Verses 1-17
Sixth Section.—Christian life, or life in the Spirit of Christ as the new life according to the law of the Spirit, is a blessed life in the adoption of God; is free from condemnation and death; and leads to perfect blessedness in the glory of God. The principle of the new life as the principle of the freedom and glorification of the Christian, of believing humanity, and even of the creature; chap. 8.
Divisions: I. Life in the Spirit a life of opposition to the flesh; and the Spirit as witness of adoption; Romans 8:1-17. II. The renewal of the body by the life in the Spirit, and the Spirit as the security for glorification; Romans 8:18-39.
I. Life in the Spirit in opposition to the flesh, and the Spirit as the witness of adoption
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which [those who] are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit [omit all afterChrist Jesus].1 2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free 3[freed me]2 from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that [because] it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh [literally, the flesh of sin], and for [or, on account of] sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4That the righteousness [or, requirement]3 of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after [according to]4 the flesh, but after [according to] the Spirit.
5For they that [those who] are after [according to] the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that [those who] are after [according to] the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6For to be carnally minded [the mind of the flesh]5 is death; but to be spiritually minded [the mind of the Spirit] is life and peace. 7Because the carnal mind [the mind of the flesh] is enmity against God: for it is not subject [doth not submit itself]6 to the law of God, neither indeed Song of Song of Solomon 8:0 be [it]. So then [And]7 they that [those who] are in the flesh cannot please God.
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have [hath]8 not the Spirit of Christ, he Isaiah 10:0 none of his. And [But] if Christ be [is] in you, the body is dead because of 11sin; but the Spirit [spirit] is life because of righteousness. But [And] if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus9 from the dead dwell [dwelleth] in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall [will]10 also quicken [quicken even] your mortal bodies by [on account of]11 his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through [by]12 the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body,13 ye shall live. 14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the [omit the]14 sons of God. 15For ye have not received [did not receive]15 the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have [omit have] received the Spirit of adoption, whereby [ἐν ᾧ, wherein] we cry,Abba, Father. 16The Spirit itself beareth witness with [or, to]16 our spirit, that we are the [omit the] children of God: 17And if children, then [also] heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together [glorified with him].17
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
First Section.—The life in the Spirit18 as the new life, in opposition to the life in the flesh (Romans 8:1-17)
Summary.—a. The vital principle of Christians, or the law of the Spirit as freedom from the antagonistic law of sin (Romans 8:1-4). b. The principle of carnal life in contradiction to the Spirit and to God (Romans 8:5-8). c. Application of what has been said to the fundamental standpoint of believers (Romans 8:9-11). Their life in the Spirit excludes life in the carnal principle. Their Christianity amounts to nothing, if the Spirit is wanting. If Christ is in the spirit, the body is nothing. But the body shall be renewed at the resurrection by the Spirit d. Transition from the ideal and fundamental standpoint to the practical application. The conflict resulting from the victory, and the maxims of this conflict (Romans 8:12-16). No obligation to the flesh.—Spiritual life the means of destroying the surprises of involuntary carnal motions.—Following the guidance of the Spirit.—No fear of the power of the flesh. Childlike recourse to the Father.—The sense of adoption strengthened by the Spirit of God. Romans 8:17 : transition to the following section.19
Meyer: chap. 8. Happy condition of man in Christ.—De Wette: Blessed results of newly-animated morality. Tholuck: For thus the Christian, who has become freed from the law, has also become free from condemnation, and is subject to the guidance of the Spirit of adoption, by virtue of which he will become a joint-heir with Christ (Romans 8:1-17). The same: “We are here at the climax of the Epistle, ‘at the heart and kernel of the whole Epistle;’ as Spener says: Si scripturam sacram annulo comparemus, epistolam Pauli ad Romanos gemmam credo, cujus summum fastigium in capite octavo exsurgit (Spener, Consilia Theol. Lat., iii. 596).” [Bengel: Nunc venit ad liberationem et libertatem.—R.]
Romans 8:1. There is therefore now no [Ο ὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν. The force of οὐδὲν must not be overlooked—an absolute negation, with an undoubted reference to the completeness of the freedom from condemnation (Forbes).—R.] The ἂρα is quite plain, if we have perceived the alternative in the preceding verse: If I am in the νοῦς, I serve God. If we ignore this alternative, the meaning of the present passage must be doubtful. Tholuck: The older expositors do not generally furnish any proof of the connection of this ἂρα with the preceding chapter. Yet the following connection of it with Romans 7:25, by Augustine, is, in the main, correct: “To him, now, who, as a Christian, non amplius consentit pravis des deriis, and is planted in Christ by baptism, the prava desideria can no more be condemnation.” The Catholic expositors follow him. Bucer, Beza [Alford], and others, connect Romans 8:25 with the thanksgiving; but this assumes that the second half of Romans 8:25 is an interruption. Calixtus, Bengel [Stuart], and others, go back even to Romans 7:6; others [Hodge, Haldane], to the whole argument for justification by faith. Meyer: If I am left to myself to serve the law of God with my reason, but the law of sin with my flesh, then it follows that, since Christ has interposed, there is no condemnation, &c.—[The question of connection is mainly decided by the view of the preceding section. Those who refer it to the regenerate, connect this either with the whole preceding argument, or, with Philippi, with the preceding verse, in the sense: Although I am thus divided in service, still, being in Christ Jesus, there is now, therefore, &c.; or with the thanksgiving. If Lange’s view of the alternative be admitted, we must also accept his view of the connection. It seems to be an unwarranted breaking up of the current of thought, to go back as far as Romans 7:6; and to refer to the whole train of argument, seems out of keeping with the continuous experimental character of the whole passage. It is best to connect, therefore, with the thanksgiving.—R.]—Νῦν, the intervening state of faith, expressed last in Romans 8:25. [Νῦν is temporal, in distinction from ο ὖν (Romans 8:25), which is inferential. Hence the continuance of this state is implied.—R.]
No condemnation [κατὰκριμα, Verdammungsurtheil, sentence of condemnation (Lange). See p. 184 (Romans 5:16), where it is used in antithesis to δικαἱωμα. It may be limited to the justifying act of God at the beginning of the Christian life, but, joined with οὐδὲν, seems to have a wider reference here.—R.] Origen, Erasmus, Luther, and others, explain: nothing worthy of condemnation; but this is opposed by the τοῖς. See also Romans 8:34. Comp. Romans 5:16. Koppe generalizes nullæ pœnœ [Alford: no penal consequence of sin, original and actual], which so far at le belongs to the affair that even the temporal punishment, as punishment, and as prelude to the final condemnation, is abolished in the case of Christians. And this is so, not only because their sins are forgiven (Pareus), but because they are in Christ in consequence thereof.
[The question of the reference to justification or sanctification must affect the interpretation of condemnation, since Romans 8:2, beginning with γἀρ, seems to introduce a proof. The position of the chapter in the Epistle, as well as a fair exegesis of the verses, sustain the reference to sanctification. (Not to the entire exclusion of the other, any more than they are sundered in Christian experience.) We must, then, take no condemnation in a wide sense, either as deliverance both from sin and death (Forbes), or as having indeed a reference to the justifying act already past, but meaning, rather, the continuance in a state of justification; culminating in final acquittal and glory. The point of connection with Romans 8:24 (“death”), is the former reference; with the succeeding proof, the latter. This avoids sundering salvation into two distinct parts. The significant phrase which follows favors this view. Still, the position of the verse warrants us in finding a very distinct reference to the act of pardon, as preceding (and involving as a gracious consequence) the work of sanctification.—R.]
[To those who are in Christ Jesus, τοῐς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ]. This does not mean precisely, to have the Spirit of Christ, or Christ in you (Meyer), but it denotes the permanent continuance in justification—a life whose effect is the life of Christ in us. [This deeply significant Pauline phrase must never be weakened or limited. As to its beginnings, Augustine is excellent: Christus in homine, ubi fides in corde. As to its continuance, Bucer: A Christo pendere atque ejus spiritus in omnibus agi. But the best explanation is John 15:1-7, and Ephesians 1:23, &c. Hodge says: in Him federally, vitally, by faith; but the vital union seems always prominent; especially is it so here.—R.]
On the addition, see Textual Note. [Besides what is there remarked, the question of connection suggests, that the interpolation may have been occasioned by a desire to relieve the apparent difficulty in making Romans 8:2 prove the justification of the believer. To do this, the clause which makes prominent the Christian walk, so easily borrowed from Romans 8:4, was inserted.—R.]
Romans 8:2. For the law of the Spirit of life, &c. [ὁγὰρνὸμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ]. Romans 8:2 specifies the ground20 why Christians are free from condemnation. The principal question here is, whether, ἐν κριστῷ is to be referred to the following ἠλενυ ἑρωσεν, or to the foregoing, and how far to the foregoing? Meyer, in accordance with Theodoret, Erasmus, Rückert (not “Tholuck”), Olshausen, Philippi, and De Wette has also connected the ἐν χριστῶ with ἠλενθ. But this distorts the thought, as if that Spirit of life could possibly deliver without Christ. Certainly ἐν χριστῷ refers not alone to the foregoing ζωῆς (Luther, Beza, and others); and ζωή here is not the believer’s subjective life in Christ, but Christ’s original divine-human life itself. We must also not go back to τοῦ πνεύμ. τῆς ζωῆς alone (Flatt), but to the whole ὁ νόμος τοῦ πνεύμ. τ. ζ. (Calvin, Köllner, Tholuck).21 The fulness of life in Christ is the Spirit (see John 6:63); it is complete in itself, conscious, actual, and communicates itself as a unity with the Holy Spirit. It is just for this reason, also, the glorification of the νόμος, the personal righteousness; and as it has proved itself to be the completed νόμος, the ideal and dynamical principle of the Divine law in the obedience of Christ, so does it now prove itself to those who are in Christ; that is, justification becomes in them the principle of sanctification. But because this life-giving law takes the place of the Mosaic law—which could not deliver, but was completed by sin and death—there lies in the appropriation of this glorified law freedom from the law of sin and death.22
The law of the Spirit is not identical with the νόμος τοῦ νοός (Köllner, Schröder), but still the latter is connected with the former. The νόμος of the νοῦς is the ontological disposition which has attained its complete historical and concrete realization in the νόμος of the Spirit. Meyer observes, that the Christian institution of salvation is not meant, as νόμος πίστεως in Romans 3:27. Yet it is surely identical, to a certain degree, with the νόμοςπίστ., but not with the Christian institution of salvation.23
Of the Spirit. Meyer explains: of the Holy Spirit. And this is, indeed, substantially the fact; but the Holy Spirit is spoken of so far as He reveals himself concretely in the vital plenitude of Christ. Tholuck’s exposition is in the same direction: “The Spirit of life is that by which the spiritual life is effected in believers.” The law of the Spirit is the impulse and guidance of the Spirit, under the reciprocal action between the principle of faith and the administration of God’s government in the occurrences of life.
Freed me [ἠλευθέρωσέν με. The verb is aorist, referring to a past act, viz., the deliverance both from sin and from death, which took place at regeneration. Not completed, but begun when in Christ Jesus, and to be completed in Him.—R.] This expression constitutes an antithesis to the bringing me into captivity, just as the law of the Spirit of life is an antithesis to the law of sin and death [τοῦνόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου.]24 Because the false law of sinful propensity in the members is, according to Romans 7:23, a law of sin, so is it also a law which tends to death, according to Romans 8:24. Although the Apostle the designs to say that this freedom is followed by freedom from the Mosaic law (Romans 6:14), it is nevertheless utterly wrong to understand, by the expression before us, the moral law (Wolf), or the Mosaic law (Pareus, and others). How far has the believer been made free from this law? Evidently, freedom from the dominion of sin (Greek and Roman Catholic expositors), effected by freedom from the penalty of sin (Protestant expositors), is meant. Yet the νόμος πνεύμ. is not altogether identical with the νόμος πίστ. (Calovius). In the law of faith, the emphasis rests on the faith, but here on the νόμος; there, the question is the principle of justification, but here, the principle of holiness. The individualizing με ceases here.
Romans 8:3. For what the law could not do [τὸ γὰρ ]. The Mosaic law was incapable of effecting this liberation; therefore redemption took its place. On account of the connection of thought with the foregoing, the explanatory and appositional conclusion, what to the law was impossible, is made antecedent as apposition; by Winer, it is defined as an accusative, governed by ἐποίησε (Winer, p. 217, § 32. 7); by Olshausen, as accusative absolute (“as far as the possibility of the law was concerned”); [Hodge: in view of the impotency of the law.—R.]; and by Rückert, Meyer, Fritzsche, and De Wette, as an antecedent nominative. For analogous forms, see Meyer25 and Tholuck; particularly κεφάλαιον δέ, Hebrews 8:1. As nominative, the word acquires the character of a superscription, to be introduced with a colon; yet not as “rhetorical emphasis,” but as making prominent the difference between law and gospel. Erasmus and Luther supply an ἐποίησε before θεός, not agreeably to the forms, yet certainly in harmony with the thought. The genitive νόμου denotes the incapacity of the law to deliver from sin (Vater has referred the νόμ. to the law of the Spirit; Schulthess, to the law of Divine and human love).
In that it was weak. The ἐν ᾧ cannot mean while here; Meyer translates, in so far as, which appears too limited. [Luther, Calvin, Tholuck, De Wette, Philippi, Stuart, Hodge, render because, which is demanded by the context.—R.] The ἠσθένει again takes up the idea of incapacity.
Through the flesh [διὰ τῆς σαρκός]. Meyer: Through the guilt of the flesh. Besser: Through effect of the flesh. We must not forget the fact, that the division of the σάρξ has also made out of the law a division of the carnal letter. [The preposition διά with the genitive here marks the medium through which the law proved its weakness and inability, viz., the flesh (in its strict ethical sense). The law acted not on spiritual, but carnal men, and, through this medium, its inability to do what God did in sending His Son was proven.—R.]
God sending his own Son. The Apostle describes the redeeming act of God both in its pertinent meaning and in its medium. The medium was: God sent His own Son (in antithesis to the sending of the law by angels; Galatians 3:19; Hebrews 2:2); and He sent him in the likeness of sinful flesh, or, of the flesh of sin, and on account of sin.—He sent him. Declaration of preëxistence. [Philippi rightly finds in this verse not only a declaration of the preëxistence of Christ, but of His existence as Son; the description which follows having a soteriological, rather than a christological reference.—R.]
In the likeness of sinful flesh [ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας. Sinful flesh is not altogether exact. Σάρξ must mean the whole human man nature; the ethical force, however, lies in the genitive, which defines it: whose attribute and character was sin (Alford). The Orthodox fathers (comp. Theodoret, Theophylact, Tertullian) rightly use this text. “Christ did not appear in the flesh of sin, which was the Ebionite view, nor in the likeness of flesh, which was Docetic, but in the likeness of the flesh of sin, which is the Biblico-Pauline view” (Philippi).—R.] As He became truly man, He appeared in the full likeness of sinful flesh (Philippians 2:7), and yet not in equality with it. Meyer: “So that He appeared in an external form, which was similar to human nature, contaminated with sin. Christ did not appear ἐν σαρΖὶ ἁμαρτ., but also not Docetically (contrary to Krehl).” See Tholuck’s citation of the views of the Docetæ and of the Mystics (for example, Valentine Weigel, who held that the external body of Christ came from the Virgin,26 but His inward body from heaven), as well as the opposite views of Dippel, Hasenkamp, Menken, and Irving. “According to them, ὁμοιωμα does not denote likeness, but equality. But although ὃμοιος combines both meanings, yet that of likeness alone belongs to the substantives ὁμοιωμα and ὁμοιωσις; besides, the other meaning is contradicted by the analogy of Scripture in Hebrews 4:15.”
And on account of sin [καὶ περὶἁμαρτίας. The καἱ connects with the preceding. If this be forgotten, the interpretation may be too largely affected by the clause which follows.—R.] This was the motive of His mission. But the connection by καἱ expresses a second condescension of God and His Son. The first was, that Christ appeared in the form of a sinner, of the servant of sin (see chap. 7.), of the σὰρξ ἁμαρτίας, of the false σάρξ; the second, that a mission on account of sin was undertaken by the Son of God himself (see Matthew 21:37). “Καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτ. has been connected with κατέκρινε by the Itala (per carnem), Tertullian (de res carn., c. 66), the Vulgate (de peccato), Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Baldwin, and Bengel. But the καὶ is against this;” Tholuck. The ἁμαρτία in περὶ ἁμαρτ. itself has been variously interpreted. Thomas Aquinas, of the passion of Christ on account of its likeness to sin; Hervæus, of death; Origen, Pelagius, Melanchthon, Calvin, Bucer, Baumgarten-Crusius, of the sin-offering27 חַטּאה; Theophylact, Maier, and others, the destruction and removal of sin. Meyer: “It is rather the whole relation in which the mission of Christ stood to human sin;” but this is already indicated by the foregoing explanation (see 1 John 3:5). The mission of Christ was related to sin; its aim on every side was its abolition. But the immediate effect of His mission was, that God, by the innocence of Christ’s life in the flesh, distinguished and separated sin, as a foreign and damnable object, from the flesh.
Condemned sin in the flesh [κατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί. The article is used here with ἁμαρτίαν, the sin already referred to. This is a final argument against interpreting “sin” as = sin-offering, in the clause above. Whether “in the flesh” is to be joined with “condemned,” or with “sin,” is a matter open to discussion (see below).—R.] To the general idea of the mission of Christ: on account of sin, this declaration is now added, as a specific idea, to describe what His mission effected in relation to sin in the flesh. And we must criticise the different interpretations accordingly. Since the Redeemer, or God through Him, performs a condemnatory deed, we must especially avoid an incorrect generalization of the idea. Erasmus, De Dieu, and Eckermann, have very appropriately pointed out the thought, that He represented sin as damnable; yet we must emphasize sin in the flesh, and add: He separated it from the flesh fundamentally in Christ, in order thereby to cast it out from the flesh in the life of believers. This is, therefore, the sense: Christ, by becoming man in the flesh (which appeared to be the source of sin), and yet having a sinless fleshly nature, so maintained this sinlessness, and even holiness of His flesh, through His whole life, that He could give His flesh to His followers as a seal of His favor and as the organ of His Spirit. By this means He made it manifest: 1. That sin does not belong to the flesh in itself, but is inherent in it as a foreign, unnatural, condemnable, separable, alienable, and abstractly spiritual element; 2. That sin in the flesh is condemned and rejected in its carnal appearance; 3. That sin in the flesh should be separated from the entire human nature by means of the Spirit proceeding from Christ.
Other explanations: 1. Allusions to the eradication of the guilt of sin. This “is the prevailing ecclesiastical view in Origen, Chrysostom, &c. So, too, the Catholic expositors, with the exception of Justin; the Protestant, with the exception of Beza; even the Arminian and Socinian writers, and, indeed, the most of the later ones—Usteri, Rückert, Baumgarten-Crusius, Philippi,28 and Schmid (Bibl. Theol.);” Tholuck. For what has been and can be said in favor of this explanation, see, at length, in Tholuck, p. 392 ff. “Yet the absence of the αὑτοῦ from ἐν τῆ σαρκἰ (comp., on the contrary, Ephesians 2:5) is an obstacle.” We may add, that the context is also an obstacle. The question has been, chap. 3, concerning Christ as the propitiator. Here He is represented as a “fountain of holiness.”
2. Allusions to the removal of sinfulness. “The procession of the delivering Spirit of life from Christ is only clearly proved by Romans 8:3, in case there is in this verse the thought that Christ has gained the victory over sin by His pure and holy personality in His own humanity, and that this sinless Spirit now passes over by faith to believers;” Tholuck. The same writer adduces a number of the defenders of the obedientia activa; especially Beza, of the Reformation period; the following later expositors seem also to belong here: Winzer, Stier, Neander, Meyer, De Wette, and Hofmann.29—Yet Tholuck finally turns to the allusion of this passage to the guilt of sin, and thus we must understand by σάρξ (p. 394) not the σάρξ of Christ, but “the sinful human nature, which, although only kαθ’ ὁμοίωμα, was also possessed by Christ (Philippi, De Wette).” The latter does not belong here. But then there would also follow from this an atonement καθ’ ὁμοιωμα. The interpretation of the κατέκρινε by interfecit (Grotius, Reiche, &c.), does not suit the nature of Christ. Meyer properly observes, that the κατάκριμα has been chosen in reference to the κατάκριμα in Romans 8:1. If we thus condemn ourselves, we shall not be condemned; and if that condemnatory process against sin in the flesh has passed from Christ upon us, the object of the future condemnation is removed.
[Besides these views, Philippi advocates a primary reference to the death of Christ, but includes the fact that thus sin is eo ipso done away and extirpated, so that those who are in Christ Jesus have both the pardon and the removal of sin, because of the indissoluble unity of both in Him.30 This suits the wider meaning of no condemnation (Romans 8:1). All interpretations deviate from the strict meaning of the verb; the reference to punishment involves an added thought, not less than that to the extirpation of sin. Besides, the law could condemn sin, and, to a certain extent, punish it; but its great weakness was its inability to remove sin. It is perfectly gratuitous to infer that the modern interpretation implies that we are justified on the ground of inherent goodness, since this assumes that Romans 8:1 refers only to declarative righteousness, and overlooks the fact that the controlling thought is union to Christ. Still, should any prefer to find here an allusion to Christ’s passion as a penal condemnation of sin, it must be allowed as involved, though this must not then be used to force the same meaning on the next verse.—R.]
[In the flesh. This is referred by many to the human nature of Christ. Were this the exclusive reference, we would probably find αὑτοῦ. The ethical sense must be adopted by those who join it with sin; but against this is the meaning of sin as a principle (Alford), and also the indifferent sense of σάρξ in the earlier part of the verse. It is better, then, to join it with the verb, and include in it human nature, our human nature, which Christ shared.31 This seems to be Dr. Lange’s view, though he adds to it some remarks which seem to echo his pseudo-plasmatic interpretation of chap. 7. We paraphrase the whole verse: “What could not be done by the law (was thus done), God sending His own Son in the likeness of that flesh, which was characterized by sin, and, on account of sin, condemned entirely (both as to punitive and polluting effects) in that flesh (which He shared with us) that sin.” Yet this is not an accomplished fact as respects our release from the power of sin; that is to be fulfilled, and this end (ἳνα) is set forth in the next verse.—R.]
Plainly, this verse declares the condemnableness of the sinful propensity. An expression of Irenæus is important for the interpretation of this passage: condemnavit peccatum et jam quasi condemnatum ejecit extra carnem. The beautiful words of Augustine denote the objective medium by which the sinlessness of Christ becomes our liberation: Quomodo liberavit? Nisi quia reatum peccatorum omnium remissione dissolvit, ita u, quamvis adhuc maneat, in peccatum non imputetur. Yet Beza properly observes: Neque nunc Apostolus agit de Christi morte, et nostrorum peccatorum expiatione, sed de Christi incarnatione, et naturœ nostrœ corruptions per eam sublata. Only, as far as the transmission of sinlessness from Christ to us is concerned, we must bear in mind Romans 6:1 ff. By virtue of the connection of Christ with us, He has redeemed us; by virtue of His connection with us in our guilty misery, He has atoned for us; and by virtue of the connection of His nature with our flesh, He has given His flesh to die, in order that, in His spiritual position toward us, He might make us free from the flesh by the communion of His Spirit as spiritual man, and, with the flesh of His risen life, implant in us a sanctified nature for the future resurrection.
Romans 8:4. That the righteousness [or requirement] of the law [ἳνα τὸδικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου. Ἵνα, telic, introducing the purpose of the condemnation of sin in the flesh. Lange renders δικαὶωμα: Gerechtsein. On the word, see p. 184. Stuart: the precept of the law; Hodge: the demands of the law (and also, the sentence of justification); Alford (following Meyer): all the requirements of the law combined here as one. Perhaps it is more exact to paraphrase: that righteous act (viewing all the acts as a unit) which meets the requirements of the law. This is Lange’s view.—R.]. Meyer explains the δικαὶωμα (“quite simply, as Romans 1:32; Romans 2:26; comp. also Romans 5:16”) as the requirement of the law; that which the law stipulates. Yet we have seen above, that δικαὶωμα is that which satisfies and fulfils the law. The righteousness of life shall proceed from the righteousness of faith. Or, as the former proceeds originally from the latter as freedom in Christ, so shall it also proceed actually from it in more gradual fulfilment—in the holiness of our life. The surprise of the expositors at the explanation of Chrysostom and Theodoret, ὁ σκοπὸςτοῦ νόμου (see Tholuck, p. 396), is therefore without ground. Certainly that cannot mean, that the purpose of the law is to justify, but that it is its limit and end; see Romans 13:10. Explanations:
1. The imputatio of Christ’s righteousness. Calvin: The transferrence to us of the destruction of guilt which Christ effected (Bullinger, Beza, Calixtus [Hodge], and others). Also the transferrence of Christ’s obedience to us (Brenz, Aretius [Haldane, apparently]: therefore also the obedientia activa). Köllner, Fritzsche, and Philippi: The sententia absolutoria is meant. Tholuck properly suggests, that the πληροῦν and the ἐν are against these interpretations.
2. The principle of the righteousness of life imparted to believers. This view seems to indicate a slight fear of the thought that Christians shall be holy in the form of believing spontaneity. Tholuck cites Meyer’s view: “in order that this fulfilment of the law become apparent in the whole conduct,” and adds (in accordance with Olshausen), “then Christians would be regarded as though they were only the possessors of a principle fulfilling the law.”3. The real holiness of believers proceeding from the principle of the righteousness of faith. [So Tholuck, Olshausen, Meyer, Alford, John Brown, and many others; among them some who refer the previous verse to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ.—R.] The passive form (instead of πληρώσωμεν) is a safeguard against a semi-Pelagian misconstruction. De Wette: in our inward activity of life. Reiche and Klee give special prominence therewith to the real inwardness of the fulfilment of the law.
[Might be fulfilled in us, πληρώθη̣ ἐν ἡμῑν. The verb is passive. The fulfilment is wrought by God. In us; not by us, not on us (some shade of this meaning is involved in all those interpretations which refer the verse to imputed righteousness or holiness), and certainly not among us. The only objection to be considered is that of Calvin, and others: that, in this sense, the fulfilment does not take place. Granted—not at once, nor in this life, perhaps; but surely this must be the end (comp. Ephesians 2:10; Colossians 1:22), and that it is in the Apostle’s mind here, is evident from the latter part of the chapter.—R.]
Who walk not according to the flesh, &c. [τοῖς μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν ὰλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα. Κατἁ may be expanded into: according to the impulses of (so Meyer). These phrases express the actual life of those in the flesh and in the Spirit.—R.] This addition states not only the characteristic, but also the necessary condition32 of believers. Tholuck holds that the participial clause does not contain the condition, as many of the earlier expositors maintain, but only the specification of the method. Meyer holds, that κατὰ πνεῦμα designates only the sanctifying Divine principle itself, as objective, and different from the human πνεῦμα! But it must not be viewed subjectively as the pneumatic nature of the regenerate, restored by the Holy Spirit, as (in accordance with Chrysostom) held by Bengel, Rückert, Philippi, and others. We would then have to ask at once, whether there is not another expression for the human spiritual life in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit? Further, whence the antagonism of the Holy Spirit and the human σἁρξ, since the most direct antithesis would be man’s unholy spiritual life? Universally, wherever the question is the antithesis of spirit and flesh in man himself, man is nevertheless considered as man, and not merely as flesh. [To this position of Dr. Lange there are decided objections. On the whole subject, the reader is referred to the Excursus, p. 235. It is better to hold (with Meyer, Alford, Hodge, and many others, against Stuart, Philippi, Lange, &c.), that πνεῦμα here refers to the Holy Spirit, and not to the spiritual natured imparted by the Holy Spirit, or the subjective spiritual life-principle (Lange). This seems to be required by Romans 8:2 (“the law of the Spirit of life”) and Romans 8:5 (“the things of the Spirit”), where πνεῦμα evidently means the Holy Spirit.—The E. V. has very properly expressed this by the use of the capital letter.—R.]
Second Paragraph, Romans 8:5-8
Romans 8:5. For those who are according to the flesh [οἱ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ὄντες]. The εἶναι κατὰ σἁρκα is identical with the εἶναι ἐν σαρκἰ, and the latter means, to be in the carnal principle, under the supposition that the σάρξ is the absolute principle of life. This εἶναι, as the controlling tendency of life, is the source of the φρονεῖν, and the φρονεῖν is the causa efficiens of the περιπατεῖν.—Meyer says that this expression is a wider notion than that conveyed by “who walk after the flesh,” which is not the case.33 Tholuck explains εἶναι κατά τι: “To bear in one’s self the qualities of something; therefore = οἱ σαρκικοἱ.” But it is these, first of all, in their principle of life, which then certainly results in the walk in the flesh. [It may be admitted that the principle of life is more prominent than the ethical state in this verse. Yet the phrases, “in the flesh” and “according to the flesh” (especially the former) include the characteristic state as well. Hence the view of Tholuck is preferable.—R.]
Do mind the things of the flesh [τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς φρονοῦσιν. The verb means, think of, care for, strive after (Alford). Meyer notices the presence of the article, making σάρξ objective, as though it were something independent. This accords with the view, that Spirit here is the objective and operative Holy Spirit.—R.] The false objects of the desires of the false independence of the flesh. The antithesis, those who are according to the Spirit, οἱ δὲ κατὰ πνεῦμα, completes the thought that the two tendencies totally exclude each other.—[It also follows that τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, the things of the Spirit, which belong to the Holy Spirit, and hence to the spiritual life, exclude the things of the flesh. Dr. Hodge well remarks, therefore, that the latter phrase means “not merely sensual things, but all things which do not belong to the category of the things of the Spirit.”—R.]
Romans 8:6. For the mind of the flesh is death [τὸ γὰρ φρόνημα τῆς σαρκὸς θανατός]. The connection here formed by γὰρ is singular. Tholuck: “It could serve to prove only the second half of Romans 8:5, while the correspondence of the members of the sentence leads us to expect a proof of both halves of Romans 8:5. Thus the view gains probability, that, according to the Greek and Hebrew (כּי) use of language, the proof in Romans 8:6 performs for that in Romans 8:5 the parallel service of assigning reasons for the τοῖς μὴ, κ.τ.λ., in Romans 8:4.” Meyer makes the γὰρ the proof of the second half of Romans 8:5, οἱ δὲ κατα πνεῦμα. “Motive why they make the interests of the πνεῦμα the end of their efforts.”34 We regard, however, the γὰρ as proof that the εἶναι κατὰ has a corresponding φρονεῖν and φρόνημα35 as a result. For the σάρξ has a φρόνημα, yet all its φρόνημα is nothing but death; not only aiming at death against its will, but also proceeding from death, moving in the element of death; that is, in constant dissolution of the unity between life and its source of life, between spiritual and physical life, and even between the opposition of the desires of the individual members. The copula, to be supplied here, is not, has as its results, but, is, amounts to. Philippi: “Death is here conceived as present (comp. 1 Timothy 5:6; Ephesians 2:1; Ephesians 2:5), not merely as a result, but as a characteristic mark, an immanent definition of the carnal mind.”—R.]
[But the mind of the Spirit, τὸ δὲ φρόνημα τοῦ πνεὺματος.] The opposite is the φρόνημα τοῦ πνεύματος (for the εἶναι κατὰπν. is itself πν.); it is life and peace.36 It is therefore from true life, moving in life, directed to life. Peace means the soul of life. Opposition is the separation and dissolution of life; peace with God is connection with the source of life; peace with one’s self, a blessed sense of life; peace with the government of God and His world, an infinitely richer life. The third characteristic must be specially emphasized in both clauses: directed to the end: life and peace.
Romans 8:7. Because the mind of the flesh. [Διότι introduces a proof, here confined to the former half of Romans 8:6. This proof hints at an antithesis to both life and peace, the latter being more evident, as it is in human consciousness also.—R.] The reason why φρόνημα, &c., = θαν., lies in its opposition to the source of life, its enmity against God [ἒχθρα εἰς θεόν], with which the displeasure of God necessarily corresponds.37 Since the Apostle does not prove the second half, it follows that here the effort of the flesh constitutes the principal point of view. Enmity against God is, in the first degree, the actual opposition to God in almost unknown (but not unconscious) form; but afterwards the opposition established also in the consciousness. Melanchthon appropriately says: “Loquitur Paulus principaliter de cogitationibus de deo, quales sunt in mente non renata, in qua simul magna confusio est dubitationum, deinde et de affectibus erga deum. In securis est contemtus judicii dei, in perpere factis indignatio et fremitus adversus deum.”
For it does not submit itself to the law of God [τῷ γὰρ νόμω̣ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται. The verb is middle. The law of God is in emphatic position. The clause proves what precedes, by adducing a fact. This mode of proof concurs with the statements already made respecting man’s character and that of the law.—R.] Paul’s positive declaration of the manifestation of this enmity. This enmity, which is very deep-seated, becomes manifest in disobedience to, and rebellion against, God’s law.
Neither indeed can it [οὐδὲ γὰρ δύναται]. Subjection to the law of God is not possible on the carnal standpoint. Or rather, it cannot be effected by carnal effort. A divided life, according to the blind course of the lusts, is in outright contradiction to the central procession of life from within, according to the principle of the Spirit. Tholuck justly opposes Zeller, by bringing out the fact, that the antithesis is not man’s sensuous and spiritual nature in itself, but that σάρξ denotes human nature with the accessory idea of its sinful character. But to this it may be said, that the question is not the σάρξ in itself, but a φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός; that is, a σάρξ morbidly excited and demonized by a selfish spirituality. [Comp. the Excursus in chap. 7. That chapter is a proof of this declaration. The fact is undoubted. Paul is but declaring the cause of the manifestation of enmity to God in the form of opposition to His law, the inability of the carnal man to be subject to it. The question of ability to believe is not under discussion, yet Pelagianism and legalism are obviously precluded by this statement.—R.]
Romans 8:8. And those who are in the flesh cannot please God [οἱ δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ὂντες θεῷἀρέσαι οὐ δύνανται. The E. V. strengthens δέ into so then, following Beza, Calvin, and others, who made it = οὖν. (So Hodge.) It is much better, with De Wette, Philippi, Meyer, to consider it metabatic. It continues the thought of the first clause of Romans 8:7. There seems to be no necessity for assuming a suppressed μέν, as Alford does. On this account we render and instead of but.—R.] Ὄντες ἐν σαρκί = ὂντες κατὰ σάρκα, but the expression here is stronger; see above. The incapacity in Romans 8:8, then, follows from the incapacity of Romans 8:7. It is said, in a mild way, that they are objects of the Divine displeasure, children of wrath. But the expression is significant, in that it destroys the notion of those who are legalists, and rely on the righteousness of their works, and who, although ὂντες ἐν σαρκί, fancy that they can merit the pleasure of God by their works and endeavors. For we must by no means lose sight of the fact, that the Apostle does not speak merely of the gross service of sin, but also of an observance of the law, which accepts the law as merely external, as γράνμα and σάρξ. [The connection renders obvious what is distinctly stated elsewhere, that this is no negative position, involving only negative results. The mind of the flesh is death.—R.]
Third Paragraph, Romans 8:9-11
Romans 8:9. But ye are not in the flesh, &c. [ὑμεῖς δέ, Ζ.τ.λ. Δέ is distinctive (Stuart).—If so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you, εἲπερ πνεῦμα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν]. The antithesis. The more specific exhortation does not appear here, but in Romans 8:12. The εἴπερ may be thus distinguished from εἲγε: it (= “provided that”) generally expresses slight doubt, while εἲγε expresses rather an assurance in the sense of if indeed. Yet the εἲπερ here must be understood as only purely conditional, in conformity with the antithesis by which the Apostle represents the standpoint of the spiritual life of believers as purely fundamental and ideal. With such a representation, the application to individuals can only take place with an εἲπερ; likewise without positive doubt. Chrysostom and Olshausen take it as ἐπειδήπερ, quando quidem; Tholuck and Meyer prefer the hortatory construction, on account of the antithesis. [It seems most natural to account for the conditional form, by admitting “an indirect incitement to self-examination” (Meyer). Πνεῦμα is without the article, yet it must mean the Holy Spirit; hence we claim this as its usual meaning throughout the passage. The use of πνεύματι, seemingly in distinction from πνεῦμα, is not against this, since, in the first clause, the Spirit is represented as the element in which they live; in the second, as the indwelling power causing them to live in this element.—On οἰκεῖ, comp. 1 Corinthians 3:16; 1 Corinthians 6:17; 1Co 6:19; 2 Timothy 1:14; John 14:23.—In you must not be weakened to among you.—R.]
Now if any man hath not, &c. [εἰ δέ τις πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ οὐκ ἔχει. The antithesis is not very strong; δέ may well be rendered now (E. V.). The unconditional negative belongs to the verb (Alford). See Textual Note8.—R.] This antithetical declaration certainly expresses the possibility, that what has been said has no reference to particular individuals, and that here no half measures are of any avail.
The Spirit of Christ. The question here is, belonging to Christ; hence, the Spirit of Christ. It is the Spirit of God as the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of His righteousness of life as brought home to the inward life of believers. [There can be no reasonable doubt that it is identical with Spirit of God, above; though the connection with “none of His” has occasioned the use of this particular phrase. The genitive is possessive, Spirit belonging to, or proceeding from, Christ. Comp. Philippians 1:19; Gal 4:6; 1 Peter 1:11. Notice the terms, “Spirit of God,” “Spirit of Christ,” “Christ,” all applied to the Divine spiritual indwelling. Hence Bengel well says: Testimonium illustre de sancta Trinitate ejusque œconomia in corde fidel um. It must be admitted that such statements generally have reference to the economy of grace, but they form the basis for the doctrinal statements of the Church. This text is therefore a dictum probans for the Western doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son (filioque, Synod of Toledo, A. D. 589). This was the final contribution to the doctrinal statement of the Trinity. On its importance, &c., see Schaff, History of the Christian Church, iii., pp. 688 f.; comp. Kahnis, Lehre vom Heiligen Geiste, Halle, 1847. Philippi has an excellent note in loco. On the relation of the Holy Spirit to Christ, comp. John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7; John 16:13-14.—R.]
[He is none of his, οὗτος οὐκ ἒστιναὐτοῦ.] The Apostle does not regard a merely external belonging to Christ as of any value. Where the Christianity of the inward life is extinct, there the Christianity of the whole man is extinct. Meyer: “Not those who are not Christians, but nominal Christians.”
Romans 8:10. But if Christ is in you [εἰ δὲκριστὸρ ἐν ὑμῖν]. That is, as a principle of life. [Δέ contrasts with the last verse. (Is is substituted for be, to indicate the strong probability that this is the case.) Comp. John 6:56; John 15:4; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Galatians 2:20; Ephesians 3:17; Colossians 1:27; also John 14:23, as justifying the remark of Bengel: Qui Spiritum habet, Christum habet; qui Christum habet, Deum habet. The mystical union of Christ and the believer has, as its underlying basis, the yet more mysterious unity of the Persons of the Godhead.—R.]
The body is dead [τὸ μὲν σῶμα νεκρόν]. Explanations of Rom 8:10-11 :38
1. Death and life in their strict sense. Therefore the body lapsed to death (Augustine, Beza, Bengel [mortuum pro moriturum], Usteri, Rückert, and Fritzsche). [So Hodge, Alford, Wordsworth.] According to Meyer, the νεκρός is proleptic: “Ye have the following blessed results to enjoy: although the body is a prey to death because of sin, yet the spirit is life because of righteousness. But He who raised Christ will also raise your mortal bodies, because the Spirit of Christ dwelleth in you.” [In favor of this view are: the natural sense of dead, the connection with Romans 8:11, and the subsequent course of thought; its not attaching an ethical meaning to body. Against it: the comprehensive meaning of death throughout this part of the Epistle, the necessity for a wide meaning in its antithesis ζωὴ, as well as in ζωοποιὴσει (Romans 8:11, not ἐγειρεῖ); also the use of σῶμα in an implied ethical sense in Romans 8:13.—R.]
2. The body is dead, slain by sin (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Erasmus, Grotius, Baumgarten-Crusius [Stuart], and others. [These, for the most part, take Romans 8:10 in a moral or spiritual sense. This view is most objectionable, since it disturbs the harmony of the two verses, takes σῶμα in a strict ethical sense, and gives to νεκρόν (which seems to be chosen rather to avoid a direct antithesis to ζωή) the widest possible meaning.—R.]
3. The misery of sin as bearing in itself the germ of death (De Wette, and others). [De Wette claims that the physical and ethical senses must be combined here, as in John 5:21 ff. This view is sufficiently correct if properly restricted. The physical death of the body is to be viewed as a moral result of the indwelling sin, but only because the body has not yet shared in the full results of redemption.—R.]
But all this does not furnish us with the definition, that, on account of sin—that is, because of sinfulness—we have to lead a divinely partial life from the principle of the Spirit, in which the body is declared to be dead in an ideal and dynamical respect (see Romans 6:4). But thereby the spirit as life, and the principle of life, is concentrated still more in itself. [The objection to this view is, its confusion of human spirit and Divine Spirit, on which the whole interpretation rests.—R.]
But the spirit is life [τὸ δὲ πνεῦμαζωή]. Meyer also holds, that here the spirit is not the Holy Spirit (as Chrysostom, Calvin, and others suppose), but the human spirit. Although the human spirit is here regarded as filled by the Holy Spirit, we must not include (with Philippi, following Theodoret and De Wette) the pneumatic nature of the regenerate. For, says Meyer, that must remain there. [The meaning is evidently that under III. B. in the Excursus above, p. 235.—R.] Ζωή, life; not merely living, but life which is thoroughly actual, life-giving, and life-supporting. [Whatever view be taken of dead, the change in the form here, from the adjective to the noun, warrants an extension of meaning; as indeed the word ζωή itself, and its reference to the human spirit permeated by the Divine Spirit, demand.—R.]
Because of sin [δυὰ ἁμαρτἰαν, on account of sin, as an indwelling principle. Not the special sins of the body, nor that the body is the special seat of sin; but, having shared in the results of sin, it has not yet shared in the results of redemption. How and when it will, is afterwards stated.—R.] As this can only mean, to constitute a pure opposition to the sinful propensity cleaving to the members, so can because of righteousness [διὰ δικαιοσύνην] only mean, to maintain and develop the righteousness of faith in the righteousness of life. According to Meyer, the justitia imputata is meant, as the foundation of the ζωή. (The most of the elder expositors, together with Rückert, &c., favor the same view.) But then the διά would have to be construed with the genitive. The reference to the righteousness of life (Erasmus, Grotius, De Wette, Philippi [Hodge, Alford], and others) is opposed by Meyer in the words: “Because the righteousness of life can never be perfect, it can never be the ground of the ζωή. But the question is not the ground of the ζωή, but the greater promotion of life, so that it may prove itself to be purer life. The concern is, to preserve spotless the white robe of bestowed righteousness, and, being clad in it, to strive for the crown of righteousness.” (Meyer holds, according to this, that the ἁμαρτ. does not imply our own individual sin, and thus, too, that the δικ. does not imply our own “righteousness.”) In harmony with the sense, many expositors, particularly Calixtus, connect the justitia imputata with the inchoata.39
Romans 8:11. But if the Spirit [εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα]. The Apostle here prepares his transition from his description of adoption, regarded as a partial spiritual life, to his description of the glory in which body and spirit shall be in perfect harmony, when the body shall be glorified into the perfect organ of the Spirit. Meyer thus construes the connection: “After Romans 8:10, death still retains some power—that over the body; Paul now removes this.”
Of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, &c. [τοῦ ἐγειραντος Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν, κ.τ.λ.]. The spiritual resurrection must be followed by the physical; it is a prophecy of the physical resurrection. For the author of the spiritual resurrection is the Spirit of the wonder-working God, which has raised Christ, and elevated Him to the majesty of the glorified life. What the Spirit [now dwelling in you] has done to Him, in conformity with the connection of body and spirit, He will also do to His members (see Ephesians 1:19 ff.). He has raised Jesus from the dead—that is, as the first-fruits of the resurrection. Therefore He
Will quicken even your mortal bodies, &c. [ζωοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώματαὑμῶν, κ.τ.λ. The use of the word θνητὰ, mortal, immediately after νεΖρὀν (Romans 8:10) seems to justify the reference of the latter to physical death; as, indeed, σώματα here opposes any ethical sense of that word in Romans 8:10. Since, however, the verb ζωοποιεῖν is one of wide meaning, a large number of commentators (Calvin, Stuart, De Wette, Philippi, and others) refer this verse also to something which takes place even here, to be completed, indeed, at the time of actual resurrection. Against this is the καἰ, also, even, which is unnecessary, unless the reference be to something which has not yet taken place, and which seemed most unlikely to take place. The quickening of the body, as a tool of unrighteousness, has already begun. The objection of Stuart, that then this would only mean to declare the bodily resurrection, a truth already well known, betrays a want of appreciation of the importance attached to that truth by the Apostle. Furthermore, even admitting a secondary reference to a present moral quickening of the body, the primary reference to the actual physical resurrection seems to be demanded by the experience of Christians, which certainly shows them that the last seat, both of the strength and the effects of sin, is in the body. It does not revive; no spiritual power here renews it. It is mortal, yet even it shall share in the life-giving influence. The verb means more than raising from the dead indeed, but, as used here, the emphasis rests on this.—R.]
[On account of his Spirit that dwelleth in you, διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα ἐνὑμῖν. See Textual Note11]. We have decided above for the accusative, δια τὸ ἐςοιΖοῦν, in opposition to the genitive. We do this for important reasons. The Spirit which dwells in believers prepares the resurrection-body; but the resurrection is thereby only provided for. The resurrection itself is still to be the final deed of God. And this is the question here (see Romans 8:18). But it is a miraculous deed of God, which is not only occasioned, but also brought to pass, by the presence of the Spirit of life in believers.
The change of terms is remarkable: Jesus and Christ. [Bengel: Appellatio Jesu spectat ad ipsum; Christi, refertur ad nos; true even to its eschatological reference (Meyer).—R.]
If, now, the ζωοποιὴσει also refers to the resurrection, the choice of the expression yet indicates, at the same time, the holiness of the corporealness by the operation of the resurrection power of the Spirit, as this holiness constitutes the transition and interposition for the final miracle of the resurrection (see 2 Corinthians 5:5). From the very nature of the case, the question here can be neither an ethical vivification alone, nor a physical one alone; but the idea of vivification comprises both these (according to Calvin, De Wette, Philippi, and others). Calvin: “Non de ultima resurrectione,40 quœ momento fiet, habetur sermo, sed de continua spiritus operatione, quœ relinquias carnis paulatim mortificans cœlestem vitam in nobis instaurat.” But De Wette properly observes, against the notion that the spiritual power of resurrection alone can consummate the process of renewal (in conformity with the reading διὰ τοῦ, &c.), that the Jewish opinion that the Holy Ghost quickens the dead (Shamoth Rabba, &c.) cannot prove any thing here.
Fourth Paragraph, Romans 8:12-17
Romans 8:12. Therefore, brethren [ἂρα οὖν, ἀδελφοἰ. An inferential exhortation. In Romans 6:12 a similar exhortation is found, but without ἀδελφοἰ. The first person naturally follows.—R.] The ἂρα draws an inference from the necessity of leading the life in the Spirit in opposition to the life in the flesh, in hope of the reanimation of the body. Tholuck says, though not in the sense of the textual construction: “The Apostle allows himself to be led off from the train of thought commencing with Romans 8:10-11, by the necessity of an exhortation, and afterwards returns from another point to the eschatological expression.”
We are debtors, not to the flesh [ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν οὐ τῇ σαρκἰ. The negative applies to the succeeding clause as well. The antithesis is obvious. Σάρξ has the article here, where it is personified, but not in the next clause, where it corresponds with the use made of it in Romans 8:4-5.—R.] According to Meyer, the Apostle has suppressed his antithesis in consequence of the vivacious movement of his language. But he was prevented by something else—namely, a desire to guard against misunderstanding, as if Christians had no duties in reference to their flesh or their physical life (comp. Ephesians 5:29). [So Chrysostom; see Alford in loco.—R.] Therefore he defines his proposition more specifically: not to live after the flesh [τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῇν]; that is, not to live according to the principle of carnal desires, or of external motives at all. The genitive τοῦ is sufficiently explained as designation of the infinitive of result. (Fritzsche takes another view; see Meyer.)41 The antithesis, after the Spirit, follows indirectly in Romans 8:13.
Romans 8:13. Ye shall die [μέλλετε ]. Strictly, then ye shall go continually to death, or, toward death (μέλλετε). Meyer understands this to mean here only eternal death. This is contrary to Philippi, who properly retains the general idea of death.42 According to Rückert, this declaration would exclude the resurrection. But the Apostle takes cognizance not only of the difference between the first and second resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:23), but also of a resurrection which begins immediately after death (2 Corinthians 5:1); and pure life is in antithesis to a final resurrection to judgment. The explanation of Œcumenius, τὸν , precludes neither the resurrection on the one hand, nor, on the other, a constant connection of physical and psychical corruption with ethical corruption.
But if ye through the Spirit [εἰ δὲ πνεύματι. ΙΙνεύματι here is undoubtedly not subjective, but the Holy Spirit (comp. Romans 8:14). An instrumental dative.—R.] By means of the life of the Spirit (by virtue of the Holy Spirit, says Meyer). Therefore the Apostle says, the deeds of the body should be mortified, not by bodily exercise, restraint, and penance, but by the power of the life of the Spirit.
The deeds [τὰς πράξεις]. The stratagems. Machinations (Luke 23:51; Colossians 3:9). These consist in the predominance of illegal impulses as irresistible necessities, as proofs of liberty, as the poetry of life, &c. The word occurs in the later Greek writers in the meaning of cunning designs, especially in relation to sins of lust (see Tholuck).43 Yet the general treatment in the present section requires a general interpretation of the word.
[Of the body, τοῦ σώματος. See Textual Note13.] The expression σώματος has been very strange to many; therefore Codd. D. E. F. G., and the Vulgate, read σάρκος. Τὸ σῶμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, Romans 6:6, cannot be cited in favor of the expression, since the question here is a real body, but not there. Yet Meyer correctly asserts, contrary to Stirm, that Paul remained true to his customary use of language. The body has its autonomous desires, which express themselves faithfully in the normal life of man, and willingly subordinate themselves to the dominion of the Spirit. In the sinful man, who is not converted, these express themselves as imperious commands. In the believer, on the contrary, from whom the law in the members is removed, they can morbidly express themselves still, though in only deceptive forms, and so far as the body, which should be the organ of the spirit, is autonomous in unguarded moments. But its πράξεις are then motions of the σάρξ, which appear as πράξεις of the body, because the body has its physiological rights. [Thus we avoid giving an ethical sense to body. If the bad sense of deeds be emphasized, then the ethical force is found there. We must avoid, on the other hand, taking the phrase, “deeds of the body,” as metonyme for sinful, carnal deeds (Stuart, Hodge); for there must be a reason for the choice of this word. Alford, following De Wette, explains it: “=τῆς σαρκός, but here concrete, to give more vivid reality.”—R.]
Θανατοῦτε [comp. Romans 7:4, and the stronger expression, νεκρώσατε, Colossians 3:5; Lange’s Comm., pp. 63, 64.—R.] Mortify can only mean: exhaust and abnegate to the very root. Wicked practises, as roots of sin, are included.
Ye shall live [ζήσεσθε. Alford: “not μέλλετε ζῆν; this life being no natural consequence of a course of mortifying the deeds of the body, but the gift of God through Christ; and coming, therefore, in the form of an assurance, ‘ye shall live,’ from Christ’s Apostle.”—R.] In the higher, and even highest sense.
Romans 8:14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God [ὂσοι γὰρ πνεύματι θεοῦἂγονται. Comp. Galatians 5:18. Lange’s Comm., p. 137. Γάρ introduces the reason why they shall live, implying, at the same time, that such mortification was the result of the Spirit’s influence, as is expressed in Romans 8:13. Hence πνεῦμα, in the former case, must refer to the Spirit of God. That this leading means a continued and special influence of the Divine Spirit, is obvious.—R.] The Spirit of God is not identical with the Spirit in Romans 8:13 (Meyer); but it is Christian spiritual life, to be led by the Spirit of God. The passive form expresses its complete dominion, without at the same time denying the voluntary being led on the part of the human will.
They are sons of God [οὒτοι υἱοί εἰσιν θεοῦ. See Textual Note14. The reading adopted here places the emphasis on οὒτοι, these, and none other, but gives a secondary emphasis to υἱοί; comp. Galatians 3:7. Philippi finds no essential difference between υἱοί and τέκνα θεοῦ, except that, in the former, the idea of maturity is more prominent. Hence Christ is called νἱός, never τέκνον θεοῦ. (So Alford.) On the significance of the phrase, see Doctr. Note10, and the Exeg. Notes on Romans 8:15-16.—R.] Sons, in the real sense, in contrast with the symbolical children of God of the old theocracy. It is those, and those alone, who bear in themselves the mark that the Spirit of God leads them. On the other hand, the merely symbolical adoption by God under the law is strictly a bondage, according to Romans 8:15. Comp. Galatians 5:18.
Romans 8:15. For ye did not receive the spirit of bondage [οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας. An appeal to Christian consciousness, to confirm (γάρ) his statement. The verb is aorist, referring to a definite time (when they became Christians).—R.] Meyer translates: “A spirit of bondage, adoption.” We hold that the definitions are sufficiently united by the exclusive antithesis. What must we understand by the expression, spirit of bondage? Tholuck: “The negative form of this clause caused the earlier expositors great difficulty, since the question is not a communication of the spirit in the Old Testament, and since the spirit there imparted, so far as it was a spirit of bondage, could not be derived from God; and finally, as the πνεῦμα, which, in consequence of the antithesis of πνεῦμα υἱοθεσἰας, must be viewed as the Holy Spirit, could produce the spirit of bondage.” Explanations:
1. Augustine incidentally: The devil is the author of the slavish spirit (Hebrews 2:14-15). Luther: The spirit of Cain in opposition to Abel’s spirit of grace (Fritzsche: malus dœmon, &c.).
2. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Œcumenius: The gift of the law itself, as πνευματική, according to Romans 7:14. Likewise Augustine, elsewhere: The spirit of the external gift of the law: idem spiritus in tabulis lapideis in timore, in tabulis cordis in dilectione.
3. Most of the later expositors: The same Holy Spirit is described in His twofold operation; here, as far as He exercises His penal office (John 16:8). In that case, the operation of the mere attritio not designed by the Spirit is made prominent.
4. Grotius, Philippi, and others: πν. is in both cases a subjective spiritual disposition. [Philippi defends this view very ably. Stuart: a servile spirit; a filial spirit. Alford admits also the subjective sense. De Wette remarks, that the objective source is indicated in the verb “received.”—R.].
5. Fritzsche, Meyer, and Tholuck: πν. δουλ. denotes what the received filial spirit is not. Likewise Monachus, in the seventh century. Therefore the spirit of bondage is regarded as a hypothetical antithesis. This is undoubtedly correct, in a measure, so far as the Spirit which they have received can be regarded only as a Spirit of adoption; but a spirit of bondage would be really a perverse spirit. [It should be remarked, that all views which give πνεῦμα a subjective meaning, must either take it in the first case as = disposition, and, in the second, = the human spirit as influenced by the Holy Spirit, thus having no exact correspondence; or, assume a hypothetical antithesis in the first case. It may be added, that it is difficult to account for the use of the word “receive” (especially the definite aorist), if these views be accepted, since the servile spirit was the natural spirit. We are thus driven to the interpretation, that πνεῦμα means the same spirit in both cases, defined first negatively, then positively. The probability of a reference to the Holy Spirit is very great in that case.—R.]
But yet the Apostle intimates that Judaism has made of the Old Testament a spirit (a spirit-like, complete system) of bondage, and that it might attempt to make such a perverse spirit of the New Testament. This intimation is brought out prominently by the πάλιν εἰς φόβον, which denotes a fact. At Sinai the Jews made of the law a law εἰς φόβον in the bad sense (Exodus 20:19, &c.). On the other hand, the repetition of the ἐλάβετε favors the view given above: ye have not received a spirit of bondage, because that would be a contradiction.
Again to fear. This denotes the bound: wicked fear of slavish legalism. [De Wette, Meyer, Philippi, join πάλιν with εἰς φόβον as = in order again to fear. The πάλιν may imply that the condition under Judaism was one of fear, but it does not follow that the Roman Christians were mainly Jewish (Philippi), for this fear is a result of all unchristian religiousness. The πάλιν points to their previous condition in all cases.—R.]
But ye received the Spirit of adoption [ἀλλὰ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσιας. Meyer finds in the repetition of ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα something solemn. The force of the genitive must be determined largely by the meaning of πνεῦμα. Meyer: A spirit which is the ruling principle in the condition of adoption. Philippi, arguing, from Galatians 4:5-6, that adoption precedes the impartation of the Holy Spirit, finds another reason for the subjective sense of spirit; but the adoption may be taken, not as the act, but the state, which is more accordant with the context, since ἐν ᾧ, wherein, refers to a state or element of life. Out of this comes the subjective feeling, the cry, Abba, Father. The genitive then points to an effect as in bondage, which also has a descriptive clause appended.—R.]
De Wette: “υίοθεσία, strictly, adoption instead of a child;” which meaning can be so urged, that they who were by nature the children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3), have been adopted, or appointed (Ephesians 1:15), the children of God (Fritzsche, Meyer, and Olshausen). The same commentator says: “But it is a question whether—as even in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 32:6), and in the New Testament (John 1:12; 1 John 3:9; 2 Peter 1:4), and also in Paul, agreeably to the new creation (Galatians 6:15), the idea of transformation into children of God occurs—there is not, consequently, in υἱοθ. rather the idea of sonship, of the real relation of children to the father (Luther, Usteri, &c.), than of adoption (Fritzsche, Meyer, and Tholuck). The expression, πνεῦμα νἱοθ., and the use made of the word in Romans 8:23, harmonizes better with this view.” Tholuck, on the contrary, appeals to Ephesians 5:1; Romans 9:4; to the designation of the adopted child by υἱὸςθετός (υἱὸς εἰσποίητος); and to the adoptio filiorum of the Vulgate. But Chrysostom, Theodoret, and other Greek expositors, on the other hand, have taken the word also in the sense of υἱότης. It is easy to see that the Apostle chose the expression in order to distinguish the children of faith, as adopted through grace, from the υἱὸς ἴδιος. But he had the further reason of not wishing to press the idea: for then he could not have said, with reference to the Hebrew law of inheritance, “And if children, then heirs.” Likewise, the new birth by Christ and His Spirit denotes real υἱοί. [The actual sonship has already been mentioned in Romans 8:14. It seems more natural, then, to take this expression in the confirmatory verse in its literal sense, adoption, as implying the method of their becoming sons; the more so, as an appeal is made to the experience of the readers, which experience would revert to the time when they passed out of one state into the other.—R.]
Wherein we cry (1 Corinthians 2:3) [ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν. The E. V., whereby, is not exact. Hodge: “which enables us to address God as our Father.” Such an instrumental sense of the preposition is very doubtful. The first person is here used, probably from the deep feeling of fellowship which the thought awakens.—R.] The ἐν here designates the Spirit as the principle [element] of life, which has the full παῤῥησία as its result (Hebrews 10:19-23). κράζειν, loud praying; the voluntary, childlike exclamation. “Chrysostom raises the doubt, that, even in the Old Testament, God is called the Father of Israel; and he replies to it, by saying that the Jews did not use this term in their prayers; or, if they did, it was only ἐξ οἰκείας διανοίας, and not ἀπὸ πνευματικῆς ἐνεργείας κινούμενοι. Yet God certainly has the name of Father in the Old Testament, only in the same incomplete sense as the people the name of son—namely, as founder and protector of the people (Jeremiah 3:4; Jeremiah 3:19, and elsewhere), and always in reference to the community, and not to the relation of the individual;” Tholuck. In the Apocrypha, He is first addressed thus by individuals (Book of Wis 14:3; Sirach xxiii. 1; Leviticus 14:0). But we must not overlook the fact that, even in the Old Testament, the centre of the filial relation is the Messiah (2 Samuel 7:0; Psalms 2:0; Isaiah 9:0); and that, consequently, from the perfect New Testament centre of the relation of the Father to Christ, all υίοθεσία extends.
Abba, Father. Ἀββᾶ [אַכָּא], the Syriac name for father (Galatians 4:6; Mark 14:36). Why is the πατήρ added? Explanations:
1. The usual view (Rückert, Reiche, Köllner, &c.) is, the πατήρ helps to explain the Syriac Abba. [So Hodge: “Paul chose to call God his Father, in his own familiar tongue. Having used the one word, however, the Greek, of course, became necessary for those to whom he was writing.” But Paul does not always deem it necessary thus to translate (comp. 1 Corinthians 16:22); and in the three cases where this phrase occurs, the usual mark of interpretation (τοῦτ’ ἒστι) is wanting.—R.]
2. The repetition of the name is an expression of childlike fondness (Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsvestia, and Grotius [Alford]).3. An expression of God’s fatherhood for Jews and Gentiles (Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, Estius, and others).
4. The name “Abba” has passed from Jewish into Christian prayer, and has received, through Christ himself, the consecration of a special sanctity. Therefore the Greek-speaking Christians retained the word as a proper noun, and added thereto the πατήρ as an appellative, so that the Abba, Father, remained in force; Meyer. [So De Wette, Philippi, Lightfoot; comp. Lange’s Comm. Galatians, p. 98.—R.] This would be, in reality, a duplication arising from a misconception. Tholuck unites with Luther, in favor of Chrysostom’s view. Luther: “It is the calling to, just as a young child lisps to its father in simple, childlike confidence.” If it be necessary to refer to the passage in Mark, the πατήρ there undoubtedly serves as an explanation. It is without any admixture of misconception that a liturgical use (as Hallelujah, Hosanna, Amen) has been made of this passage, because, in the most significant manner, there is in one salutation an invocation of the Father of Christ and the Father of Christians, the Father of the believers of the Old Testament and the New, the Father of Jews and Gentiles, and thus of the Father of all believers in all nations.
Romans 8:16. The Spirit itself [αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα. The parallel passage, Galatians 4:6, is conclusive in favor of a reference to the Holy Spirit, even if the context did not demand it.—R.] Αὐτό. Not the same (Erasmus, Luther), but the Spirit itself (Vulgate: ipse spiritus; Beza: ipse ille spiritus). We cry in the spirit, and the Spirit itself beareth us witness.
Beareth witness with [or to] our spirit [συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεὐματι ἡμῶν]. It may be asked whether συμμαρτυρεῖ is to be taken in the sense of the strengthened, uncompounded word: He bears witness to our spirit, as the Vulgate, Luther, Grotius, Koppe, De Wette [Alford], and many other expositors hold; or, whether it should read: He bears witness with our self-consciousness: I am God’s child. Meyer holds this opinion, insisting upon the συν here, as everywhere (Romans 2:15; Romans 9:1). But the latter view would give rise to the question, To whom do both bear witness? And thus there would follow the conclusion: even self-consciousness bears witness to self-consciousness.44 This view is hardly tenable. Chrysostom distinguishes as the two witnesses, the Holy Spirit and the grace given to us; and Hervæus, Calvin, Tholuck, and others, take the same position. Pareus even applies the legal maxim, “out of the mouth of two witnesses.” “According to this old Protestant interpretation, the witness of our own spirit consists in the communication of the declaration of Divine pardon to the believing subject; but the witness of the Holy Spirit is regarded as a twofold one. On the one hand, it consists in the general witness by the Scriptures and the sacraments, and then in the applicatio and obsignatio produced by the Holy Spirit, while the declarations of the obsignatio fidelium are applied here.”
Yet it seems clear from the antithesis, the Holy Spirit and our spirit, that the Holy Spirit should be regarded as the testifying part, but that our spirit, on the other hand, should be regarded as the part which is testified to. For the witness of our spirit has, as a special witness, no value beside that of the Holy Spirit (see Tholuck, p. 416, 417). And yet the question ever arises, To whom is the witness made? We hold that the expression συναντιλαμβάνεται (Romans 8:26) is an illustrative parallel, and must give importance to the consideration that there the explanatory word ὑπερεντυγχάνει is added. But we thereby approach nearer the explanation, that the συν in both cases has the meaning of a strengthened simple word. But it yet remains for us to conclude concerning a twofold function of the same Holy Spirit in the life of the soul. He operates in the filial life of the soul of believers as an impulse to prayer, but He also operates as the sealing witness of adoption. And thus He hastens in advance of our consciousness of faith with groanings which cannot be uttered (Romans 8:26). The συν, though it be not a mere simple prefix, does not always signify the equality of two different parts in one function. Sometimes it denotes the effect (συνάγω, συναθροίζω), and sometimes the conjoint conclusion of the act specified in the verb with a kindred fact (συνίημι). This is the case here.
It is important that the earlier theologians regarded this passage as a proof of the certitudo gratiœ, in opposition to the Catholic doctrine. Meyer very properly refers to the fact, that it is a witness against all pantheistic confusion of the Divine Spirit with that of man. It testifies to the living unity of both.45 Melanchthon correctly observes against fanatics, that “the efficacy of the Spirit enters into the believer prœlucente voce evangelii.”
[That we are children of God, ὂτι ἐσμἐντέκνα θεοῦ. The purport of the testimony. Alford: “not υἱοί, because the testimony respects the very ground and central point of sonship, likeness to and desire for God.”—R.] The word τέκνα emphasizes the heartiness of the filial feeling.
Romans 8:17. And if children, also heirs [εἰ δὲτέκνα, καὶ κληρονόμοι]. We must supply ἐσμὲν both times. The being heirs arises from the very idea and right of a child (Galatians 4:7).46
Heirs of God [κληρονόμοι μὲν θεοῦ]. The inheritance is the kingdom of glory. God, as the eternally living One, is like the earthly testator, in that He gives His children every thing for an inheritance; but He gives them himself as the treasure of all treasures. He will be their inheritance, as they are to be His inheritance—a relation prefigured already in the Old Testament (Exodus 19:5 : Israel the peculiar treasure of God. Numbers 18:20 : Jehovah is the inheritance of the Levites, as they are His inheritance, clerus). As He himself will be all in all, so shall His children receive with Him, in His Son, every thing for an inheritance (1 Corinthians 3:21 ff.). In Luke 15:12 the inheritance, in another sense, is spoken of. [Including in this the highest idea of eternal life, the declaration of the Apostle (Romans 8:13): ye shall live, is abundantly proven.—R.]
And joint-heirs with Christ [αυνκληρονὀμοι δὲ χριστοῦ]. Conformably to the υἱοθεσία, the υἱόί are in the most intimate fellowship with the υἱός, to which the common inheritance corresponds; Galatians 4:7. The second designation characterizes the Divine inheritance of believers in its majesty, its infinite extent, and its nature, as the kingdom of perfect love in the glorified world. The view urged by Fritzsche, Meyer, and Tholuck, that here Paul does not have in mind the Hebrew, but the Roman right of inheritance (with reference to adopted children), Philippi correctly terms “an untheocratic reference to the Roman right of inheritance.”47
If so be that we suffer with him [εἲπερσυνπάσΖομεν. On the particle, see Romans 8:9. Here, as there, it implies a slight admonition, since it introduces a condition sine quâ non. The order, not the reason, of obtaining full salvation, is set forth (Calvin).—R.] Suffer with Christ—for Him, His gospel, His witness (1Pe 4:13; 2 Corinthians 5:5; Philippians 3:10; Colossians 1:24;48 2 Timothy 2:11). Suffering with Christ has the promise of being glorified with Him. Meyer says, strangely, that “Olshausen (comp. also Philippi) intermixes something totally wrong: ‘Share in the conflict with sin in ourselves and in the world.’ ” Just this is the very nerve of the suffering with Christ.
[That we may be also glorified with him, ἳνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν.] As Meyer properly says, against Tholuck, the ἳνα is not dependent on “joint-heirs,” but on “suffer with Him.” [This view is now given up by Tholuck, who correctly adds, however: “That does not describe the subjective, but the objective, divine design. (So Alford).—R.] On the relations of the right of inheritance in Rome, and other nations, see Tholuck, p. 419 [and the note on “joint-heirs”]. We must here hold to this much, at least, of the idea of adoption: that the joint-heirs with Christ become heirs of God through Christ, in and with Him as the truly Universal Heir.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. The correct understanding of this eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans depends essentially on the following conditions: (1) It must be regarded in connection with the whole section beginning with Romans 5:12; (2) The antithesis in this chapter must be perceived. The fundamental thought is indicated in the superscriptions: Sin and the life of Christ, as opposite principles of life in the world. The foundation is given in Romans 5:12-21. The abrogation of the old principle in its two fundamental forms: Service of sin, service of the law; Romans 6:1 to Romans 7:6. The transition from the old to the new nature; the inwardness of the law; Romans 7:7-25. With chap. 8. there appears the new life of believers in Christ, and of Christ in believers. This new life itself constitutes again an antithesis. It is: a. An exclusively spiritual standpoint, in opposition to the flesh, and contemplates the extirpation of the old, sinful motions; b. A standpoint of renewal—whose object is the resurrection and the glorification of the world—proceeding from the Spirit, and embracing the flesh and the whole created world.
2. The Spirit of Christ’s life being communicated to believers, it becomes to them a law of the Spirit for the new life. The law of the Spirit is a potency which extends further than the spirit of the law; much less is it a nova lex in the sense of the Catholic dogmatics. Life in the entire spiritual view and experience of Christ’s life constitutes a universal principle of life, which becomes the rule for every more general relation of life, and an ἐντολή of the living Divine will for every individual situation.
3. On Romans 8:3, see the Exeg. Notes. It is totally foreign to the context to give this passage a special application to the propitiation for the guilt of sin (for the discussions on the subject, see Tholuck). [Those who thus do, are careful to defend their position against antinomianism; but, practically, the danger from a too exclusive application of all possible passages to justification, lies in another direction, viz., that of legal efforts after holiness. The connection between pardon and holiness is thus obscured; the believer fails to see Christ as his life-giving Saviour; the law is again sought; “the spirit of bondage” returns, and the conflict of Romans 7:14-25 is all too common. Whatever may be the logical and theological antithesis, the Christian pastor finds this to be the practical effect.—R.]—It is likewise a disregard of the definite expression to overlook the real meaning of the ὁμοίωμα. Because Christ appeared in the truth and reality of the σάρξ, He also appeared, according to the universal human view, in the likeness of sinful flesh. The Apostle expresses exactly the same thought in the words, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ; Philippians 2:7. The reality of His human nature resulted in the likeness of His appearance and suffering life to the picture presented by the life of men. Baur’s spiritualistically gross misconception of this declaration (Philippians 2:0) makes a sort of Gnosticism out of it; the realistic obscuration of the term, on the other hand, allows Christ himself to have assumed sinful flesh. The simple thought is too grand for both these stunting and mutilating tendencies. God has unmasked and judged sin in the flesh, and condemned it to be cast out as a foreign element, a ruinous pseudo-plasma in the flesh, by Christ’s assuming a pure and consecrated σάρξ, and by His keeping His white robe spotless on the whole filthy road of His pilgrimage, and maintaining its holiness until it was illuminated in glorified splendor. Thus the question, whether Christ assumed human nature in its paradisiacal state before the fall, or the fallen nature of Adam, is a thoroughly incorrect one, for it rests on a misconception of biblical facts. Christ assumed neither the unfallen nor the fallen human nature, but the nature raised from the fall and made holy. See the Bible-Work on John 1:14.
4. On the connection of the doctrine of the obedientia activa to Romans 8:3, see Tholuck, p. 395.
5. On Romans 8:4. The righteousness of Christ should be realized also in believers, from the principle of the righteousness of faith to the righteousness of life. See the Exeg. Notes.
6. The antithesis, walking in the flesh and walking in the Spirit, separates into these elements: a. Being or living in the flesh; being or living in the Spirit; b. The seeking of the flesh as enmity against God; the seeking of the Spirit as enlivened and impelled by the Spirit of God; c. The end—on one side, death; on the other, life and peace.
7. Those who live in the flesh cannot please God. Those imagine that they please God who, following the letter of the law, lead an analytically divided, rent, and fragmentary life, or a false life in outward observances. But God is one; His Spirit is one; His law, as the principle of life, is one; and salvation lies in the dynamical synthesis of life from a shedding abroad of the Spirit. See Mark 12:32 ff.
8. The real, fundamental thought of this section appears in Romans 8:10. See the Exeg. Notes. The body is dead by the necessarily positive standpoint of Christian life in the Spirit, and it is dead in its propensity to sin and death, in order that it may be raised from its state to a new life, and inherit the resurrection (1 Corinthians 9:27; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Ephesians 2:5; Colossians 2:12; Philippians 3:11). Also John 6:0, and the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, belong here. The effecting of the future resurrection by the renewal of the inner life, is questioned by Meyer, against De Wette and Philippi, for he does not place a correct estimate on the real relations of the kingdom of God (p. 246). On pneumatic corporeity, see Tholuck, pp. 485, 486.
9. On Romans 8:13. By the Spirit, and not by the scourge [mit dem Geist, nicht mit der Geissel], should the deeds of the body be mortified. See the Exeg. Notes.
10. On the difference between the symbolical and real children of God, see the Exeg. Notes on ver 14. On υἱοὶ θεοῦ, see Tholuck, p. 409.—That the νἱοθεσία, in the Apostle’s sense, can be adoption only in form and mode, and not in its essence and substance, arises from the fact that believers, as the children of God, have the Spirit of God and of Christ; that they pray in filial confidence; and that they are destined to be heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. [In interpreting the phrase, “sons of God,” two errors must be guarded against: (a.) limiting it to something like this: the objects of God’s favor; (b.) extending it so as to obliterate any real distinction between the Son and the adopted children. The latter may occur, either through a denial of the specific and eternal Sonship of Christ, or through some too spiritualistic view of the work of Redemption, which makes the children of God in essence and substance children. Pantheistic fancies follow the same tendency. Between these two lies the true definition. A Christian, as a son of God, is new-born of the Spirit of God; hence, has a likeness to God in character, is the object of God’s special love, and entitled to special privilege and dignity. Yet even this is not all. The term is not merely figurative, as this passage shows, save as all language about our relations to God is figurative. The relation is real—grounded on, yet differing from, the relation of the Eternal Son. Only those in Him are “sons.” They are “sons” in such a sense as to become partakers of the Divine nature (1 Peter 1:23). A further definition is now impossible. “Now are we sons of God; but it doth not yet appear what we shall be” (1 John 3:3). The fact remains established; the manifestation of its full significance is to come; Romans 8:19.—R.]
11. The dogmatic spirit of the Middle Ages made of Christianity a religion πάλιν εἰς φόβον. Rome in particular did this, in spite of these words to the Romans, in Romans 8:15. Even the Old Testament and its law aimed at a higher fear of God, as the beginning of wisdom. See Psalms 1:0 and Psalms 19:0 on communion with the law of God.
12. On the υἱοθεσία, and its origin in the Old Testament, see the Exeg. Notes.
13. In relation to adoption, the Spirit is our witness; in relation to future glory, it is our pledge. [On the witness of the Spirit. This consists in the gracious fruits and effects wrought in us by the Holy Spirit. “His whole inward and outward efficacy must be taken together; for instance, His comfort, His incitement to prayer, His censure of sin, His impulse to works of love, to witness before the world,” &c. (Olshausen). Yet filial feelings of those happy moments when we are conscious that we live by the Spirit, love God and goodness, desire and delight in pleasing God, must not be excluded; since, whether the witness be to or with our spirits, such results may be expected. Because enthusiasm has pushed this matter to an extreme at times, the assurance of salvation is not to be deemed unattainable, nor filial emotions toward God checked by the sneer about fanaticism. “That the world deny any such testimony in the hearts of believers, and that they look on it with scorn and treat it with derision, proves only that they are unacquainted with it; not that it is an illusion. It was a sensible and true remark of the French philosopher Hemsterhuys, in regard to certain sensations which he was discussing: ‘Those who are so unhappy as never to have had such sensations, either through weakness of the natural organ, or because they have never cultivated them, will not comprehend me’ ” (Stuart).—R.] The conclusion, “and if children, then heirs,” connects this section with the following.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Why do we, as those who are in Christ Jesus, have no more fear of condemnation? 1. Because the law of the Spirit of Christ has made us free from the law (that is, the power) of sin and death; 2. This has been effected by the act of God in condemning sin in the flesh.—Contrast between the law of the Spirit of Christ and the law of sin: 1. The former brings life; 2. The latter, death (Romans 8:2).—The appearance of the Son of God in the form (likeness) of sinful flesh: 1. In its meaning; 2. In its effects (Romans 8:3-4).—The sending of God’s Son an act of God (Romans 8:3).—He who becomes united with Christ ever more fully performs the righteousness required by the law (Romans 8:4).—Why is carnal-mindedness death? Because: 1. It is enmity against God; and, 2. As such, it is disobedience to God’s law (Romans 8:5-7).—All who have Christ’s Spirit are not carnal, but spiritual. This is shown thus: 1. Christ’s Spirit reigns in their spirit; and therefore, 2. Their spirit reigns in their body (Romans 8:9-11).—“If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” This declaration is: 1. Perfectly true; but, 2. Fearful in its truth (Romans 8:9).—A question of conscience in two forms: 1. Have we Christ’s Spirit? 2. Are we His? (Romans 8:9.)—The Spirit of God as pledge of our resurrection from the dead (Romans 8:11.)—The preparation of our bodies for the day of resurrection by the Spirit of God (Romans 8:11).—The glorification of physical life by God’s Spirit (Romans 8:11).—The opposition between carnal and spiritual-mindedness one of death and life: 1. Demonstration (Romans 8:5-8); 2. Reference to the members of the Christian communion (Romans 8:9-11); 3. Inference for their moral life (Romans 8:11-13).—If we allow ourselves to be led by the Spirit of God, we are God’s children, heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Reasons: 1. Because this spirit is not slavish, but filial; 2. Because He bears witness with us that we are children of God; 3. Because we are assured by Him of eternal glory (Romans 8:14-17).—The leading power of the Spirit of God (Romans 8:14).—The difference between Divine adoption in the Old Testament and the New (Romans 8:15).—The Spirit of God a spirit of prayer (Romans 8:15).—The Abba-Father cry of believing Christian souls: 1. So filially humble; 2. So filially joyous (Romans 8:15).—The inward witness of the Spirit: 1. Who bears this witness? 2. To whom is it borne? 3. What is its import? (Romans 8:16.)—How rich the children of God are! They are: 1. Heirs of God; 2. Joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17).—Let us suffer with Christ, in order that we may be raised to glory with Him.
Luther: Although sin still rages in the flesh, we are not condemned, if the spirit is righteous, and fights against it. But where there is not this spirit, the law is weakened and overpowered by the flesh; so that it is impossible for the law to help man, except to sin and death. Therefore God sent His own Son, and placed upon Him our sins, and thus helped us to fulfil the law by His Spirit (Romans 8:1-4).
Starke: Sin and death are connected together; who will separate them? Therefore, if you would escape death, you must flee from sin; James 1:15; Sir 21:2-3 (Romans 8:2).—Is sin sweet to thee, O man? Then remember that its fruit will be bitter (Romans 8:2).—Hedinger: It is a false trust, to wish to be righteous in Christ, and, at the same time, to desire to walk after the flesh. Where sin reigns, there is condemnation, though Christ had died a thousand times. The flesh must die on the cross with Him, and His Spirit must live in the sinner; otherwise the salvation purchased by Christ will be of no use; 1 Peter 2:24 (Romans 8:1).—Starke: Adam (merely) out of us does not injure us; and Christ (merely) out of us does not help us (Romans 8:10).—People of the world seek immortality in wrong ways. Seek tire right way, which is, to let God’s Spirit dwell in you; Isaiah 55:2 (Romans 8:11).—It is better that we kill sin, than that sin kill us (Romans 8:13).—Nihil vilius, quam a carne vinci, nihil gloriosius, quam carnem vincere; Jerome.—Qui sequuntur carnem, flagellantur in carne: in ipsa est censura supplicii, in qua fuit causa peccati; Bernard (Romans 8:12).—Starke: One may speak of God without the Holy Spirit; but he cannot speak to Him in a way that the prayer will be granted (Romans 8:15).—If little children can move their parents’ hearts by “papa” and “mamma,” so can believers move God by the word “Abba” (Romans 8:15).—Hedinger: To suffer, and to inherit, stand together. Very well! Heaven is worth a toilsome pathway. Si vis regnare mecum, porta crucem meam tecum; Gerson.
Spener: God sent His Son to assume flesh; for the Word became flesh, not merely outwardly, but truly and in very deed. But such flesh in Him was not sinful; but it was only in the form of, or uniformity with, sinful flesh, so that he who saw it only outwardly might regard it just as sinful flesh as ours (Romans 8:3-4.)—Christianity enjoins not only that we do good, and thus perform spiritual works, but that we should also be spiritually, and not carnally, minded (Romans 8:5).—The witness of the Holy Spirit is as glorious as it is necessary. This witness is the foundation of the highest consolation of the child of God. Yet but little can be told of it, for no man can understand it except him who feels it. It is “a new name,” which nobody knows except him who receives it; Revelation 2:17 (Romans 8:16). It is a great dignity, indeed, to be heirs of God, and to stand with Christ as though in the possession of equal rights. For it is the inheritance of the Almighty God, and therefore consists of eternal possessions. Yet such an inheritance has the certain condition of having previously suffered with Christ (Romans 8:17).
Roos: Being in Christ Jesus presupposes longing for Christ Jesus; fleeing to Him; submission to Him; being planted in Him as the Vine; union with Him; and, consequently, faith in Him; just as even the continued being, or remaining, in Christ Jesus, rests upon a continuous faith in Him (Romans 8:1-4).—The man who is in Christ Jesus does not walk any more after the flesh; and thus the righteousness, or righteous requirement, of the law, which is spiritual, is fulfilled in him; it is so far fulfilled as his spiritual life and walk in the Spirit extend (Romans 8:4).—In short, just as the Spirit comprises spiritual-mindedness, and walking after the Spirit comprises every thing which is good, praiseworthy, holy, and well-pleasing to God; so do the words flesh, carnal-mindedness, and walking after the flesh, comprise every thing wicked and sinful (Romans 8:6-8).—Suffering does not precede glory by mere accident; it does so by God’s design, and makes fit for great glory. It is only a nature crushed by suffering that can be glorified. But the suffering must be: 1. A suffering with Christ; 2. In fellowship with Christ; 3. In the likeness of the suffering and mind of Christ. Then will we be also raised to glory with Christ, in whom we are by faith (Romans 8:17).—Bengel: The carnal mind cannot, and may not. Hence comes the pretext of impossibility with which those seek to excuse themselves who are even here convicted as carnal (Romans 8:7).
Gerlach: What seems remote and difficult to man under the law, is made easy by grace; indeed, is even accomplished by grace (Romans 8:2-3).—Both flesh and spirit are mighty and active forces in man (Romans 8:5).—“The Spirit should be as much the Lord of our life, as the helmsman is guide of the ship, and the driver is guide of his team;” Chrysostom (Romans 8:14).—The Spirit of adoption is the Spirit of the Son of God. In Him we cry, Abba, dear Father! He encourages us to call, with childlike joy and confidence, upon God, whom Christ thus called on (Mark 14:26); and whom Christ, after the atonement was completed (John 20:17), calls His God and ours, His Father and ours (Romans 8:15).—The witness of the Spirit of God consists in the consciousness of peace with God, and of access to Him in childlike, believing prayer; which witness we have received through faith in Christ (Romans 8:16).—The believer enters upon the inheritance of God as “joint-heir with Christ;” but it is not a dividing joint-heirship, by which one receives what another is deprived of. It is a possession like that of the sunlight, which every one enjoys to the full, without any robbery of another (Romans 8:17).—The life of the Christian is really a life of suffering, both inwardly and outwardly, except that the consciousness of Divine adoption rises high above suffering and oppression (Romans 8:17).
Lisco: The certainty of the attainment of perfect salvation by believers, rests upon their fellowship with Christ, and upon their being and living in Him; and it is from this true fountain that their ever-progressive sanctification flows (Romans 8:1).—What prospects, what hopes! Yet the order is, that we, like Christ, shall attain future glory through suffering.—Luther: “He who would be Christ’s brother and joint-heir, must bear in mind to be also a joint-martyr and joint-sufferer; not feeling Christ’s sufferings and shame after Him, but with Him, as Romans 8:10; Romans 8:32-33, declare” (Romans 8:17).
Heubner: The guiltlessness of true Christians (Romans 8:2).—We must preach duties so conformably to the gospel, that they will be a pleasure (Romans 8:3).—Faith in Christ gives no aid to indolence. The design of the atonement is our sanctification (Romans 8:4).—The carnal mind and religion do not agree together (Romans 8:7).—Christ’s Spirit is the true Spirit; men out of Him are spiritless, however full of the Spirit such unchristian people may fancy themselves (Romans 8:9).—Life after the flesh destroys all Christian prosperity, spiritual enjoyment, vital force, and eternal salvation (Romans 8:13).—The Spirit can overpower the flesh; therefore no Christian can say, that the power of the flesh is too great, too insurmountable (Romans 8:13).—The guidance of the Spirit of God is: 1. Not irregular, but regular, and its traces are to be found rather within than without; 2. Nor a sudden impulse, an emotion; but a continuous guidance, extending through the whole life, and operating in all Acts 3:0. And finally, this guidance is effected by means of the Word; it is free, and without compulsion (Romans 8:14).—The Abba-cry is an uninterrupted thinking upon God, and longing after Him.—No cross, no crown.—Besser: The impulsive power of the Holy Spirit is twofold: He leads us to receive in faith, and give in love.—The glorification of Christians begins with Christ under the cross.
The Pericope (Romans 8:12-17) for the 8th Sunday after Trinity.—Heubner: The adoption of Christians with God: 1. It is holy; 2. It is saving.—The difference between the children of the world and the children of God.—Genzler: Those whom the Spirit of God leads, are God’s children. The Apostle praises: 1. The filial mind; 2. The filial joyfulness; and, 3. The filial hope of those who allow themselves to be led by the Spirit of God.—Petri: The children of God: 1. Their nature; 2. condition; 3. and inheritance.—Harless: The poverty and wealth of the legacy of Jesus Christ.—Tholuck: The witness of Divine adoption is the surest pledge of eternal life. 1. In what is the witness of Divine adoption manifested? 2. Why is it a pledge of eternal life?—Kapff: The healing of sinful corruption by Jesus and His Spirit. Through Him we become: 1. Children of God; 2. Praying men of the Spirit; and, 3. Joint-heirs with Christ.
[Burkitt (condensed): All men show the true temper of their minds, and the complexion and disposition of their souls, by willingly, cheerfully, and constantly minding either the things of the Spirit or the things of the flesh.—Three things are implied in our being glorified with Christ: 1. Conformity—we shall be like Him in glory; 2. Concomitancy—we shall accompany Him, and be present with Him in glory; 3. Conveyance or derivation—His glory shall be reflected upon us, and we shall shine in His beams.—Henry: It was great condescension, that He who was God should be made in the likeness of flesh; but much greater, that He who was holy should be made in the likeness of sinful flesh.—The Spirit witnesses the privileges of children to none who have not the nature and privileges of children.—Doddridge: The Spirit of God will not dwell with those whom He does not effectually govern.—Macknight: The minding of the things of the flesh, to the neglecting of the things of the Spirit, disqualifying men for heaven, stands in direct opposition to God’s friendly intentions; consequently, is enmity against God, and is deservedly punished with death.—Wesley (sermons on the Witness of the Spirit): The witness of the Spirit is a consciousness of our having received, in and by the Spirit of adoption, the tempers mentioned in the Word of God as belonging to His adopted children—a loving heart toward God, and toward all mankind; hanging with childlike confidence on God our Father; desiring nothing but Him; casting all our care upon Him; and embracing every child of man with earnest, tender affection, so as to be ready to lay down our life for our brother, as Christ laid down His life for us. It is a consciousness that we are inwardly conformed, by the Spirit of God, to the image of His Son, and that we walk before Him in justice, mercy, and truth, doing the things which are pleasing in His sight.—Clarke: Romans 8:15. The witness of the Spirit is the grand and most observable case in which intercourse is kept up between heaven and earth; and the genuine believer in Christ Jesus is not left to the quibbles or casuistry of polemic divines or critics, but receives the thing and the testimony of it from God himself. Remove the testimony of adoption from Christianity, and it is a dead letter.—Hodge: There can be no rational or scriptural hope without holiness; and every tendency to separate the evidence of the Divine favor from the evidence of true piety, is antichristian and destructive.—Barnes: If a man is not influenced by the meek, pure, and holy spirit of the Lord Jesus; if he is not conformed to His image; if his life does not resemble that of the Saviour, he is a stranger to religion. No test could be more easily applied, and none is more decisive.
[Homiletical Literature on the 8th of Romans: Bishop Cowper, Heaven Opened, &c., 5th ed., Lond., 1619; E. Philips, Nineteen Sermons; E. Elton, The Triumph of a True Christian Described, or, An Explanation of the 8th Chapter of Romans, 1623; H. Binning, The Sinner’s Sanctuary; being 48 Sermons on the 8th Chapter of Romans; T. Jacomb, Several Sermons on the whole 8th Chapter of Romans, London, 1672; T. Horton, Forty-six Sermons on the whole 8th Chapter of Romans, London, 1674; T. Manton, Forty-seven sermons in Works (vol. 2); Mestrezat, Sermons sur la 8e chap. de l’Epitre aux Romains, Amsterdam, 1702; T. Bryson, Comprehensive View of the Real Christian’s Character, &c., London, 1794; Bishop Short, The Witness of the Spirit with our Spirit, Illustrated from the 8th Chapter of Romans (Bampton Lectures), Oxford, 1846; Winslow, No Condemnation in Christ Jesus, as Unfolded in the 8th Chapter of Romans, London, 1857.—J. F. H.]
Footnotes:
[1] Romans 8:20.—[Lange puts a full stop after hope. Meyer, and many others, a comma, connecting the next verse: that the creation, &c. (the purport of the hope). Forbes gives the parallelism thus:
19. a. Ἠγὰρ
b. τὴν ,
20. τῇ γὰρ ματαιότητι ἡ κτίσις ὑποτάγη,
ουκ ἑκοῦσα ,
21. a. ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ὅτι καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερθήσεται
b. εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ.
19. a. For the earnest expectation of the creation
b. Is waiting for the revelation of the sons of God,
20. For the creation was made subject to vanity, Not willingly, but by reason of Him who subjected it,21. a. In hope, that the creature itself shall also be delivered from the bondage of corruption,
b. Into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.
This makes the whole of Romans 8:20, except in hope, parenthetical, and connects Romans 8:21 with that phrase, as giving the purport of the hope. On this last view, Forbes does not insist, however. In hope is thus made to refer to both lines of the parenthesis, yet with a main reference to ἀπεκδέχεται, is waiting. The two lines of Romans 8:19 find their parallels in Romans 8:21, while a. a. refer to the expectation or hope that animates creation; b. b. to the final consummation to which it points. At the beginning of Romans 8:21, Lange reads denn, Alford, because, but Tholuck, Phillippi, Meyer, Amer. Bible Union, Noyes, five Anglican clergymen, &c., favor that, introducing the purport of the hope.
[2][This verse, which, taken in its subjective sense, as the purport of the hope, seems to favor the reference of κτίσις to humanity, and the longing to the instincts of immortality (so Stuart throughout), loses its force if thus understood. The striking phrase: “the freedom of the glory of the children of God,” becomes very vague, unless we adopt the view that nature is here personified as in expectation. And it is easier to believe that the verse is true of all nature, than of all men. Whatever may be our wishes, the sharing of nature in the future glory is more probable, judging from the facts of the material world, than the participation of all men in the same, judging from the facts of the moral world. The sighs after immortality among the heathen are audible enough; but had Paul referred to these, he would undoubtedly have spoken more distinctly of the future conversion of the heathen. He is too fond of references to his personal Saviour and His work, to omit every allusion to these, where his thought really concerns the salvation of persons. It seems, therefore, in the highest degree improbable that mankind (as distinguished from the natural world) is referred to at all.—R.]
[3][Professor Stuart urges that the longing of the natural world was not so familiar to all, that the Apostle could thus appeal to consciousness. But this objection is of weight only in case the meaning of οἴδαμεν be extended to human consciousness in general. That Paul uses it in appeals to Christian consciousness, is evident from Romans 2:2; Romans 3:19; Romans 7:14; Romans 8:26; Romans 8:28; 2 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Timothy 1:8; comp. the frequent use of οἴδατε in 1 Corinthians 6:0.—R.]
[4][Calvin: “Particula Hactenus, vel ad hunc usque diem, ad levandum diuturni languosis tædium pertinet. Nam sutot sæculis durarunt in suo gemitur creaturæ, quam inexcusabilis erit nostra mollities vel ignavia, si in brevi umbratilis vitæ curriculo deficimus?”—R.]
Romans 8:23; Romans 8:23.—[So, or this should be supplied; the meaning is: Not only it this so. The E. V. is therefore inexact. The latest revisions adopt so.
[6][Alford, who adopts ἡμεῖς with the second καὶ αὐτοί, says it is “inserted to involve himself and his fellow-workers in the general description of the last clause.”—R.]
[7][Both 1 and 2 take the genitive as partitive, which is undoubtedly the common usage. In every case in the New Testament where ἀπαρχή is followed by a genitive, it has this force; comp. Romans 16:5; 1 Corinthians 15:20; 1 Corinthians 16:15; John 1:18. The same is true of the LXX. and classical authors. It is difficult to sustain any other view here. If we adopt the meaning: the first-fruits of a harvest, which is the Spirit given to us, and refer it to the common gift of the Spirit in this life, rather than to the gift of the Spirit in that particular age, all seems to he gained that Dr. Lange seeks in view 3, while we do not unnecessarily depart from the usus loquendi. The reference to the first Christians is perhaps slightly favored by adopting ἡμεῖς at some point in the text, although Meyer rejects it, and yet upholds this reference. In his comments on Romans 8:26, Dr. Lange says that here the new spiritual life is spoken of, not the Holy Spirit itself. This subjective sense can only be admitted if the partitive sense of the genitive be given up. The term “body” cannot, in any case, be regarded as antithetical; did “flesh” occur, there might be some reason for taking “Spirit” in this sense of “spiritual life,” a meaning for which our author has an unusual fondness.—R.]
[8][De Wette urges the instrumental sense, on account of the definite aorist; but the fact of salvation is regarded as placing us in a condition of hope. The hope differs from faith, but is inseparably connected with it. Alford says the hope is “faith in its prospective altitude.” Philippi: “Inasmuch as the object of salvation is both relatively present and also relatively future, hope is produced from faith and indissolubly linked with it; for faith apprehends the object, in so far as it is present; hope, in so far as it is still future.”—R.]
Romans 8:24; Romans 8:24.—[ א. A. C. K. L., read τί καί (Rec., Meyer, Wordsworth, Lange); B. D. F. omit καί (Lachmann, Alford. Tregelles). The latter reading gives the sense: Why doth he hope (at all)? the former, which is preferable: Why doth he still hope for? καί = etiam.
[10][On ὑπομονή, see p. 162; also Colossians 1:11; Lange’s Comm., p. 19. Constancy seems to be always prominent in the word. The preposition διά with the genitive denotes that through which, as a medium, our waiting takes place (Alford). It is more than an accompaniment—it is the state which characterizes the waiting throughout. On the connection of hope and patience, comp. 1 Thessalonians 1:3; Hebrews 10:36.—R.]
[11] [Against this, see notes in loco, where Dr. Lange himself does not defend this view. It is opposed to the most natural grammatical construction of that passage, and objectionable on other grounds. Comp. the additional notes on Romans 8:16; Romans 8:23, and the excursus, chap. 7—R.]
Romans 8:26; Romans 8:26.—[Instead of ταῖ ς. ἀσθενείαις (Rec., K. L.), which was probably a marginal gloss, א. A. B. C. D., most cursives, versions, and fathers, read τῇ ; adopted by most editors.
[13][Dr. Hodge refers to the fact that heathen philosophers urged this as a reason why men ought not to pray. The Apostle intimates that what is true of men in general, is true still of Christians (οἴδαμεν), because their knowledge is as yet in no respect such as to make their prayer (καθὸδ εἴ) as it ought to be. Hence the reference is to a continuing state, rather than to times of special weakness.—R.]
Romans 8:26; Romans 8:26.—[Ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (Rec. א3. C. K. L.) is omitted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Lange, Tregelles, on the authority of א1. A. B. D. F. G. Probably added for closer definition.
[15][The meaning unutterable, which cannot be expressed in words, is favored by the analogy of verbals in -τος, and is adopted by Luther, Calvin, Beza, Meyer, Tholuck, De Wette, Hodge, Stuart, Alford, and many others. Philippi admits this sense, but includes with it that of unspoken, which are not expressed in words. Comp. 2 Corinthians 12:4; 1 Peter 1:8.—R.]
[16][It is held by many commentators (among them Stuart, Hodge, Meyer), that if ὅτι be taken as causal, οι̇͂δε must be rendered approves; i. e., He approves what is the mind of the Spirit, because, &c. Dr. Lange’s estimate of Meyer’s interpretation is very just, and he seems to be equally correct in denying the necessity for the pregnant sense of οι̇͂δε. Comp. Alford in loco. The E. V. is exceedingly happy in its rendering of this verse.—R.]
[17] [Alford: “All these pleadings of the Spirit are heard and answered, even when inarticulately uttered. We may extend the same comforting assurance to the imperfect and mistaken verbal utterances of our prayers, which are not themselves answered to our hurt, but the answer is given to the voice of the Spirit, which speaks through them, which we would express, but cannot.”—R.”]
[18][See Textual Note14. Tholuck would refer the σύν to the loving God, but the simplest sense is that of coöperating (Bengel, Alford, and others). Meyer, however, finds in it the idea of the fellowship, in which He who supports necessarily stands to him who is supported. So Philippi and others, all taking συνεργεῖ as = βοηθεῖ.—R.]
[19] [Tholuck: “They are not called merely according to a Divine decree (nude), but according to one whose stages are set forth up to the final goal of the ἐδόξασε.” Meyer: “The πρόθεσις is the free decree, formed by God in eternity, of saving the believers through Christ (Romans 9:11; Ephesians 1:11; Eph 3:11; 2 Timothy 1:9, al.). According to this, the call of God to the Messianic salvation through the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10:14; 2 Thessalonians 2:14) is promulgated to those who are included in that decree. When, therefore, Paul calls the Christians κλητοί, it is self-evident that the call, in their case, meets with success (1 Corinthians 1:24), and hence has been united with the converting effect of Divine grace; although this is not found in the word itself, which in that case would be equivalent to ἐκλεκτοί. ? Weiss (Jahrbücher für D. Theologie, 1857, p. 79) aptly says: ‘Election and calling are inseparable correlative ideas; where one takes place, the other does also; only the former, as a pre-temporal, internally Divine act, cannot be perceived, but the latter, as a historical fact, is made manifest.’ ” The remarks of Alford in loco may well be appended at this point in the exegesis of the Epistle: “It may suffice to say, that, on the one hand. Scripture bears constant testimony to the fact that all believers are chosen and called by God—their whole spiritual life in its origin, progress, and completion, being from Him; while, on the other hand, its testimony is no less precise that He willeth all to be saved, and that none shall perish except by wilful rejection of the truth. So that, on the one side, God’s sovereignty, and, on the other, man’s free will, is plainly declared to us. To receive, believe, and act on both these, is our duty and our wisdom. They belong, as truths, no less to natural than to revealed religion; and every one who believes in a God, must acknowledge both. But all attempts to bridge over the guy between the two are futile, in the present imperfect condition of man.” See chap. 9 throughout. He who would understand the Epistle to the Romans, must assume this position, and remember that the difficulty belongs to Theism, not to Christianity alone, much less to the Calvinistic conception of it.—R.]
[20][Jowett thus avoids the tautology: “Foreknew, as the internal purpose of God—if such a figure of speech may be allowed; and predestined, as the solemn external act by which He, as it were, set apart His chosen ones.” See the view of Dr. Hodge, below.—R.]
[21][So Jowett, Stuart (substantially), and Calvinistic interpreters generally. Dr. Hodge thus presents this view: “It is evident, on the one hand, that πρόγνωσις expresses something more than the presence of which all men and all events are the objects; and, on the other, something different from the προορισμός (predestination) expressed by the following word: ‘whom he foreknew, them he also predestinated.’ The predestination follows, and is grounded on the foreknowledge. The foreknowledge, therefore, expresses the act of cognition or recognition—the fixing, so to speak, the mind upon, which involves the idea of selection. If we look over a number of objects with the view of selecting some of them for a definite purpose, the first act is to fix the mind on some, to the neglect of the others; and the second is, to destine them to the proposed end. So God is represented as looking on the fallen mass of men, and fixing on some whom He predestines to salvation. This is the πρόγνωσις, the foreknowledge, of which the Apostle here speaks. It is the knowing, fixing upon, or selecting those who are to be predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son of God.” As little can be gained by a philological discussion of the word, and as theological bias will affect the views of many, it need only be added, that the πρόθεσιν of Romans 8:28 gives the best clue to the meaning of πρό, in the compounds of this verse; that the words should be as little as possible confused by the introduction of the ideas of approving, loving, &c.; that Romans 11:2, where προέγνω is used of Israel, most of whom were not saved, does not affect the specific sense here; for there, the matter under discussion is a whole people as a chosen people; here, individuals, who are first of all brought into prominence as personal lovers of God, then as “called according to His purpose:” that the idea of the certainty of salvation is so clearly the main thought of the passage, as to warrant us, where two meanings are presented, in leaning to that which offers the best ground for such security. Hence we adopt the predestinarian view throughout.—R.]
[22][This seems to be the view of Wordsworth, and many Anglican divines, who would avoid both Calvinism and Arminianism. Wordsworth is very full, both in his introduction and notes, upon this subject, but lacks clearness.—R.]
[23][If any thing is gained in clearness by this distinction, it should by all means be accepted, as distinguishing the foreknowledge from the predestination; but many will fail to find more than a verbal difference in the phrases employed.—R.]
[24] [Alford: “His foreknowledge was not a mere being previously aware how a series of events would happen, but was coordinate with, and inseparable from, His having preordained all things.” That the word means foreordained, predestinated, is certain; that it is here applied to individuals, is obvious; that it implies a preterrestrial act of the Divine mind, is in accordance with the current of thought in the chapter, the scriptural conception of God’s purpose, and the use of the word in other passages. It is only one side of the truth, indeed, but the other side is not more firmly established by ignoring this. The only reconciliation of the difficulty is in practical Christian experience, and Paul is addressing himself to this throughout. And we know (Romans 8:28).—R.]
[25][Comp. Lange’s Comm., Colossians, p. 21 ff. on πρωτότοκος, where all three ideas are involved, that of time being specially prominent there.—R.]
[26][As the Apostle is speaking of God’s acts not ours, there is no mention of faith, or any other human exercises, and there need be none; for who can misunderstand him, when this side of the matter is in question? The justice of Dr. Lange’s view of “called” is apparent. For the whole verse with remarkable particularity declares that the same persons were predestinated, called, justified, glorified; and to understand by the calling only the general invitation to believe and accept the gospel, weakens the force of the passage. Besides, it is not true, that those whom God invites to believe through the gospel. He justifies also, and glorifies. To admit this, is to obliterate the distinction between the wayside and fruitful hearers (Matthew 13:18-23)—to fly in the face of fact, as well as the plain teaching of the Word of God. Dr. Hodge, and Calvinistic interpreters generally, make “called” = effectually called. Undoubtedly the call is effectual, linked inseparably with predestination and justification; but since the technical meaning of effectual calling is really regeneration, we may hesitate in giving to the word here used a force so extended. The subjective aspect of effectual calling is not introduced, at all events, we have only the order of the Divine acts respecting the salvation of individuals, as presenting the objective certainty of that salvation.—R.]
[27][So Philippi, De Wette. Alford combines with it that of Grotius, much as Dr. Lange does: “The aorist ἐδόξασεν being used, as the other aorists, to imply the completion in the Divine counsel, of all these, which are to us, in the state of time, so many successive steps—simultaneously and irrevocably.”—R.]
[28][Dr. Hodge adopts a modification of this view, though he suggests that the aorist may imply frequency, almost = the present. Neither of these seem so satisfactory as that of Meyer, or that of Lange himself.—R.]
[29][The omission of “them he also sanctified,” which we would expect to find in the chain, were “glorified” limited to the future, is a sufficient ground for this position of Dr. Lange, and favors also the view, that the certainty is prominent, rather than the completion of all these in the purpose of God. Of course, the objective certainty rests on this completion in God’s purpose, but the latter is included only by implication.—R.]
[30][As the whole passage can only be of encouragement when viewed in this light, Wordsworth deprives it of its force entirely, when he says that the Church of England teaches: ‘She considers these things as done; for in God’s will, and, on His side, they are done, for all members of the visible Church of Christ;” and then makes the whole matter so dependent on us, “that, unless we perform our part, all God’s gracious purposes toward us will fail of their effect.” See his lengthy notes, which touch (scarcely grapple) this difficult subject.—R.]
[31][Meyer takes Romans 8:31-39 as a conclusion from Romans 8:29-30; “The Christian has; then, nothing to fear that can be detrimental to his salvation, but he is, with the love of God in Christ, certain of this salvation.” This whole passage (notice the logical relation of ὅτι, Romans 8:29, and ου̇͂ν, Romans 8:31,) is a commentary on Romans 8:28—and what a commentary!—R.]
[32][His own Son. Tholuck, Olshausen, Philippi, Stuart, Hodge, and many others, find an implied antithesis here, viz., his adopted sons (Romans 8:19, &c.), to which Meyer and De Wette object. At all events, the emphasis resting on ἰδίου requires us to understand it as son in a specific sense, μονογενής. The christological hearing of the passage is unmistakable.—R.]
[33][Most commentators admit the special reference to death. It is not necessary to restrict it to this, but the thought is certainly prominent in Paul’s expressions concerning Christ.—Us all, evidently means believers here. The value or the efficacy of the atonement is not brought into view at all. To this commentators of all doctrinal tendencies agree.—R.]
[34][As remarked in Textual Note.16, this view is doubly doubtful. The reading is quite uncertain, and to render Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, Christ is Jesus, is almost fanciful. Dr. Lange’s remark that the article (which might have been expected before Ἰησοῦς, were this the meaning) is found in the attributive clause (ὁ ), will not meet the grammatical objection. So forced a construction would be admissible only in the absence of any other satisfactory explanation. Certainly the thought that the slain yet risen Christ shall judge the world, that our Intercessor is really the only Condemner, is not so unscriptural or unpauline as to create a difficulty from which we must escape by this singular exegesis.—R.]
[35][See Textual Note.17 The καί before ἔστιν is also omitted in א1. A. C., but inserted in the majority of MSS.—R.]
[36][Calvin adds a third meaning: our sense of Christ’s love to us. This is implied in the excellent remarks of Dr. Hodge: “The great difficulty with many Christians is, that they cannot persuade themselves that Christ (or God) loves them; and the reason why they cannot feel confident of the love of God, is, that they know they do not deserve His love; on the contrary, that they are in the highest degree unlovely. But it is the very thing we are required to believe, not only as the condition of peace and hope, but as the condition of salvation. If our hope of God’s mercy and love is founded on our own goodness or attractiveness, it is a false hope. We must believe that His love is gratuitous, mysterious, without any known or conceivable cause, certainly without the cause of loveliness in its object.”—R.]
[37][In the LXX., Ps. 43:23. The only variation is ἕνεκεν here, on the authority of א. A. B. D. F. L., while (Rec.) C. K have ἕνεκα. It must be remarked, however, that the reading of the LXX. itself varies in the same manner.—R.]
[38][Sχ Alford: “It is no new trials to which we are subjected: what if we verify the ancient description?”—R.]
Romans 8:37; Romans 8:37.—[Instead of the well-supported τοῦ ἁγαπήσαντος, D. E. F. G., and many Latin fathers, read: τὸνἀγαπήσαντα; objectionable on both critical and exegetical grounds.
[40][This would refer to Him as the efficient cause; but since the context clearly upholds the reference to Christ, it scarcely seems a “smoother exegetical interpretation” than that which presents Him. as the instrumental cause. It represents the union in victory as more intimate to follow the better supported reading, διὰτ ον ῦἀγ.—R.]
Romans 8:38; Romans 8:38.—[The order in א. A. B. C. D. F. is οὕ τεένεσ τῶτα, οὔ τεμέλλοντα, οὔ τεδυνάμεις; adopted by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Meyer, Alford, Tregelles, and critical editors generally. The Recepta puts οὔ τεδυνάμεις first (K. L., some versions). This may readily be accounted for; δύναμις is associated with ἅγγελοι or ἀρχή in Ephesians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 15:24; 1 Peter 3:22, hence the seeming necessity for a closer connection here. In Colossians 2:15, δυνάμεις is omitted, but in all the passages cited, ἐξουσία is found; hence we find it as a variation here, but very slightly attested.
[42][Here the generic idea of time is evidently the prominent one. So Philippi, and most. Alford: “no vicissitudes of time.”—R.]
[43][Meyer takes δυνάμεις in its widest sense: powers of every kind. Undoubtedly, if the order of Rec. could be adopted, a difficulty would be avoided. (Dr. Hodge takes no notice of the correct reading.) It seems strange that the evil forces should be introduced here. The simplest solution, to my mind, is that which refers this word to earthly powers, since it is connected with “things present, things to come.” This is still more probable, if “angels” and “principalities” be taken as including all superhuman created beings.—R.]
[44][This subject has been a special study with Dr. Lange. His notes, which are as profound as they are exhaustive, are left without additions, since to add would be to mar the unity.—R.]
[45][This view of Dr. Lange is one to which exception has been taken throughout the Exeg. Notes, from Romans 7:14 to the close of chap. 8; it is not necessary, then, to enter upon a new discussion of it here.—R.]
[46][This distinction presents no valid objection to the intercession of the Holy Spirit. For it is one made in and through us, as that of Christ is for us.—R.]
[47][These Notes of Dr. Lange are very just, in their opposition to such a sundering of the acts of God in our salvation (here represented, as they necessarily must be to our finite minds, as successive), as will make of election and predestination something arbitrary on the part of God. The guard he sets about the doctrine of human personality is very necessary, especially for minds trained in the school of hyper-Calvinism. Still he has not solved the problem. The Apostle himself does not do it. He but presents, for the security of believers, the objective ground of their confidence. Those rightly read, who read to learn for their comfort what God has done for them in eternity. How He, to whom all time is present, whose eternity enters into these very acts, did these gracious acts, is beyond our comprehension. Why He did them, is answered, so far as it can he answered here, only by the responsive love of a believer’s heart. We need only hold fast to the fact; that it is a fact in general, the Apostle makes abundantly clear; that it is a fact in our case, can only be clear according to the measure of our consciousness of being in Christ, “in whom he hath chosen us, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love” (Ephesians 1:4). Comp. chap. 9 on the more difficult phases of this subject.—R.]
Romans 8:1.—[The clause, added in Rec.: μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα, is now rejected by the best critics as a gloss from Romans 8:4. It is not found in א. B. C. D.1 F., most older versions and fathers. The first half only is added in A. D.2 some versions. 3.א adds the whole. The MS. authority is sufficiently against it to warrant a decided rejection. Forbes: “The results of Parallelism coincide with the decisions of criticism, and with the authority of the best MSS., in rejecting the words.”
1. Οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα
τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.
2. Ὀ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύμτος τῆς ζωῆς
ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν με
ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτι̇ας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου.
3. Τὸ γὰρ .
ἐν ῷ ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός,
ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἐαυτοῦ υἱὸν πέμψας
ἐν ὸμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίαςκατέκρινεν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί.
The first and tenth lines correspond; the parallelisms of second and fourth, third and fifth, sixth and eighth, seventh and ninth, are obvious, and the gain in interpretation is considerable. Fritzsche avails himself of it also.
Be the first to react on this!
