Bibelkommentare

That the law could not do (το αδυνατον του νομου). Literally, "the impossibility of the law" as shown in Romans 7:7-24, either nominative absolute or accusative of general reference. No syntactical connection with the rest of the sentence. In that (εν ω). "Wherein." It was weak (ησθενε). Imperfect active, continued weak as already shown. In the likeness of sinful flesh (εν ομοιωματ σαρκος αμαρτιας). For "likeness" see Philippians 2:7, a real man, but more than man for God's "own Son." Two genitives "of flesh of sin" (marked by sin), that is the flesh of man is, but not the flesh of Jesus. And for sin (κα περ αμαρτιας). Condensed phrase, God sent his Son also concerning sin (our sin). Condemned sin in the flesh (κατεκρινε την αμαρτιαν εν τη σαρκ). First aorist active indicative of κατακρινω. He condemned the sin of men and the condemnation took place in the flesh of Jesus. If the article την had been repeated before εν τη σαρκ Paul would have affirmed sin in the flesh of Jesus, but he carefully avoided that (Robertson, Grammar, p. 784).

return to '

Romans 8:3. He now explains how this was done. It was not done by the law: that is the first point. If τὸ ἀδύνατον is active (= “the inability” of the law) we must suppose that Paul meant to finish the sentence, “was overcome,” or “was removed” by God. If it is passive (= “that which is impossible” for the law), we must suppose he meant to finish it, “was achieved” or “accomplished” by God. There is really no way of deciding whether ἀδύνατον is active or passive, and the anacoluthon makes it impossible to tell what construction Paul had in his mind, i.e., whether ἀδύνατον is nominative or accusative. For the best examination of the grammar see S. and H. ἐν ᾧ probably refers to ἀδύνατον: the point at which the law was impotent, in which it was weak through the flesh. This is better than to render ἐν ᾧ “in that,” or “because”. For the meaning cf. Romans 7:18. What the law could not do, God did by sending τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν His own Son. With the coming of so great a Person, uniquely related to God (for this is implied both here and in Romans 8:32, as contrasted with Romans 8:14), a new saving power entered the world. God sent His Son ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας. The connection implies that sending Him thus was in some way related to the end to be secured. But what do the words mean? ὁμοίωμα occurs in Romans 1:23; Romans 5:14; Romans 6:5, and also in Php 2:7. This last passage, in which Christ is described as ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος, is the one which is most akin to Romans 8:3, and most easily illustrates it. There must have been a reason why Paul wrote in Philippians ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθ. γενόμενος instead of ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος, and it may well have been the same reason which made him write here ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας instead of ἐν σαρκὶ ἁμαρτὶας. He wishes to indicate not that Christ was not really man, or that His flesh was not really what in us is σάρξ ἁμαρτίας, but that what for ordinary men is their natural condition is for this Person only an assumed condition (Holtzmann, N.T. Theol., ii., 74). But the emphasis in ὁμοίωμα is on Christ’s likeness to us, not His unlikeness; “flesh of sin” is one idea to the Apostle, and what he means by it is that God sent His Son in that nature which in us is identified with sin. This was the “form” (and “form” rather than “likeness” is what ὁμοίωμα signifies) in which Christ appeared among men. It does not prejudice Christ’s sinlessness, which is a fixed point with the Apostle ab initio; and if any one says that it involves a contradiction to maintain that Christ was sinless, and that He came in a nature which in us is identified with sin, it may be pointed out that this identification does not belong to the essence of our nature, but to its corruption, and that the uniform teaching of the N.T. is that Christ is one with us—short of sin. The likeness and the limitation of it (though the former is the point here urged) are equally essential in the Redeemer. But God sent His Son not only ἐν ὁμ. σ. ἁ. but καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. These words indicate the aim of the mission. Christ was sent in our nature “in connection with sin”. The R.V. renders “as an offering for sin”. This is legitimate, for περὶ ἁμαρτίας is used both in the LXX (Leviticus 4:33 and passim, Psalm 40:6, 2 Chronicles 29:24) and in the N.T. (Hebrews 10:6; Hebrews 10:8) in the sense of “sin-offering” (usually answering to Heb. חַטָּאת, but in Isaiah 53:10 to אָשָׁם); but it is not formally necessary. But when the question is asked, In what sense did God send His Son “in connection with sin”? there is only one answer possible. He sent Him to expiate sin by His sacrificial death. This is the centre and foundation of Paul’s gospel (Romans 3:25 ff.), and to ignore it here is really to assume that he used the words καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας (which have at least sacrificial associations) either with no meaning in particular, or with a meaning alien to his constant and dearest thoughts. Weiss says it is impossible to think here of expiating sin, because only the removal of the power of sin belongs to the context. But we cannot thus set the end against the means; the Apostle’s doctrine is that the power of sin cannot be broken except by expiating it, and that is the very thing he teaches here. This fixes the meaning and the reference of κατέκρινεν. It is sometimes interpreted as if Christ were the subject: “Christ by His sinless life in our nature condemned sin in that nature,” i.e., showed that it was not inevitable, and in so doing gave us hope; and this sense of “condemned” is supported by reference to Matthew 12:41 f. But the true argument (especially according to the analogy of that passage) would rather be, “Christ by His sinless life in our nature condemned our sinful lives, and left us inexcusable and without hope”. The truth is, we get on to a wrong track if we ignore the force of περὶ ἁμαρτίας, or fail to see that God, not Christ, is the subject of κατέκρινεν. God’s condemnation of sin is expressed in His sending His Son in our nature, and in such a connection with sin that He died for it—i.e., took its condemnation upon Himself. Christ’s death exhibits God’s condemnation of sin in the flesh. ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ is to be construed with κατέκρινεν: the flesh—that in which sin had reigned—was also that in Which God’s condemnation of sin was executed. But Paul does not mean that by His sinless life in our nature Christ had broken the power of sin at one point for the human race; he means that in the death of His own Son, who had come in our nature to make atonement for sin, God had pronounced the doom of sin, and brought its claims and its authority over man to an end. This is the only interpretation which does not introduce elements quite alien to the Apostle’s mode of thought.

Romans 8:3. An illustration justifying the ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθ. κ.τ.λ., just asserted, by a description of the powerfully effective actual arrangement, which God has made for the accomplishment of what to the law was impossible.

τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου is an absolute nominative, prefixing a judgment on the following κατέκρινε κ.τ.λ. “For the impossible thing of the law

God condemned,” etc. That is, God condemned sin in the flesh, which was a thing of impossibility on the part of the law. See Krüger, § 57. 10, 12. Comp. also Hebrews 8:1, and on Luke 21:6; Wis 16:17; Kühner, II. 1, p. 42. It could only be accusative, if we should assume a general verb (like ἐποίησε) out of what follows, which would, however, be an arbitrary course (in opposition to the view of Erasmus, Luther, and others). The prefixing τ. γ. ἀδύν. τ. ν. has rhetorical emphasis, in contrast with the ἐν Χ. Ἰ. in Romans 8:2. Comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Pyth. iv. 152. On the genitive, comp. Epist. ad Diogn. 9 : τὸ ἀδύνατον τῆς ἡμετέρας φύσεως, what our nature could not do. By a harsh hyperbaton Th. Schott takes a sense out of the passage, which it does not bear: because the impotence of the law became still weaker through the flesh. Erroneous is also Hofmann’s view: “the impotence of the law lay or consisted therein, that it was weak through the flesh.” The abstract sense of “powerlesness,” or incapacity, is not borne by τὸ ἀδύνατον at all; but it indicates that which the subject (here the νόμος) is not in a position for, what is impossible to it. See especially Plat. Hipp. maj. p. 295 E; comp. Romans 9:22; Xen. Hist. i. 4. 6 : ἀπὸ τοῦ τῆς πόλεως δυνατοῦ, i.e. from what the city is in a position to tender. Moreover, since the words taken independently, with Hofmann, would only contain a preparatory thought for what follows, Paul would not have had asyndetically ὁ Θεός, but must have proceeded by a marking of the contrast, consequently with ὁ δὲ Θεός; so that these words, down to κατὰ πνεῦμα in Romans 8:4, would still have been in connection with γάρ. And even apart from this, the supplying of the substantive verb would at most only have been indicated for the reader in the event of the proposition having been a general one with ἐστί understood, and consequently if ἀσθενεῖ, and not ἨΣΘΈΝΕΙ, were read.

ἘΝ ᾯ ἨΣΘ. ΔΙᾺ Τ. ΣΑΡΚ.] because it was weak (unable to condemn sin) through the flesh, as is described in chap. 7. On ἐν ᾧ, comp. 1 Corinthians 4:4; John 16:30; Winer, p. 362 [E. T. 484]. It is our causal in that; διὰ τ. σαρκ. is the cause bringing about the ἠσθένει: through the reacting influence of the flesh, Romans 7:18 ff.

ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ κ.τ.λ.] God has, by the fact that He sent His own Son in the likeness (see on Romans 1:23) of sinful flesh, and on account of sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that is, “God has deposed sin from its rule in the σάρξ (its previous sphere of power), thereby that He sent His own Son into the world in a phenomenal existence similar to the sinful corporeo-psychical human nature.”

The participle ΠΈΜΨΑς is not an act that preceded the κατέκρινε (Hofmann, referring it to the supernatural birth); on the contrary, God has effected the ΚΑΤΆΚΡΙΣΙς in and with the having sent the Son. Respecting this use of the aorist participle, comp. on Acts 1:24; Ephesians 1:5; Romans 4:20.

ἑαυτοῦ] strengthens the relation to ἘΝ ὉΜ. ς. ἉΜ., and so enhances the extraordinary and energetic character of the remedial measure adopted by God. Comp. Romans 8:32. We may add, that in the case of ἙΑΥΤΟῦ, as in that of ΠΈΜΨΑς (comp. Galatians 4:4) and ἘΝ ὉΜ. ς. ἉΜ. (comp. Php 2:7), the conception of the pre-existence and metaphysical Sonship of Christ is to be recognised (in opposition to Hofmann); so that the previous ΜΟΡΦῊ ΘΕΟῦ forms the background, although, in that case, the supernatural generation is by no means a necessary presupposition (comp. on Romans 1:3 f.). See generally, Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 235 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 317.

ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας] in the likeness of sinful flesh; ἁμαρτ. is the genitive of quality, as in Romans 6:6. He might indeed have come ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, Php 2:6. But no: God so sent His own Son, that He appeared in a form of existence which resembled the fleshly human nature affected by sin. The ἐν indicates in what material mode of appearance God caused His sent Son to emerge. He came in flesh (1 John 4:2), and was manifested in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16). Yet He appeared not in sinful flesh, which is otherwise the bodily phenomenal nature of all men. Moreover, His appearance was neither merely bodily, without the ψυχή (Zeller), which, on the contrary, necessarily belongs to the idea of the σάρξ; nor docetic (Krehl; comp. Baur’s Gesch. d. 3. erst. Jahrh. p. 310), which latter error was already advanced by Marcion; but it consisted of the general bodily material of humanity, to which, however, in so far as the latter was of sinful quality, it was not equalized, but—because without that quality—only conformed. Comp. Php 2:7; Hebrews 2:14; Hebrews 4:15. The contrast presupposed in the specially chosen expression is not the heavenly spirit-nature of Christ (Pfleiderer)—to which the mere ἐν σαρκί, or ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπου, as in Php 2:7, would have corresponded—but rather holy unsinfulness.

The following κ. περὶ ἁμαρτ. adds to the How of the sending (ἐν ὁμ. σαρκ. ἁμαρτ.) the Wherefore. The emphasis is accordingly on περί: and for sin, on account of sin,—which is to be left in its generality; for the following κατέκρινε κ.τ.λ. brings out something special, which God has done with reference to the ἁμαρτία by the fact that He sent Christ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. We are therefore neither to refer περὶ ἁμαρτ., which affirms by what the sending of the Son was occasioned, exclusively to the expiation (Origen, Calvin, Melancthon, and many others, including Koppe, Böhme, Usteri; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius), in which case θυσίαν (Leviticus 7:37 al.; Psalm 40:6; Hebrews 10:6; Hebrews 10:18) was supplied; nor, with Theophylact, Castalio, and others, also Maier and Bisping, exclusively to the destruction and doing away of sin. It contains rather the whole category of the relations in which the sending of Christ was appointed to stand to human sin, which included therefore its expiation as well as the breaking of its power. The latter, however, is thereupon brought into prominence, out of that general category, by κατέκρινε κ.τ.λ. as the element specially coming into view. Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1871, p. 186 f., erroneously, as regards both the language and the thought (since Christ was the real atoning sacrifice, Romans 3:25), makes καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτ., which latter he takes in the sense of sin-offering, also to depend on ἐν ὁμοιώματι.

κατέκρινε τ. ἁμ.] This condemnation of sin (the latter conceived as principle and power) is that which was impossible on the part of the law, owing to the hindrance of the flesh. It is erroneous, therefore, to take it as: “He exhibited sin as worthy of condemnation” (Erasmus, de Dieu, Eckermann), and: “He punished sin” (Castalio, Pareus, Carpzov, and others, including Koppe, Rückert, Usteri; comp. Olshausen, and Köstlin in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 115). Impossible to the law was only such a condemnation of sin, as should depose the latter from the sway which it had hitherto maintained; consequently: He made sin forfeit its dominion. This de facto judicial condemnation (a sense which, though with different modifications in the analysis of the idea conveyed by κατέκρ., is retained by Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Valla, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Bengel, Reiche, Köllner, Winzer, Fritzsche, Baur, Krehl, de Wette, Maier, Umbreit, Ewald, and others) is designated by κατέκρινε, without our modifying its verbal meaning into interfecit (Grotius, Reiche, Glöckler, and others), in connection with which Fritzsche finds this death of the ἁμαρτία presented as mors imaginaria, contained in the physical death of Christ. Various expositors, and even Philippi, mix up the here foreign idea of atonement (“to blot out by atoning”); comp. also Tholuck and Hofmann. The expression ΚΑΤΈΚΡΙΝΕ is purposely chosen in reference to κατάκριμα in Romans 8:1, but denotes the actual condemnation, which consisted in the dominion of the ἁμαρτία being done away,—its power was lost, and therewith God’s sentence was pronounced upon it, as it were the staff broken over it. Comp. on John 16:11; and see Hofmann’s Schriftb. II. 1, p. 355, and Th. Schott, p. 286. Yet Hofmann now discovers God’s actual condemnation of sin (“the actual declaration that it is contrary to what is on His part rightful, that it should have man like a bond-serf under its control”) in the emancipation of those who are under sin by bestowal of the Spirit,—a view by which what follows is anticipated, and that which is the divine aim of the κατέκρινε is included in the notion of it.

Observe further the thrice-repeated ἁμαρτία; the last alone, however, which personifies sin as a power, has the article.

ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΑΡΚΊ] belongs to ΚΑΤΈΚΡ., not to ΤῊΥ ἉΜ. (Bengel, Ernesti, Michaelis, Cramer, Rosenmüller, and Hofmann), because it is not said ΤῊΝ ἘΝ Τ. ς., and because this more precise definition, to complete the notion of the object, would be self-evident and unimportant. But God condemned sin in the flesh: for, by the fact that God’s own Son (over whom, withal, sin could have no power) appeared in the flesh, and indeed περὶ ἁμαρτίας, sin has lost its dominion in the substantial human nature (hitherto ruled over by it). The Lord’s appearance in flesh, namely, was at once, even in itself, for sin the actual loss of its dominion as a principle; and the aim of that appearance, περὶ ἁμαρτίας, which was attained through the death of Christ, brought upon sin that loss with respect to its totality. Thus, by the two facts, God has actually deprived it of its power in the human σάρξ; and this phenomenal nature of man, therefore, has ceased to be its domain. Hofmann, without reason, objects that Τ. ἉΜΑΡΤ. must in that case have stood before κατέκρινε. The main emphasis, in fact, lies on ΚΑΤΈΚΡΙΝΕ Τ. ἉΜΑΡΤ., to which then ἘΝ Τ. ΣΑΡΚΊ is added, with the further emphasis of a reference to the causal connection. Many others take ἘΥ Τ. ΣΑΡΚΊ as meaning the body of Christ; holding that in this body put to death sin has been put to death at the same time (Origen, Beza, Grotius, Reiche, Usteri, Olshausen, Maier, Bisping, and others); or that the punishment of sin has been accomplished on His body (Heumann, Michaelis, Koppe, and Flatt). But against this it may be urged, that plainly ἐυ τ. σαρκί corresponds deliberately to the previous ΔΙᾺ Τ. ΣΑΡΚΌς; there must have been ΑὐΤΟῦ used along with it. Comp. Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 160 f.

Romans 8:3-4. For what the law could not do — Το γαρ αδυνατον του νομου, what was impossible to the Mosaic law, whether moral or ceremonial; that is, that freedom from the guilt and power of sin, and from spiritual and eternal death, which it could not minister; in that it was weak through the flesh — Through the depravity and infirmity of our fallen nature, which it was incapable of remedying or conquering. “The law was not weak or defective in itself. Its moral precepts were a perfect rule of duty, and its sanctions were sufficiently powerful to enforce obedience in those who were able to obey. But it was weak through the depravity of men’s nature, which it had neither power to remedy nor to pardon; and so could not destroy sin in men’s flesh. These defects of law are all remedied in the gospel; wherein pardon is promised to encourage the sinner to repent, and the assistance of the Spirit of God is offered, to enable him to believe and obey.” — Macknight. Accordingly it follows, God, — (Supply δυνατον εποιησε, hath made feasible, or hath done, namely, what the law could not do;) sending his own Son — Ιδιον υιον, his proper Son, his Son in a sense in which no creature is or can be his son; in the likeness of sinful flesh — Christ’s flesh was as real as ours, but it was like sinful flesh, in being exposed to pain, misery, and death: and for sin — The expression, περι αμαρτιας, here rendered, for sin, appears, from Hebrews 10:18, to be an elliptical phrase for προσφορα περι αμαρτιας, an offering for sin. The Son of God was sent in the likeness, both of sinful flesh, and of a sin-offering. He was like the old sin-offerings in this, that whereas they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh, he, by making a real atonement for sin, sanctifieth to the purifying of the spirit. Condemned sin in the flesh — That Isaiah , 1 st, Manifested its infinite evil, by enduring extreme sufferings, to render the pardon of it consistent with the justice and holiness of God, and the authority of his law. 2d, Gave sentence that its guilt should be cancelled, its power destroyed, and believers wholly delivered from it. And, 3d, Procured for them that deliverance. The sins of men, being imputed to, or laid on Christ, Isaiah 53:6, by his free consent, (he being our surety,) were condemned and punished in his flesh; and no such remarkable condemnation of sin was ever effected before, or will be again, unless in the condemnation of the finally impenitent to everlasting misery. But the apostle here seems rather to speak of the condemnation of sin, not in the flesh which Christ assumed for us, but in our persons, or in us while we are in the flesh. Now in this sense, it must be acknowledged, it was condemned in some measure under the law, as well as under the gospel; “for under the law there were many pious and holy men; but sin was condemned in their flesh, not by any power inherent in, or derived from, the law: their sanctification came from the grace of the gospel, preached to them in the covenant with Abraham, Galatians 3:8, darkly set forth in the types of the law.” That the righteousness of the law — The holiness it requires, described Romans 8:5-11, might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit — Who are guided in our intentions and affections, words and actions, not by our animal appetites and passions, or by corrupt nature, but by the Word and Spirit of God. Love to God and man is the principal thing enjoined in the moral law, and is accounted by God the fulfilling of that law, Romans 13:10; Galatians 5:14; James 2:8. It must be observed, however, that “the righteousness of the law to be fulfilled in us, through the condemnation of sin in the flesh, and through our not walking according to the flesh, is not perfect obedience to [the moral law, or] any law whatever; [except that of faith and love;] for that is not attainable in the present life: but it is such a degree of faith and holiness, as believers may attain through the influence of the Spirit. And being the righteousness required in the gracious new covenant, made with mankind after the fall, and fully published in the gospel, that covenant, and the gospel in which it is published, are fitly called the law of faith, Romans 3:27; and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, Romans 8:2; and the law of Christ, Galatians 6:2; and the law of liberty, James 1:25; and the law foretold to go forth out of Zion, Isaiah 2:3; and the law for which the isles, or Gentiles, were to wait, Isaiah 42:4.” — Macknight. From this place Paul describes primarily the state of believers, and that of unbelievers, only to illustrate this.

Romans 8:3. For what the law could not do, &c.— For this the law not being able to effect, &c. The weakness, and as he there also calls it, the unprofitableness of the law, is again taken notice of by the Apostle, Hebrews 7:18-19. There were two defects in the law, whereby it became in this limited sense unprofitable, so as to make nothing perfect; (for it is profitable to drive us to Christ;) the one was its inflexible rigour, against which it provided no allay, or mitigation. It left no place for atonement; the least slip was mortal; death was the inevitablepunishment of transgression, by the sentence of the law. St. Paul's Epistles are full of this; and he shews, Hebrews 10:5; Heb 10:10 how we are delivered from it by the body of Christ. The other weakness or defect of the law was, that it could not enable those who were under it to get the mastery over their flesh, or carnal propensities: the law exacted complete obedience, but afforded men no help against their vicious inclinations. St. Paul shews here how believers are delivered from this dominion of sin in their mortal bodies, by the Spirit of Christ enabling them; upon their sincere endeavours after righteousness, to keep sin under in their mortal bodies; in conformity to Christ, in whose flesh it was condemned, executed, and perfectly extinct, having never indeed had there any life or being,—as we shall observe more fully by-and-by. The provision made in the new covenant against both these defects of the law, is in the Epistle to the Hebrews expressed thus: First, he will write his law in their hearts; because, secondly, he will be merciful to their iniquities; Hebrews 8:7-12. And for sin, περι αμαρτιας, signifies an offering for sin. See 2 Corinthians 5:21.Hebrews 10:5-10; Hebrews 10:5-10. So that the plain import is, "God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,—[like unto our frail sinful flesh in all things except sin, Hebrews 4:15.],—and sending him to be an offering for sin, hath condemned sin," &c. Thus the manner and end of his sending are joined. The prosopopoeia whereby sin was considered as a person through the foregoing chapter being continued here, the condemning of sin in the flesh, cannot mean, as some would have it, that Christ was condemned for sin, or in the place of sin; for that would be to save sin, and leave that alive which Christ came to destroy. But the plain meaning is, that sin itself was condemned, or put to death, in his flesh; that is, was suffered to have no life or being in the flesh of our Saviour: he was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. This farther appears to be the sense by the following words. The antithesis between condemnation, Rom 8:1 and condemned here, will also shew why that word is used to express the death or non-existence of sin in our Saviour; 1 Peter 2:22. That St. Paul sometimes uses condemnation for putting to death, see chap. Romans 5:16-18. To what has been advanced in this note, it may be urged, "Had not the Jews, before Christ came, the assistances of the Spirit, and sufficient means and motives to deliver them from the power of sin?" To which we reply, certainly they had, as appears particularly from the Psalms and prophetic writings; yea all mankind, since the promise, Gen 3:15 in all ages and parts of the world, have been, and still are, under grace; grace founded upon the redemption which is in Christ; and therefore always had, and still have, the benefit of divine assistance, however they might have neglected or abused it. But the Apostle is here considering the assistances enjoyed, under the then newly-erected dispensation of the Gospel, (which in means and motives far exceeds all others,) and with particular regard to the Jew; and upon a comparison with the law, in which he rested for every thing, to shew the infinite preference of the Gospel to mere law;—as appears from the foregoing chapter: where he at large shews the Jew the insufficiency of mere law, or a rule of duty, to deliver a man from sin and corruption; though the instructions here given to the Jew concerning the superior advantages of the Gospel for sanctification, would be of use to the Gentile convert; as his discourse to the Gentile, chap. 6: concerning our obligation to holiness, would be of service to the Jew, so far as either should need instruction upon those heads. See Locke and Whitby.

return to '

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

It was weak through the flesh — Which was irritated by the law, and took occasion thereby.

In the likeness of sinful flesh — Christ condescended to our rags, sordes nostras induit, took our passions and infirmities natural, but not sinful. He was in all things like unto us, but in sin: as the brazen serpent was like the fiery serpents, but only it had no sting.

return to '

Romans 8:3

This verse is connected with the preceding by the particle γάρ, for. ‘We are delivered from the law, for the law could not effect our salvation.’ The words τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου may be rendered either, the impotency of the law, or what is impossible to the law. The choice between these renderings depends on the grammatical structure of the passage. First, τὸ ἀδύνατον may be taken as the accusative, and the preposition διά be supplied, on account of the impotency of the law; or, secondly, it may be taken as the accusative absolute, as to the impotency of the law, i.e. in view of its impotency; or, thirdly, it may be taken as the nominative, and in apposition with the following clause. The sense would then be, ‘The impossibility of the law — God condemned sin:’ i.e. the condemnation of sin is what is impossible to the law. This is the view commonly adopted, especially by those who understand the apostle to be speaking of sanctification, and who therefore take condemned sin to mean destroyed sin. As, however, that clause does not mean to destroy sin, but judicially to condemn it, the first clause cannot strictly be in apposition with it. The law could condemn sin. What it cannot do is to free us either from its guilt or power. It can neither justify nor sanctify. On this account, the second exposition of the first clause of the verse just mentioned, is to be preferred: ‘In view of the impotency of the law, God sent his Son,’ etc. This insufficiency of the law, as the apostle had taught in the preceding chapters, is not due to any imperfection of the law itself. It is holy, just, and good. It requires nothing more than is right. If men could comply with its righteous demands, the law would pronounce them just. If they were free from the infection of sin, “the form of truth and knowledge in the law,” the perfect exhibition which it makes of the will of God, would avail to maintain and advance them in holiness. But as they are already under sin, under its guilt and power, the law is entirely impotent to their justification or sanctification. The apostle therefore says, that the law is impotent, ἐν ᾧ, because that (see Hebrews 2:18) it is weak through the flesh, διὰ τῆς σαρκός, i.e. through our corruption. It is our being depraved that renders the law weak, or impotent to save. God sending (or having sent πέμψας) his own Son, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱόν. The term Son here evidently designates the eternal personal Son. He was from eternity, and in virtue of his Divine nature, and not in virtue either of his miraculous birth, or his exaltation, the Son of God. The greatness of the work to be accomplished, and the greatness of the love of God impelling him to our redemption, are strongly exhibited in these words. It was not a creature, even the most exalted, whom God sent on this mission, but his own Son, one with him in essence and glory.

Two things are further stated concerning this mission of the Son of God. First, the form under which he appeared in the world; and, secondly, the object for which he was sent. As to the form in which he appeared, it was in the likeness of sinful flesh. It was not simply ἐν σαρκί (in the flesh), clothed in our nature; for that might have been said, had he appeared in the glorious, impassive nature of Adam before the fall. Much less was it in ἐν σαρκὶ ἁμαρτίας (in sinful flesh), for that would imply that his human nature was defiled, contrary to Hebrews 4:15 and to all Scripture; but it was ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας; (in the likeness of sinful flesh), that is, in a nature like to our sinful nature, but not itself sinful. Christ took our physically dilapidated nature, subject to the infirmities which sin had brought into it. He was therefore susceptible of pain, and weariness, and sorrow. He could be touched with a sense of our infirmities. He was tempted in all points as we are. He is therefore a merciful and trustworthy High Priest. The object for which God sent his Son, clothed in this feeble, suffering nature of ours, is expressed by καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας (and for sin). This may mean either on account of sin whether for its expiation or its removal, being undetermined; or it may be understood in a sacrificial sense. Christ was sent for the expiation of sin, or as a sacrifice for sin.

1. In favor of this is the usus loquendi, as περὶ ἁμαρτίας is so often used in this sense: see Numbers 8:8; Psalms 40:7; Leviticus 6:25, Leviticus 6:30; Hebrews 10:6, Hebrews 10:8, Hebrews 10:18; Hebrews 13:11. Thus also in Galatians 1:4, Christ is said to have given himself περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, for, i.e. as a sacrifice for, our sins.

2. The analogy of Scripture, as it is so abundantly taught in the word of God, is that Christ was sent to make explanation for sin, to wash away sin, to offer himself unto God as a sacrifice for sin. When, therefore, it is said that he was sent for sin, or gave himself for our sins, the implication is almost unavoidable that the meaning is, he was sent as a sacrifice for sin.

3. The immediate context demands this interpretation; for the effect ascribed to this sending Christ for sin, is that which is due to a sacrifice or expiation. What the law could not do, was to reconcile us unto God. It was in view of the impotency of the law to effect the salvation of sinners, that God sent his Son to make expiation for their offenses, and thus bring them back to himself.

He thus condemned sin in the flesh; that is, he condemned it in the flesh, or nature, which his Son had assumed. Christ took upon himself our nature, in order to expiate the guilt of that nature. The expiation must be made in the nature which had sinned. As Christ, the apostle tells us, Hebrews 2:14-18, did not undertake the redemption of angels, he did not assume their nature, but took part in flesh and blood. That the words κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (he condemned sin), does not mean that he destroyed sin, but that he punished it, visited it with the penalty of the law, is evident:

1. Because κατάκρινω never means to destroy, but always means to condemn. It is perfectly arbitrary, therefore, to depart from the ordinary meaning of the word in this particular place.

2. The sacrifice of Christ was the condemnation of sin. That is, he bore our sins. He was made a curse, in the sense that he endured the curse due to sin. His sufferings were penal, as they were judicially inflicted in satisfaction of justice. The proximate design and effect of a sacrifice is expiation, and not reformation or inward purification. When therefore the apostle speaks, as he here does, of what God did by sending his Son as a sacrifice for sin, he must be understood to speak of the sacrificial effect of his death.

3. The context requires this interpretation. The argument of the apostle is, that there is no κατάριμα (condemnation) to us, because God κατέρινε (condemned) sin in Christ. The other interpretation supposes him to say, that there is no condemnation to us, because sin is destroyed in us. That is, we are justified on the ground of our own inherent goodness or freedom from sin. But this is contrary to the Scriptures, and to the faith of the Church.

“Clare affirmat Paulus,” says Calvin, “ideo expiata fuisse peccata Christi morte, quia Legi impossibile erat, justitiam nobis conferre.” The apostle, he adds, teaches, “Legem nihil prorsus habere momenti ad conferendam justitiam. Vides ergo, nos penitus excludi ab operum justitia: ideoque ad Christi justitiam nos confugere, quia in nobis nulla esse potest. Quod scitu in primis necessarium est; quia Christi justitia nonquam, vestiemur, nisi prius certo noverimus, propriae justitiae nihil nos habere.” In saying, however, that the proximate object and effect of a sacrifice is to expiate sin, and therefore that sin is thereby condemned and not destroyed, it is not forgotten that propitiation is the end of expiation; that our sins are atoned for by the blood of Christ, in order to our being restored to his image and favor. Justification is not on account of, or on the ground of sanctification, but it is in order to it and therefore the two are inseparable. The justified are always sanctified, And therefore, so far as the meaning is concerned, there is no objection to saying, that the condemnation of sin of which the apostle here speaks, includes the idea of its extirpation or destruction as a necessary consequence. But it is nevertheless important, not only to a due understanding of his argument, but also to the integrity of scriptural doctrine, to remember that the condemnation of sin in the person of Christ, expresses its expiation by his blood, and not the destruction of its power in us. It is Christ as the substitute of sinners, bearing the curse for them, that is here presented to our view. This even Olshausen admits, who says, “The conclusion of this verse expresses in the most decisive terms the vicarious (stellvertretenden) atoning death of the Savior.”

return to '