he thought of Paul,
but how are certain phrases in it likely to have been interpreted? The
most important passage is Romans i. 1-4: "Paul, a servant of Jesus
Christ, a called apostle, separated to God's gospel which He had
promised beforehand by His prophets in Holy Scriptures concerning His
Son, who became of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was
appointed Son of God miraculously according to the spirit of holiness
by resurrection {104} from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord."[6] What
is this likely to have meant to those who read it in Greek without any
knowledge of a "Pre-existent" Christology? I think that they would
have been impressed by the parallelisms in the sentence: _kata sarka_
is parallel to _kata pneuma hagiosunes_ and _ek spermatos Daveid_ is
parallel to _ex anastaseos nekron_. It would thus mean that Jesus had
been a human being by belonging to the family of David, and had been
ordained, or appointed to be a "Spirit of holiness," by being raised
from the dead: _kata sarka_ explains the result of _genomenon ek
spermatos Daveid_, and _kata pneuma hagiosunes_ explains the result of
_horisthentos uhiou ... ex anastaseos nekron_. That is Adoptionism,
and though the passage has been explained in terms of a Pre-existent
Christology by those who for other reasons are convinced that this was
the real nature of Paul's doctrine, it could be taken quite easily in
this Adoptionist way, for _horisthetos_ could mean "became by means of
appointment" quite as well as _aphorismenos_ could mean the same thing
with regard to Paul's apostleship.[7] The general impression made by
the verse would be, to any one who had Adoptionist views already, that
Jesus, who was born {105} as a human being into the family of David
(which gave him a certain well-understood claim to the title Son of
God), had by the Resurrection been promoted to another kind of sonship,
not as a human being of flesh, but as a spiritual being.

The next document in probable chronological order which seems to belong
to Rome is the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is much disputed by critics
whether it was written in Rome or to Rome, but that it was extant there
can hardly be doubted in view of the extensive quotations from it in
the Epistle of Clement. It reveals a different mind from that of the
Epistle to the Romans, but once more it is Jewish questions which are
uppermost. The main problem is the meaning of the ritual law.
Nevertheless, as in Ro