Bible Commentaries

CHAPTER 8

Romans 8:1. After Ἰησοῦ Elz. has μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα, which, following Mill, Griesb. and subsequent critics have expunged. The words are wanting either entirely, or at least as to the second half, in a preponderance of codd., VSS., and Fathers, and are an old inapposite gloss from Romans 8:4.

Romans 8:2. με] B F G א, Syr. Tert. Chrys. have σε, which Tisch. 8. has adopted. Repetition in copying of the preceding syllable.

Romans 8:11. διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα] So Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Fritzsche, Lachm. and Tisch. 7., following Erasmus, Mill, and Bengel. The Recepta, again adopted by Tisch. 8., is διὰ τοῦ ἐνοικοῦντος αὐτοῦ πνεύματος. The witnesses (for an accurate examination of which see Reiche, Commentar. crit. I. p. 54 ff.) are so divided, that there is on neither side a decisive preponderance, although, besides A and C, א also supports the genitive. The thought of itself, also, equally admits either reading. A decision between them can only be arrived at through the circumstance that the passage came to be discussed in the Macedonian controversy, wherein the Macedonians accused the orthodox of having falsified the ancient codices, when the latter appealed to the Recepta and asserted that it stood in all the ancient codd. See Maxim. Dial c. Maced. 3. in Athanas. Opp. II. p. 452. This charge, though retorted by the orthodox on the Macedonians, is worthy of credit, because διὰ τὸ κ.τ.λ. already predominates in Origen and the oldest VSS. (also Syr. Vulg.); consequently that assertion of the orthodox appears erroneous. The Recepta, indeed, is found in Clem. Strom. III. p. 344, Commel. 545. Pott.; but this single trace of its high antiquity loses its weight in opposition to the here specially important VSS. and Origen (also Tert. and Iren.), and in the face of these bears the suspicion of orthodox alteration having been wrought on the text of Clement. It is possible, however, that even long previous to the Macedonian controversy the questions and disputes respecting the Holy Spirit may have occasioned now and again the changing of διὰ τὸ κ.τ.λ. into διὰ τοῦ κ.τ.λ. At all events, the dogmatic interest attached to both readings is too great and too well attested to admit of διὰ τοῦ κ.τ.λ. being referred, with Bengel and Fritzsche, to a mere error in copying. In the controversy the genitive only (as introducing a relation different from that obtaining with the previous abstracts διʼ ἁμαρτίαν and διὰ δικαιοσύνην) must have been welcome to the orthodox in defending the personality of the πνεῦμα. Among modern commentators, Rückert, Reiche, Philippi, van Hengel, and Hofmann have declared for the accusative; whilst de Wette, Krehl, Tholuck, and also Ewald, adopt the genitive.

Romans 8:13. τοῦ σώμ.] D E F G, Vulg. It. Or. (who, however, gives both readings) al. read τῆς σαρκός, which Griesb. recommended. An interpretation in the sense of the preceding.

Romans 8:14. εἰσιν υἱοὶ Θεοῦ] Since among the uncials A C D E א read υἱοὶ Θεοῦ εἰς., while B F G have υἱοὶ εἰσιν Θεοῦ (so Lachm. and Tisch.), we must regard the Recepta as at all events too weakly attested. The preference belongs, however, to υἱοὶ εἰσιν Θεοῦ, because the omitted εἰσίν (it is absent also in the Sahid.) would be more easily inserted again at the beginning or end than in the middle.

Romans 8:23. καὶ αὐτοὶ τήν ἀπ. τ. πν. ἔχ. κ. ἡμεῖς αὐτοί] So Elz. The variations are very numerous. The readings to be taken into account, besides the Recepta, are—(1) καὶ αὐτοὶ τ. ἀπαρχ. τοῦ πνεύμ. ἔχ. καὶ αὐτοί: so B, Meth. Tisch. 7.;—(2) κ. ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ τ. ἀπαρχ. τ πν. ἔχ. αὐτοί: so D F G, Ambros. Fritzsche;—(3) κ. αὐτοὶ τ. ἀπ. τ. πν. ἔχ. [ἡμεῖς] καὶ αὐτοί: so Lachm. and, without bracketing ἡμεῖς, Tisch. 8., following A C א, min. Copt. Dam. The first of the three seems to have been the original reading; ἡμεῖς is an addition by way of gloss, which was written, in some cases, immediately beside the first καὶ αὐτοί (thus arose the reading of Fritzsche), and in some cases only beside the second, thus producing the reading of A C א, as well as the Recepta. With the reading of Fritzsche the second καί disappeared, because, after the insertion of ἡμεῖς had taken place in the first part, the subsequent καὶ αὐτοί was no longer taken analeptically, and therefore καί was found to be merely confusing. The reading αὐτοὶ οἱ τ. ἀπ. τ. πν. ἔχ. κ. ἡμεῖς αὐτοί has so exceedingly weak attestation, that on that very ground it ought (against Bengel and Rinck) to be rejected.

υἱοθεσίαν] wanting in D F G, codd. of It. Ambrosiaster. But how easily it came to be omitted, when the υἱοθεσία was viewed as something already possessed!

Romans 8:24. τί καί] B** E F G, Syr. Vulg. codd. of It. and some Fathers have only τί. So Lachm. But the very absence of need for the καί occasioned its omission.

Romans 8:26. τῇ ἀσθ.] Approved by Griesb., adopted also by Lachm. and Tisch. But Elz. and Scholz have ταῖς ἀσθενείαις, against decisive testimony. The sing is also supported by τῆς δεήσεως in F G, which is an explanatory addition to τῇ ἀσθεν. Comp. Ambros.: “infirmitatem nostrae orationis.” The plural was substituted for the collective singular.

The reading προσευξώμεθα (Griesb. and others have προσευξόμεθα) is decisively attested.

After ὑπερεντυγχ. Elz. and Scholz have ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, which, following A B D F G א* al. Arm. and Fathers, Lachm. and Tisch. have expunged. A defining addition.

Romans 8:28. After συνεργεῖ Lachm. reads ὁ Θεός, in accordance with A B, Or. It was readily believed that, on account of Romans 8:27; Romans 8:29, πάντα must be understood as accusative and God as subject.

Romans 8:34. μᾶλλον δὲ καί] Lachm. and Tisch. 8. have only μᾶλλ. δὲ, in accordance with A B C א, min. VSS. and Fathers. But between δΕ and Εγ. the seemingly unmeaning καί was easily overlooked and omitted.

The omission of the second καί (behind the first ὅς) is less strongly attested by A C א, and may be sufficiently explained by non-attention to the emphasis of the thrice-used word.

Romans 8:36. ἓνεκα] According to A B D F G L א 17. al. ἕνεκεν is, with Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., and Scholz, to be substituted. See LXX. Ps. 43:24.

Romans 8:37. τοῦ ἀγαπ.] D E F G, VSS. and Fathers read τὸν ἀγαπήσαντα, which has against it the Oriental witnesses, and seems to be an alteration in accordance with an erroneous exposition of τ. ἀγαπ. τ. Χριστοῦ in Romans 8:35 (see the exegetical remarks on that passage).

Romans 8:38. οὔτε ἐνεστ. οὔτε μέλλ., οὔτε δυνάμεις] So also Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., and Scholz. But Elz. has οὔτε δυνάμ., οὔτε ἐνεστ. οὔτε μελλ. Against greatly preponderating evidence. A transposition, because δυν. seemed to belong to the category of ἀρχαί. The evidence in favour of οὔτε δυνάμ., moreover, is so decisive and so unanimous, that it cannot, with Fritzsche, be regarded as an addition from 1 Peter 3:22, 1 Corinthians 15:24, or Ephesians 1:21. Tholuck, Philippi, and Ewald reject these words. But their various position in different witnesses is quite explained by supposing that their place behind μελλ., as well as their general isolation, were regarded as surprising and confusing.

Chap. 8. Happy condition of man in Christ.

The certainty of salvation, which is represented in chap. Romans 5:1 f. as the effect of justification by faith, appears here as brought about through the moral freedom attained in Christ. We see from this, that Paul conceived of faith not otherwise than as producing this freedom; so that faith is not only that which appropriates the atonement, but also the continuous subjective source and motive power of the divine life up to the final attainment of bliss. See Luther’s Preface, also his utterances quoted by Ritschl, Rechtfert u. Versöhnung, I. p. 142 ff., 180 f.

Romans 8:1. Ἄρα] draws an inference from the immediately preceding αὐτὸς ἐγώ.… ἁμαρτίας. If I, for my own person, left to myself, am subject indeed with the reason to the law of God, but with the flesh to the law of sin, then it follows that now, after Christ (as deliverer from the law of sin, ver 2) has interposed, there is no condemnation, etc. This inference, and not that one must be in Christ, in order to get rid of every condemnation (Hofmann), is indicated by γὰρ in Romans 8:2 as a matter of fact that has become historical. It is arbitrary to seek a connection with anything more remotely preceding (Hofmann, Koppe, Fritzsche, Philippi, and Bisping, with εὐχαριστῶ.… ἡμῶν in Romans 7:25; according to Bengel, Knapp, and Winzer, with Romans 7:6); but to suppose in ἄρα “a forestalling of the following γὰρ” (Tholuck), is linguistically just as mistaken as in the case of διό in Romans 2:1. Moreover, the emphasis is not upon νῦν, but on the prefixed οὐδέν: no condemnation therefore, none is now applicable, after that αὐτὸς ἐγώ κ.τ.λ. has been changed through Christ, etc. This applies against Philippi’s objection, that, according to our conception of the connection, νῦν should have been placed at the beginning. But the objection, that Paul must have continued with δέ instead of ἄρα, is removed by the observation that in the αὐτὸς ἐγώ, properly understood, really lies the very premiss of the altered relation.

νῦν] temporally, in contrast to the former state of the case. Comp. Romans 7:6. Philippi erroneously holds ἄρα νῦν as equivalent to ἄρα οὖν—which it never is—being forced thereto by the theory that the regenerate person is the subject of discussion in chap. Romans 7:14 ff. Hofmann’s view, however, that νῦν contrasts the present with the future αἰών (even now, during the life in the flesh), is also incorrect. Nothing in the context suggests it, and it must have been expressed in some such way as by ἤδη, or by a defining addition.

οὐδὲν κατάκριμα] sc. ἐστι: no sentence of condemnation (Romans 8:16), whereby God might deny them eternal life, affects them. The reason see in Romans 8:2.

τοῖς ἐν Χ. Ἰ.] i.e. to those in whose case Christ is the element, in which they are (live and move). The same in substance, but different in the form of the conception, is πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ ἔχειν and Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν in Romans 8:9-10.

Romans 8:1-11. Accordingly, the Christian is aloof from all condemnation, because he is free from the law of sin—a result which the Mosaic law could not accomplish, but which God has accomplished through Christ. Yet he must live according to the Spirit, and not according to the flesh; for the latter works death, but the former life.

Romans 8:2. For the law of the Spirit leading to life delivered me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For the right explanation, it is to be observed—(1.) The νόμος τ. ἁμ. κ. τοῦ θαν. necessarily, in view of the connection, receives the definition of its meaning from chap. Romans 7:23; Romans 7:25, as indeed ἨΛΕΥΘ. answers to the ΑἸΧΜΑΛΩΤΊΖ. in Romans 8:23. For this very reason neither the moral law (Wolf) nor the Mosaic law (Pareus, de Dieu, Semler, Böhme, Ammon, and Reiche) can be meant; the latter cannot, for the further reason that, after Romans 7:7; Romans 7:12; Romans 7:16, Paul could not thus name the Mosaic νόμος here, as Chrysostom has already urged. It is rather the law in our members, the power of sin in us, which, according to Romans 7:24, comp. Romans 7:10; Romans 7:13, is at the same time the power of (eternal) death (καὶ τοῦ θανάτου), that is meant. The two are one power, and both genitives are genitives of the subject, so that sin and death are regarded as ruling over the man.—(2.) Since the νόμος τ. ἁμ. κ. τ. θαν. cannot be the Mosaic law, so neither can the contrasted ΝΌΜΟς Τ. ΠΝ. Τῆς ΖΩῆς be the Christian plan of salvation, like νόμος πίστ. in Romans 3:27, but it must be an inward power in the man by which the law of sin and death is rendered powerless. It is not, however, the νόμος τοῦ νοός (which had become strengthened through Christ), as, following older expositors, Morus, Köllner, and Schrader think; because, on the one hand, ΝΟῦς and ΠΝΕῦΜΑ are specifically different, and if Paul had meant the law of the ΝΟῦς, he must have so designated it, as in Romans 7:23; and, on the other hand, there would result the utterly paradoxical idea, that the law of reason (and not the divine principle of the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ) makes man morally free. The ΤῸ ΠΝΕῦΜΑ Τῆς ΖΩῆς is rather the Holy Spirit, who, working inwardly in the Christian (Romans 8:5), procures to him eternal life (comp. 2 Corinthians 3:6); and ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωής is the ethically regulative government exercised by the πνεῦμα (not the Spirit Himself, as Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Maier, and Th. Schott understand it, but His ruling power).

ἘΝ Χ. Ἰ.] On account of ver 3, to be connected neither with Τῆς ΖΩῆς (Luther, Beza, and others, including Böhme, Klee, Ewald, and Hofmann), nor with ΤΟῦ ΠΝΕΎΜ. (Flatt; Tholuck: “the sphere, in which the Spirit of life operates”), nor with ΝΌΜΟς (Semler, Reiche), nor with Ὁ ΝΌΜ. Τ. ΠΝ. Τ. Ζ. (Calvin, Köllner, Glöckler, Krehl, and others), but with ἨΛΕΥΘΈΡΩΣΕ. So Theodoret, Erasmus, Melancthon, Vatablus, and others, including Rückert, Olshausen, de Wette, Fritzsche, Reithmayr, Maier, Philippi, and Bisping. In Christ, the law of the Spirit has made us free; for out of Christ this emancipating activity could not occur (comp. John 8:36); but in the fellowship of life with Him, in the being and living in Him (Romans 8:1), the deliverance which has taken place has its causal ground. The view which takes it of the objective basis that is laid down in the appearance and work of Christ, is unsuitable, because the discourse treats of the subjective ethical efficacy of the Spirit, which has the εἶναι ἐν Χριστῷ as the necessary correlative.

ἨΛΕΥΘ.] aorist. For it is a historical act, which resulted from the effusion of the Spirit in the heart. The progressive sanctification is the further development and consequence of this act.

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 8:4. The purpose which God had in this κατέκρ. τ. ἁμ. ἐν τ. ς. was: in order that (now that the rule of sin which hindered the fulfilment of the law has been done away) the rightful requirement of the law might be fulfilled, etc.

τὸ δικ. τ. νόμου] Quite simply, as in Romans 1:32, Romans 2:26 (comp. also on 16, and Krüger on Thuc. i. 41. 1): what the law has laid down as its rightful demand. The singular comprehends these collective (moral) claims of right as a unity. Others, contrary to the signification of the word, have taken it as justification (Vulg.), understanding thereby sometimes the making righteous as the aim of the law, which desires sinlessness (Chrysostom and his followers, including Theodore of Mopsuestia), sometimes the satisfaction of justice (Rothe; comp. on Romans 5:16). Köllner, following Eckermann, makes it the justifying sentence of the law: “that the utterance of the law, which declares as righteous, and thus not only frees from the punishment of sin, but secures also the reward of righteousness, might be fulfilled on us, if we,” etc. Substantially so (δικ. = sententia absolutoria), Fritzsche, Philippi, and Ewald (“the verdict of the law, since it has condemnation only for the sinners, and good promises for the remainder, Deuteronomy 28:1-14”). But against this it may be urged, first, that δικαίωμα τ. νόμου, because the genitive is a rule-prescribing subject, cannot, without urgent ground from the context, be taken otherwise than as demand, rightful claim (comp. also Luke 1:6; Hebrews 9:1; Hebrews 9:10; LXX. Numbers 31:21); secondly, that Romans 8:3-4 contain the proof, not for οὐδὲν κατάκριμα in Romans 8:1, but for Romans 8:2, and consequently ἽΝΑ … ἩΜῖΝ must be the counterpart of the state of bondage under the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2)—the counterpart, however, not consisting in the freedom from punishment and the certainty of reward, but in the morally free condition in which one does what the law demands, being no longer hampered by the power of sin and death, so that the fulfilment of the ΔΙΚΑΊΩΜΑ ΤΟῦ ΝΌΜΟΥ is the antithesis of the ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑ so strongly emphasized previously; thirdly, that ΤΟῖς ΜῊ … ΠΝΕῦΜΑ is not the condition of justification (that is faith), but of the fulfilment of the law; and finally, that in Romans 8:7, Τῷ ΓᾺΡ ΝΌΜῼ Τ. ΘΕΟῦ ΟὐΧ ὙΠΟΤΆΣΣΕΤΑΙ, ΟὐΔῈ ΓᾺΡ ΔΎΝΑΤΑΙ is manifestly the counterpart of ΤῸ ΔΙΚ. Τ. ΝΌΜΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘῇ in Romans 8:3.

ΠΛΗΡΩΘῇ] as in Matthew 3:15; Acts 14:26; Romans 13:8; Galatians 5:14, al. Those commentators who take δικαίωμα as sententia absolutoria take πληρ. as may be accomplished on us (ἐν ἡμῖν).

ἘΝ ἩΜῖΝ] Not: through us, nor yet: in us, which is explained as either: in our life-activity (de Wette), or as referring to the inward fulfilling of the law (Reiche, Klee, and Hofmann), and to the fact that God fulfils it in man (Olshausen; comp. Tholuck); but, as shown by the following τοῖς … περιπατοῦσιν κ.τ.λ.: on us, so that the fulfilling of the law’s demand shall be accomplished and made manifest in the entire walk and conversation of Christians. This by no means conveys the idea of a merely outward action (as Hofmann objects), but includes also the inner morality accordant with the law; comp. Ernesti Ethik d. Ap. P. p. 69 f. Regarding this use of ἐν, see Bernhardy, p. 211 f.; Winer, p. 361 [E. T. 483]. The passive form (not: ἵνα πληρώσωμεν) is in keeping with the conception that here the law, and that so far as it must be fulfilled, stands out in the foreground of the divine purpose. The accomplishment of its moral requirement is supposed to present itself as realized in the Christian, and that ἀδύνατον τοῖ νόμου of Romans 8:3 is assumed to be thereby remedied.

ΤΟῖς ΜῊ ΚΑΤᾺ ΣΆΡΚΑ Κ.Τ.Λ.] quippe qui ambularemus, etc. These words give negatively and positively the specific moral character, which is destined to be found in Christians, so far as the just requirement of the law is fulfilled in them. The μὴ is here, on account of the connection with ἽΝΑ, quite according to rule; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 287 f. In what that fulfilment manifests itself (Hofmann) Paul does not say, but he announces the moral regulative that is to determine the inward and outward life of the subjects. He walks according to the flesh, who obeys the sinful lust dwelling in the σάρξ (Romans 7:18); and he walks according to the Spirit, who follows the guidance, the impelling and regulating power (Romans 8:2), of the Holy Spirit. The one excludes the other, Galatians 5:16. To take πνεῦμα without the article (which, after the nature of a proper noun, it did not at all need), in a subjective sense, as the pneumatic nature of the regenerate man, produced by the Holy Spirit (see esp. Harless on Ephesians 2:22, and van Hengel)—as it is here taken, but independently of the putting the article, by Bengel, Rückert, Philippi, and others, following Chrysostom—is erroneous. See on Galatians 5:16. It never means, not even in contrast to σάρξ, the “renewed spiritual nature of man” (Philippi), but the sanctifying divine principle itself, objectively, and distinct from the human πνεῦμα. The appeal to John 3:6 is erroneous. See on that passage.

Romans 8:5. The apostle regards the description just given, τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα κ.τ.λ., as too important not to follow it up with a justification corresponding with its antithetical tenor. This he bases on the opposite φρονεῖν of the subjects, according to their opposite moral quality, so that the emphasis lies, not upon ὄντες and φρονοῦσιν (Hofmann, “as the being of the Ego is, so is also its mental tendency”), but, as shown by the antithesis οἱ δὲ κ.τ.λ., simply on κατὰ σάρκα and κ. πνεῦμα. The ὄντες might be entirely omitted; and φρονοῦσιν is the predicate to be affirmed of both parties, according to its different purport in the two cases.

οἱ κατὰ ς. ὄντες] A wider conception (they who are according to the flesh) than οἱ κ. ς. περιπ. The latter is the manifestation in life of the former.

τὰ τῆς ς. φρον.] whose thinking and striving are directed to the interests of the flesh (the article τῆς. ς. makes the σάρξ objective as something independent); so that thus, according to Romans 7:21 ff., the fulfilment of the law is at variance with their efforts. Comp. on φρον., Matthew 16:23; Php 3:19; Colossians 3:2; Plat. Rep. p. 505 B; 1Ma 10:20.

Romans 8:6. A second γάρ. The former specified the reason (Romans 8:5), this second is explicative (namely); a similar repetition and mutual relation of γάρ being common also in Greek authors. Comp. Romans 11:24; see on Matthew 6:32; Matthew 18:11; and Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 340; Kühner, II. 2, p. 856.

The striving of the flesh, namely (comp. νοῦς τῆς σαρκός in Colossians 2:18), tends to bring man to (eternal) death (through sin), but the striving of the Holy Spirit to conduct him to (eternal) life and blessedness (of the Messianic kingdom). The explanation: the striving … has death as its consequence (Rückert, de Wette, and many others), is right as to fact (comp. Romans 6:21), but fails to bring out the personifying, vivid form of the representation, which, moreover, does not permit us to introduce the analytic reflection, that the enmity against God is the desire of the flesh “of itself,” and that it is death “on account of God” (Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 563). That death is God’s penal decree, is true; but this thought does not belong here, where it is simply the destructive effort of the σάρξ itself that is intended to be conveyed, and that indeed, in accordance with the prevailing concrete mode of description, as a conscious effort, a real φρονεῖν, not as an impulse that makes the Ego its captive (Hofmann), since the same predicate φρόνημα applies to the σάρξ as well as to the πνεῦμα. On εἰρήνη, blessedness, comp. Romans 2:10. Understood in the narrower sense (peace with God), it would yield a hysteronproteron, which Fritzsche actually assumes.

Romans 8:7. Διότι] propterea quod, introduces the reason why the striving of the flesh can be nothing else than death, and that of the Spirit nothing else than life and blessedness: for the former is enmity against God, the source of life; comp. Jam 4:4. The establishment of the second half of Romans 8:6 Paul leaves out for the present, and only introduces it subsequently at Romans 8:10-11, in another connection of ideas.

The ἔχθρα εἰς Θεόν has its ground assigned by τῷ γ. νόμῳ τ. Θ. οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται, of which τὸ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός is still the subject (not ἡ σάρξ, as Hofmann quite arbitrarily supposes); and the inward cause of this reality based on experience is afterwards specified by οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται (for it is not even possible for it).

δύναται] namely, according to its unholy nature, which maintains an antagonistic attitude to the will of God. This does not exclude the possibility of conversion (comp. Chrysostom), after which, however, the σάρξ with its φρόνημα is ethically dead (Galatians 5:24). Comp. Romans 6:6 ff.