That which is the proper object of decree or destination is something future; but that which was eternal cannot be imagined in any period of time to be future. Those who deny the eternal godhead of Christ, and date His Sonship principally from His resurrection, are great friends to this exposition. But the word also means to declare, show forth, or manifest, and this signification carries a most fit and emphatic opposition to "He was made of the seed of David," which word imports the human constitution that did not exist before; but here, since He had from eternity been the Son of God, it is not said of Him that He was made, but only declared or manifested to be so.

2. "With power"; which, though some understand of the power of Christ, as it exerted itself in His miracles; yet here it signifies rather the glorious power of His Divine nature, by which He overcame death, and properly opposed to the weakness of His human nature, by which He suffered it (2 Corinthians 13:4).

3. "According to the Spirit of holiness." Christ's Divine nature — in opposition to His human nature (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 3:16). This qualification of holiness is annexed because Paul considers not the Divine nature of Christ, absolutely in itself, but according to the relation it had to His other nature. For it was His Divinity which consecrated and hypostatically deified His humanity.

4. "By the resurrection from the dead" cannot, as some suppose, mean the general resurrection, because that was future, and the apostle's design here is to demonstrate the Divinity of Christ by something already done and known. It must be understood therefore of His personal resurrection.

II. SHOW THAT CHRIST'S RESURRECTION IS THE GREATEST ARGUMENT TO PROVE HIM THE SON OF GOD.

1. The foundation and sum of the gospel lies within the compass of this proposition, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. For that which properly discriminates the Christian religion from the natural, or Judaical, is the holding of Christ's Deity. Of course Christ is capable of being called the Son of God in several respects.(1) According to His human nature, He had no natural father, but was produced in the womb of His mother by the immediate power of God.(2) For His resemblance to God; it being proper to call Him the Son of God, who does the works of God (John 3:44).(3) From His having the government of all things put into His hands upon His ascension. Yet here we are to consider the principal cause of His being called so; which is from the eternal generation that He was the Son of God in such a way as proves Him to be God Himself.

2. Now this super eminent Sonship ought in reason to be evinced by some great and conclusive argument; and such a one is supplied by His resurrection.(1) But you will naturally reply, How can His resurrection, which supposes Him to have been dead, prove Him to have existed from all eternity, and so could not die? The answer is that we must consider it with relation to His doctrine, affirming Himself to be the Son of God, and as the seal set to the truth of that doctrine.(2) It is much disputed, whether Christ's resurrection is to be referred to His own power, or only to the power of the Father. But it is not material, for both equally prove the same thing. If Christ raised Himself, He must have done it by virtue of a power inherent in another nature, which was Divine; if the Father raised Him, it still proves Him to have been God; for the Father would not have exerted an infinite power to have confirmed a lie.

3. The resurrection is the principal proof of His Divinity, The ordinary arguments are —(1) From the nature of the things which He taught.(2) The fulfilling of prophecies in His person.(3) The wonderful works that He did, which were the syllogisms of heaven, and the argumentations of omnipotence.(4) Yet over these Christ's resurrection had a vast preeminence.(a) All His miracles, supposing that His resurrection had not followed, would not have had sufficient efficacy, but His resurrection alone had been a full and undeniable proof. The former part of the assertion is clear from 1 Corinthians 15:14, 17. Now before Christ's death all His miracles were actually done, and yet the apostle states that if He had not risen the whole proof of the gospel had been buried with Him in the same grave. And for the other part of the assertion, that appears upon two accounts; first, that the thing considered absolutely in itself, according to the greatness of it, did transcend all the rest of His works put together. Secondly, that it had a more intimate connection with His doctrine than any of the rest; and that not only as a sign proving it, but as enabling Him to give being to the things which He promised, viz., to send the gifts of the Holy Ghost upon His disciples to fit them to promulgate the gospel, and to raise up those that believed in Him at the last day, which are two of the principal pillars of His doctrine. But for Him to have done this not rising from the dead, but continuing under a state of death, had been utterly impossible.(b) His miracles did not convince men so potently, but that while some believed, more disbelieved, and assigned them to some other cause, short of Divine power, either devilish or magical (Matthew 12:24). But now, when they came to His resurrection, they never attempted to assign any cause besides the power of God, so as to depress the miraculousness of it; but denied the fact, and set themselves to prove that there was no such thing; allowing, tacitly, that, if real, His Godhead could not be denied. Their scepticism in regard to the other miracles arose from — first, the difficulty of discerning when an action is really a miracle; i.e., above the force of nature, and therefore to be ascribed to a supernatural power. For who can assign the limits beyond which nature cannot pass? Then, secondly, supposing that an action is fully known to be a miracle, it is as difficult to know whether it proves the truth of the doctrine of that person that does it, or not. For it is by no means certain but that God may suffer miracles to be done by an impostor, for the trial of men, to see whether or no they will be drawn off from a received, established truth (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). But now neither of these exceptions take place against the resurrection. For first, though we cannot assign the determinate point where the power of nature ends, yet there are some actions that so vastly transcend it, that there can be no suspicion that they proceed from any power but a Divine. I cannot tell, e.g., how far a man may walk in a day, but I know that it is impossible for him to walk a thousand miles. Now reason tells us that the raising of a dead man to life in reference to the force of natural causes, that is not in their power to do it. And secondly, should God suffer a miracle to be done by an impostor, there is no necessity hence to gather that God did it to confirm His words; for God may do a miracle when and where He pleases. But since Christ had so often laid the stress of the whole truth of His gospel upon His resurrection, and declared to those who sought for a sign that it was the only sign that should be given to that generation, God could not have raised Him but in confirmation of what He had said and promised, and so have joined with Him in the imposture. In a word, if this does not satisfy, I affirm that its not in the power of man to invent, or of God to do any greater thing to persuade the world of the truth of a doctrine and he who believes not upon Christ's resurrection from the dead would scarce believe, though he rose from the dead himself.