Bible Commentaries

F. ELECTION (Cch. 8, 9–11)

It is almost needless to say that the Election spoken of in ch. 8 &c. is variously explained. A large and important school of Theology (the Arminian) interprets it as a personal election, but contingent upon foreseen faith and perseverance. Another school[58] interprets it as an election not personal at all, but (so to speak) social; an election, like the election of the Jewish Nation, not to life eternal but to a vantage-ground for attaining it.

[58] Or, more properly, other schools, with important differences among themselves in other respects.

Without forgetting for a moment the awful mysteries of the subject, we yet feel that both these theories, with all (and it is very much) that can be said for them, do not fit the language of ch. 8. and of St Paul’s (not to quote St John’s) general teaching. “Not according to our works” is surely the tone of this chapter and of the whole previous epistle, and of the next three chapters. And it seems to us impossible, on any other theory than that of a Personal Election to Life, antecedent to “our works” and mercifully prevailing in its purpose, quite naturally to explain the tone of rapturous joy which marks the closing passages of the chapter.

In the Seventeenth English Article, a masterpiece of careful expression, this result of the humble belief in an Election personal and effectual (but, observe, taking effect through moral means,) is strongly stated:—“The godly consideration of Predestination, and our Election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort, to godly persons, &c.”

See the whole Article; and especially the closing paragraph, in which the word “generally” is technical, and means “with regard to the genus;”—i.e. probably, mankind. The Article warns us to begin with faith in the promises to man as man, not with the question of personal election.

G. PREDESTINATION (Ch. 9)

See note on chap. Romans 8:30, on the original word.

On this great mystery, brought up with such stern force in ch. 9, we quote a few sentences from one who certainly spoke from no cold or unsympathetic heart—Martin Luther. His Prœfatio in Ep, ad Romanos (translated into Latin from Luther’s German by his friend Justus Jonas) is indeed, as Tholuck describes it, “admirable, and breathing the very spirit of St Paul.” There is a very noble contemporary English paraphrase of it, by Tyndale, from which we take the following passage (Tyndale’s Doctrinal Treatises, Parker Soc. Edition, p. 505):—

“In the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters he (Paul) treateth of God’s predestination, whence it springeth altogether whether we shall believe or not believe … By which predestination our justifying and salvation are clean taken out of our hands, and put in the hands of God only. For we are so weak and so uncertain, that, if it stood in us, there would of a truth be no man saved; the devil, no doubt, would deceive us. But now is God sure, that His predestination cannot deceive Him, neither can any man withstand or let Him; and therefore have we hope and trust against sin.

“But here must a mark be set to those unquiet, busy, and high-climbing spirits which begin first from an high (sic) to search the bottomless secrets of God’s predestination, whether they be predestinate or not. These must needs either cast themselves down headlong into desperation, or else commit themselves to free chance, careless. But follow thou the order of this Epistle, and noosel thyself[59] with Christ, and learn to understand what the Law and the Gospel mean, and the office of both the two; that thou mayest in the one know thyself, and how thou hast of thyself no strength but to sin, and in the other the grace of Christ; and then see thou fight against sin and the flesh, as the seven first chapters teach thee. After that, when thou art come to the eighth chapter, and art under the cross and suffering of tribulation, the necessity[60] of predestination will wax sweet, and thou shalt well feel how precious a thing it is. For except thou have borne the cross of adversity and temptation, and hast felt thyself brought into the very brim of desperation, yea, and unto hell-gates, thou canst never meddle with the sentence of predestination without thine own harm, and without secret wrath and grudging inwardly against God; for otherwise it shall not be possible for thee to think that God is righteous and just … Take heed therefore unto thyself, that thou drink not wine, while thou art yet but a suckling. For … in Christ there is a certain childhood, in which a man must be content with milk for a season, until he wax strong and grow up unto a perfect man in Christ, and be able to eat of more strong meat.”

[59] I.e. find shelter, as a child with a nurse. This striking clause is not in the Latin of the Præfatio.

[60] Necessitas, fixed certainty.

And to the last, surely, the dark problems that gather round the central and insoluble mystery of Sin will be safely approached only with the remembrance that “the Judge of all the earth” will “do right;” that He is the Eternal, and that His “ways” must therefore be “past finding out;” and that He “so loved the world that He gave His Only-begotten Son.”

H. REPROBATION (Ch. 9)

In the last note but one on Romans 9:22 we have alluded to the tenet that the lost are personally and positively fore-doomed to ruin. To this tenet Calvin was led, not by a passionless rigidity, from which his deep and sensitive temperament, and truly ample mind, were far removed; but by the conviction that it was inexorably demanded by Scripture and reason. But St Augustine, the great patristic teacher of Predestination, carefully avoided such a tenet; teaching that, however little we can fathom the mystery, man’s sin, running its proper course, is the only cause of man’s ruin; while yet special grace is the only cause of his salvation.

Ch. Romans 8:1-13. Security of the justified. The mind of the Spirit, not the mind of the flesh, is their characteristic

1. therefore] To what does “therefore” refer? To the discussion of the inner conflict just previous? Or to something remoter in the argument? The text is sometimes so printed as to carry on the connexion unbroken from ch. 7 some distance into this ch., and thus to make the discussion in Romans 7:7-25 the premiss of this “therefore.” But against this we think that, (a), both in contents and in tone, ch. 8 is a whole in itself, with one grand topic, the Security of the Saints, traceable throughout; and that (b) there is nothing in the last paragraphs of ch. 7 to suggest directly the present statement, though much to illustrate and enforce it. Had ch. 7 ended with “I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord,” it might have seemed otherwise, (though see note on those words;) but ch. 7 actually ends with the strongest assertion of the sin-awaking and sin-detecting power of the Law and the consequent strife of the soul. It is thus far better to refer this exordium of ch. 8 to the whole previous argument, but specially to such parts of it as detail the way of Justification. More specially still it is connected with chh. 5 and 6, and the first section of ch. 7, which state (under various imagery) the union of the justified with their Head, Master, and Bridegroom.

Hitherto the Epistle has discussed and explained, from many sides, the great matter of Justification, and its immediate results, (union with Christ, bondservice to God, the liberation of the will, &c.). The last topic thus considered is the attitude of the Law towards the soul—an attitude such that the Law cannot (in the regenerate or unregenerate) subdue sin, but can only expose and condemn it. This has been shewn partly to vindicate the holiness of the Law, partly to expose the malignity of sin, partly to re-inforce the truth, already proved, that Justification is to be attained by another way.

Now, to the close of ch. 8, the argument (without wholly leaving former topics and reasonings) rises to a fuller view of present results, and to the first full statement of the eternal Sequel. It is needless to point out the majesty and splendour which mark the whole passage.

no condemnation] The word “no” is strongly emphatic in the Greek. The Gr. for “condemnation” here occurs elsewhere in N. T. only ch. Romans 5:16; Romans 5:18. The cognate verb is frequent, and occurs e. g. Mark 16:16; 1 Corinthians 11:32 (last clause). As regards the soul, the verb means to pass sentence of death. Such sentence “is not,” for those who are in Christ; they “shall not come into condemnation, but are passed from death unto life.” (John 5:24.) “Who is he that condemneth?” (Romans 8:34.)

Observe that the word “is” is not in the Gr. There is no specification of time. Q. d., “such a condemnation is inconceivable.”

in Christ Jesus] See for parallels to this important phrase, Romans 6:11, (E. V. “through, &c.,”) Romans 12:5, Romans 16:7; 1 Corinthians 1:2; 1 Corinthians 15:18; 2 Corinthians 5:17, &c. And cp. Ephesians 5:30, where the key to its special meaning appears. The brethren of the Second Adam are regarded as solidaire with Him in the sense both of holy dearness and inseparable interest; specially the latter. The former idea is conveyed rather under the figure of the Spouse; the latter under that of the Body and the Head.—The whole previous argument of the Epistle makes it plain that those who are “in Christ” are those who have been “justified through faith.” (Ch. Romans 5:1.). No merely external position of opportunity or privilege can satisfy the phrase, in view of such a verse as this, or as 2 Corinthians 5:17. On the other hand, the phrase (strictly speaking) indicates not the inner experience of the justified—which rather appears in the phrase of “Christ in them” (Colossians 1:27, &c.,)—but their standing and interest.

who walk, &c.] Better, walking, as they do, not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. If these words are retained, they must be taken as a description rather than a definition. The condition of freedom from doom is, to “be in Christ Jesus;” but that happy position does, as a fact, result in, and so is characterized by, a “walk after the Spirit.” The words will thus serve as a caution against the abuse of the doctrine of gratuitous justification; but not as a modification of it. The point is admirably elucidated by Calvin’s remark, that “it is faith alone which justifies, but the faith which justifies can never be alone.”

But it is probable that the words from “who walk” to “after the Spirit” are to be omitted here. Almost for certain the last clause, “but after the Spirit,” must so be omitted. Very possibly they were inserted here by copyists, who conceived the previous statement too absolute to be trusted alone to the reader, and so borrowed a quasi-note from Romans 8:4.

2. For the law, &c.] What is this law? We take it to be a phrase by way of paradox, meaning the institute, or procedure, of the Gospel of Grace. Cp. “the law of faith,” Romans 3:27. It is the Divine Rule of Justification, (which alone, as the whole previous reasoning shews, removes “all condemnation,”) and is thus “a law” in the sense of “fixed process.” But also it is here “the law of the Spirit,” because its necessary sequel (indeed we may say its final cause as regards man) is the impartation of the Holy Spirit, (see John 7:39,) of whose influences so much is now to be said. And He is here specially “the Spirit of Life,” because He is the Agent who first leads the soul to believe in the Propitiation (see 1 Peter 1:2), and so to escape sentence of “death;” and who then animates it with the energies of the new life. Lastly, this whole process is “in Christ Jesus,” who is the meritorious Cause of Justification, the Head of the Justified, and the Giver of the Spirit.—The sum of the meaning thus is that the deliverance from doom is by faith in the Justifying Merit of Christ, which faith is attended, as well as produced, by the influences of the Holy Spirit, given through and by Christ.

hath made me free] An aorist in the Gr.; probably referring to the definite past fact of the delivering Work. The phrase thus refers to Justification rather than Sanctification, which is a present process, not a past event.—“Me:”—there is another reading “thee;” but “me” is certainly right. The word is an echo from ch. 7, Cp. Galatians 2:17-21, where the Apostle similarly turns from the plural of general truth to the singular of his own appropriation of it.—“Free:”—i.e. in respect of condemnation—not in respect of influence; which indeed (see next note) would be an alien idea here. He is here summing up the whole previous argument of the Epistle.

the law of sin and death] i.e. the Law, which, as regards man apart from Christ, is invariably linked with sin, as evoking it, and with death, as thus, in the nature of things, calling it down on the sinner. In other words it is the Divine Law, (instanced in that of Moses,) which, as a Covenant, is by its very holiness the sinner’s doom. The word “law” is (though not at first sight) used in the sense of a fixed process in both parts of the verse: the “new covenant” is linked, by the chain of cause and effect, with the Spirit of Life; the “old covenant,” with sin and death.

3. what the law could not do] Lit. the Impossible of the Law. What was this? The answer lies in Romans 8:4. The Law could not procure the “fulfilment” of its own “legal claim;” could not make its subjects “live after the Spirit.” This was beyond its power, as it was never within its scope: it had to prescribe duty, not to supply motive.—Here, obviously, the Law is the Moral Code; just alluded to as inseparably connected with sin and death in its effects (apart from Redemption) on fallen man.

in that it was weak] Better, in which it was weak. It was “weak” (i.e. “powerless,” in fact,) “in its impossibility” (see last note); in the direction, in the matter, of producing holiness of soul.

through the flesh] The construction is instrumental; the flesh was, as it were, the instrument by which sin made the Law powerless to sanctify.—Observe how St Paul here again (as in Romans 7:7, &c.) guards the honour of the Law; laying the whole blame of the failure on the subject with which it deals.—On “the flesh” see below, on Romans 8:4.

God] Not in antithesis to “the Law,” which, equally with grace, is from Him. The antithesis to the Law here is the whole idea of the Gift and Work of His Son.

his own Son] So Romans 8:32; though the Gr. is not precisely identical. In both places the emphasis is on the Divine nearness and dearness between the Giver and the Given One. The best commentary is such passages as John 1:1; John 1:18; Colossians 1:13-20; Hebrews 1:1-4.

in the likeness of sinful flesh] Lit. in the likeness of the flesh of sin; i.e. of the flesh which is, in us, inseparably connected with sin. The Apostle is careful not to say “in sinful flesh;” for “in Him was no sin” as to His whole sacred being. But neither does he say “the likeness of flesh,” which might seem to mean that the flesh was unreal. The Eternal Son took real “flesh,” (John 1:14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 1:22; &c., &c.;) and it was “like” to our “flesh of sin” in that it was liable to all such needs and infirmities as, not sinful in themselves, are to us occasions of sinning. He felt the strain of those conditions which, in us, lead to sin. See Hebrews 4:15.—This is kept in view here (by the phrase “flesh of sin”) because the victory over sin in its own stronghold is in question.

and for sin] The Gr. preposition is one specially used in sacrificial connexions in LXX. Sin-offerings are frequently there called “for-sins,” (to translate literally). So in the quotation Hebrews 10:8.—We are prepared for a sacrificial phrase here, not only by the idea of Substitution so often before us in the previous chapters, but by the explicit passage Romans 3:25.

condemned sin] i.e. in act: He did judgment upon it. Perhaps the ideas of disgrace and deposition are both in the phrase: the sacrifice of the Incarnate Son both exposed the malignity of sin and procured the breaking of its power. But the idea of executed penalty is at least the leading one: Christ as the Sin-offering bore “the curse;” (see Galatians 3:13;) sin, in His blessed humanity, (representing our “flesh of sin,”) was punished; and this, (as is immediately shewn,) with a view to our deliverance from the power of sin, both by bringing to new light the love and loveliness of God, and by meriting the gift of the Holy Ghost to make the sight effectual. (See ch. Romans 5:1; Romans 5:5.)

in the flesh] i.e. in our flesh as represented by the flesh of Christ; our sinful by His sinless flesh.—Meyer and others take the words as = “in humanity in its material aspect.” But through this passage the idea of the flesh is an idea connected with evil: even the Lord’s flesh is “in the likeness of the flesh of sin;” and St Paul goes on at once to the hopeless antagonism of the flesh and the Spirit. It seems consistent then to refer the word here, in some sense, to the unregenerate state and element in man; to man, in fact, as unregenerate. On man as such the doom of sin behoved to fall: but in his place it was borne by his Representative, who, to do so, behoved to come “in the flesh;” “in the likeness of sinful flesh;” with that about Him, as part of His being, which in us is unregenerate and calls for doom. Thus the idea is of substitutionary penalty; fallen man’s sinfulness was punished, but in the incarnate Manhood of the Son.

4. that the righteousness of the law, &c.] Here is the (for us) Final Cause of the Atonement. Both as a satisfaction of the Law as regards God, and as the manifestation and pledge of Divine Love as regards man, it was to give man peace with God (see on ch. Romans 5:1, &c.), and so to bring his will into real working harmony with the will of God. Atonement was to result in love and holiness.

righteousness] Better, legal claim; that which the Law laid down as the requisite for man, as his only possible right state. (The form of the Gr. word is different from that usually rendered “righteousness.”) What this “claim” is we find in the Lord’s definition of the Great Commandments; supreme love to God, and unselfish love to man.

fulfilled] The context, as now interpreted, will explain this word. The saints “fulfil” the law’s “claim” not in the sense of sinless perfection, (for see last chapter, and cp. 1 John 1:8-10,) but in that of a true, living, and working consent to its principles; the consent of full conviction, and of a heart whose affections are won to God. The Law could not compel them to “delight with” itself; but the gift and work of the Son of the Father do draw them “with the cords of love” to find the Law (as the expression of His now all-beloved will) “good, perfect, and acceptable.” This state of things is further described in the next clause.

in us] The justified.

who walk, &c.] “Who live and act;” a very frequent Scripture metaphor, from Genesis 5:22 onwards.—“After the flesh:”—on its principles, by its rule. So “after the Spirit:”—as the Spirit animates and guides.

The Flesh—The Spirit

This seems to be a proper place for a few general remarks on these two important words.

A. The Flesh. In N. T. usage, on the whole, this word bears in each place (where its meaning is not merely literal) one of two meanings. It denotes either (a) human nature as conditioned by the body; (e.g. Romans 9:3; Romans 9:5; Romans 9:8; 2 Corinthians 7:5, &c. &c.;) or (b) human nature as conditioned by the Fall, or in other words by the dominion of sin, which then began, and which works so largely through the conditions of bodily life that those conditions are almost, in language, identified with sinfulness. (See e.g. the present passage, and Romans 7:5; Romans 7:18; Romans 7:25, Romans 13:14; Galatians 5:17-24, &c., &c.) In the first connexion “the flesh” may bear a neutral, or a holy, meaning; (John 1:14;) in the second, it means a state which is essentially evil, and which may be described with practical correctness as (1) the state of man unregenerate, and (2), in the regenerate, the state of that element of the being which still resists grace. For manifestly (see Galatians 5:17) “the flesh” is an element still in the regenerate, not only in the sense of corporeal conditions, but in that of sinful conditions. But, in the latter sense, they are no longer characterized by it; they are not “fleshly,” because the dominant element is now not “the flesh,” but the renewed will, energized by the Divine Spirit.

B. The Spirit. In the present context this word, in our view, denotes the Holy Ghost, except in Romans 8:10; Romans 8:16, where the human spirit is spoken of. That it means here the Holy Ghost seems plain, because it is regarded as a regulating principle, and immediately below (Romans 8:13-14) the Divine Spirit is described as the regulator of the will of the saints. We do not of course deny the reality of the human spirit, even in the unregenerate (1 Corinthians 2:11; Ecclesiastes 12:7). But here, as in a large majority of N. T. passages, the personal Divine Spirit is depicted as in such a sense inhabiting and informing the regenerate human spirit that He, rather than it, is regarded as the dominant rule and influence in the being. Thus, Romans 8:9, the regenerate are said to be “in the Spirit,” not “in the flesh,” not because their human spirits are in command of their being, but because the Divine Spirit dwells in them. He does not dispossess their spirit, but so possesses it that He in and through it is the ruler of the man.

As regards the human spirit, (Romans 8:10; Romans 8:16;) the word, in both O. T. and N. T., has now a wider, now a narrower meaning. Now it is the whole incorporeal element of the being—the whole antithesis of “the body;” now it is the “nobler powers” of that element—the antithesis of “the soul,” in that narrower sense of “soul” which concerns instincts rather than conscience, reflection, and deliberate affections. Man is thus sometimes “body and soul;” (e.g. Matthew 10:28, and cf. Revelation 6:9;) and sometimes “body, soul, and spirit;” (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 5:23). And in 1 Corinthians 15:44, in the Gr., a remarkable contrast is drawn between the present body, “characterized by soul,” and the future body, “characterized by spirit.”—It must be remembered, however, that, unless in passages of exceptional antithesis, the distinction of soul and spirit may easily be pressed too far, and that in no case are they to be thought of as distinct in the sense in which they both are distinct from the body. We have no hint that they are two separable elements; they are rather different aspects and exercises of the same incorporeal element.

5. they that are] This “being after the flesh” is the state of which “walking after the flesh” is the exhibition and proof.—St Paul here, and in a measure to the close of Romans 8:11, expands and illustrates the difference between the past and present state of the Christian.

after the flesh] i.e. obeying it, (as the organ of sin;) making it their rule, in spite of their knowledge of right and wrong.

do mind] Same word as Colossians 3:2, where E. V. has “set your affection on.” It means far more than to “like,” or “care for;” it indicates the full preoccupation of thought and will with a chosen and engrossing object.—Such, according to St Paul, is the natural state of men, as regards any real bias of will and love to the true claims of the true God.

the things of the flesh] All things that the unregenerate nature prefers to the “things above,” whether in themselves guilty or innocent.

they that are after the Spirit] Ruled and determined by His awakening, regenerating, illuminating presence; characterized by the fact that He dwells in them.—It is plain (a) that St Paul regards the two classes as mutually exclusive, and together exhaustive of mankind; (b) that he makes the “being in the Spirit” to be a strictly supernatural state, the result of a Divine Indwelling once unknown to the soul, but now real and living; and (c) that this state is, in his teaching, an absolutely necessary condition of the true “sonship” of men towards God. Further, he does not mean by it a state of unnatural exaltation, (for nothing can be more practical than his view of daily life and duty; see ch. 12. &c., &c.,) nor of freedom from trial, (Romans 8:17,) nor of absence of inner conflict with sin (Romans 8:13). He means a state in which the will is decisively roused to that conflict, by the knowledge and love of God.

6. For] The reference of this “for” is not clear at first sight. Probably the sequence of thought is that the difference of carnal and spiritual preferences is profoundly real; for the former involves death, the latter, life and peace. And it is implied that the respective persons cannot possibly therefore interchange their preferences.

to be carnally minded] Lit. the mind of the flesh. The noun rendered “mind” is cognate to the verb rendered “do mind” in Romans 8:5. See note there. The idea includes choice, engrossment, affection towards a congenial object. See Art. IX. of the Church of England, where “the wisdom of the flesh” is the only phrase not admissible in a strict explanation. The E. V. here gives the sense as well as is possible, perhaps, in a brief form.

death] Is this legal or moral death? On the whole, we explain it of legal death, i.e. of doom. This idea implies the other, for the soul which is incurring the Divine Sentence cannot be morally “alive to God” in the sense of peace, love, and purity. But the connexion makes the idea of doom more prominent: see Romans 8:7, where antagonism to the Law is specified as the inevitable state of the “carnal mind.” Thus the words here mean that to have the choices and affections of unregenerate humanity is to lie under God’s sentence, and to be on the way to its infliction.

to be spiritually minded] Lit. the mind of the Spirit. See last note but one.

life and peace] This (by analogy with the view of “death” just above) means a state of acceptance, in its aspect (a) of pardon and consequent glory; (see last note on ch. Romans 5:18;) and (b) of secure and loving intercourse with God, with all its attendant blessings. See on ch. Romans 5:1.—Here of course, in view of the argument of cch. 3 and 4 especially, we must note how the being spiritually minded “is” life and peace; viz. not as the procuring cause of these blessings, which cause is the Propitiation (accepted by faith) alone; but as the state of mind in which only they can be realized and enjoyed.

7. Because] The reason of the radical difference of the two “minds” is now further shewn by a description of the essential condition of the “mind of the flesh.”

the carnal mind] Lit. the mind of the flesh; the same phrase in Gr. as that rendered “to be carnally minded,” Romans 8:6.

enmity] Cp. ch. Romans 5:10. The expression here is as forcible as possible. As truly as “God is Love,” so truly, essentially, and unalterably is the “mind of the flesh,” the liking and disliking of unregenerate man, “enmity,” “personal hostility,” towards the true God and His real claims.

Nothing short of this is St Paul’s meaning. It is not to be toned down, as by the theory that other impulses in the unregenerate may counterbalance, or at least modify, this enmity. We must keep clearly in view the reality of the claim of the Holy Creator to the love of the whole being. To decline this, when it is the creature that declines it, is not mere reserve; it is hostility.

the law] In its two great Precepts. Matthew 22:37-39.

can be] Again a perfectly uncompromising statement. The will of the unregenerate, as such, is incapable of cordial submission to the claim of the true God. Its essence is alienation from Him; self, not God, is its central point. When the man in reality “yields himself to God,” ipso facto he is proved to be no longer “in the flesh,” (see next verse,) but “in the Spirit.”