Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 8. For the place of this chapter in the argument see chap. 6, ad init. The general subject is the life in the spirit, by which the power of sin is broken, and the believer enabled to live to God. It falls into three parts (1) Romans 8:1-2, in which the spirit as opposed to the flesh is described as the principle of righteousness and life; (2) Romans 8:12-27, in which it is regarded as a spirit of adoption, the first fruits of a heavenly inheritance for the children of God; and (3) Romans 8:28-39, in which Paul concludes the argument, glorying in the assurance of God’s immutable love in Jesus Christ.

Romans 8:1-11. The Spirit as the principle of righteousness and life.

Romans 8:1. οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ. The οὐδὲν is emphatic: condemnation is in every sense out of the question. νῦν is temporal: it distinguishes the Christian from the pre-Christian period of life. The bold assertion is an inference (ἄρα) from what is implied in the thanksgiving to God through Jesus Christ (Romans 7:25). The description of Christians as “those who are in Christ Jesus” goes back to the words of Jesus Himself in John 15.

Romans 8:2. There is no condemnation, for all ground for it has been removed. “The law of the spirit of the life which is in Christ Jesus made me [thee] free from the law of sin and death.” It is subjection to the law of sin and death which involves condemnation; emancipation from it leaves no place for condemnation. For the meaning of “the law” see on Romans 7:23. The spirit which brings to the believer the life which is in Christ Jesus brings with it also the Divine law for the believer’s life; but it is now, as Paul says in Galatians 3:21, a “νόμος ὁ δυνάμενος ζωοποιῆσαι,” not an impotent law written on tables of stone, and hence righteousness comes by it; it proves more than a match for the authority exercised over man by the forces of sin and death. Paul would not have called the Divine law (even as a series of statutes) a law of sin and death, though he says τὸ γράμμα ἀποκτείνει; Sin and Death are conceived objectively as powers which impose their own law on unredeemed men.

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 8:4. All this was done ἵνα τὸ δικ. τοῦ νόμου πληρωθῇ ἐν ἡμῖν: that the just requirement of the law (i.e., a righteous life) might be fulfilled in us. See note on Romans 3:31. ἐν ἡμῖν (not ὑφʼ ἡμῶν), for it is not our doing, though done in us (Weiss). τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα κ.τ.λ. = inasmuch as we walk not, etc. This is the condition under which the Divine purpose is fulfilled: there is no physical necessity in it. κατὰ σάρκα: the flesh meant is our corrupt human nature. κατὰ πνεῦμα: the spirit is the Divine spirit which is given to those who are in Christ Jesus. It is in them “both law and impulse”.

Romans 8:5. The meaning of the sentence “is not contained in the repetitions of γὰρ by which it is hooked together” (Jowett). οἱ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες are those whose nature is determined simply by the flesh; their “mind,” i.e., their moral interest, their thought and study, is upon τὰ τῆς σαρκός: for which see Galatians 5:19 f. οἱ κατὰ πνεῦμα are those whose nature is determined by the spirit: for τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος see Galatians 5:22.

Romans 8:7 f. The reason why the mind of the flesh terminates so fatally: it is hostility to God, the fountain of life. Alienation from Him is necessarily fatal. It is the flesh which does not (for indeed it cannot) submit itself to God; as the seat of indwelling sin it is in permanent revolt, and those who are in it (a stronger expression, yet substantially identically with those who are after it, Romans 8:5) cannot please God.

Romans 8:9. Paul applies to his readers what he has said in Romans 8:5-8. ὑμεῖς is emphatic. You can please God, for you are not in the flesh, etc. εἴπερ has its proper force: “if, as is the fact”: cf. Romans 3:30, Romans 8:17; and the excellent examination of other N.T. instances in Simcox, Language of the N.T., 171 f. Yet the possibility of the fact being otherwise in isolated cases, is admitted when he goes on: εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει κ.τ.λ. For εἰ followed by οὐ see Winer, 599 f. οὗτος οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ: only the indwelling of Christ’s spirit proves a real relation to Him.