Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Romans 8:1 - 8:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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; Rom_8:1-17. II. The renewal of the body by the life in the Spirit, and the Spirit as the security for glorification; Rom_8:18-39.
Rom_8:1-17
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] 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] to the law of God, neither indeed Song of Solomon 8 be [it]. So then [And] 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] not the Spirit of Christ, he Isaiah 10 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 Jesus from the dead dwell [dwelleth] in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall [will] also quicken [quicken even] your mortal bodies by [on account of] 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] the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. 14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the [omit the] sons of God. 15For ye have not received [did not receive] the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have [omit have] received the Spirit of adoption, whereby [ ἐí ᾧ , wherein] we cry,Abba, Father. 16The Spirit itself beareth witness with [or, to] 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].
Summary.—a. The vital principle of Christians, or the law of the Spirit as freedom from the antagonistic law of sin (Rom_8:1-4). b. The principle of carnal life in contradiction to the Spirit and to God (Rom_8:5-8). c. Application of what has been said to the fundamental standpoint of believers (Rom_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 (Rom_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. Rom_8:17 : transition to the following section.
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 (Rom_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.]
Rom_8:1. There is therefore now no [ Ï ὐäὲí ἄñá íῦí . The force of ïὐäὲí must not be overlooked—an absolute negation, with an undoubted reference to the completeness of the freedom from condemnation (Forbes).—R.] The ἂñá is quite plain, if we have perceived the alternative in the preceding verse: If I am in the íïῦò , 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 ἂñá with the preceding chapter. Yet the following connection of it with Rom_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 Rom_8:25 with the thanksgiving; but this assumes that the second half of Rom_8:25 is an interruption. Calixtus, Bengel [Stuart], and others, go back even to Rom_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 Rom_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.]— Íῦí , the intervening state of faith, expressed last in Rom_8:25. [ Íῦí is temporal, in distinction from ï ὖí (Rom_8:25), which is inferential. Hence the continuance of this state is implied.—R.]
No condemnation [ êáôὰêñéìá , Verdammungsurtheil, sentence of condemnation (Lange). See p. 184 (Rom_5:16), where it is used in antithesis to äéêáἱùìá . It may be limited to the justifying act of God at the beginning of the Christian life, but, joined with ïὐäὲí , seems to have a wider reference here.—R.] Origen, Erasmus, Luther, and others, explain: nothing worthy of condemnation; but this is opposed by the ôïῖò . See also Rom_8:34. Comp. Rom_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 Rom_8:2, beginning with ãἀñ , 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 Rom_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, ôïῐò ἐí ×ñéóôῷ Ἰçóïῦ ]. 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 Joh_15:1-7, and Eph_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 Rom_8:2 prove the justification of the believer. To do this, the clause which makes prominent the Christian walk, so easily borrowed from Rom_8:4, was inserted.—R.]
Rom_8:2. For the law of the Spirit of life, &c. [ ὁãὰñíὸìïò ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò ôῆò æùῆò ἐí ÷ñéóôῷ Ἰçóïῦ ]. Rom_8:2 specifies the ground why Christians are free from condemnation. The principal question here is, whether, ἐí êñéóôῷ is to be referred to the following ἠëåíõ ἑñùóåí , 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 ἐí ÷ñéóôῶ with ἠëåíè . But this distorts the thought, as if that Spirit of life could possibly deliver without Christ. Certainly ἐí ÷ñéóôῷ refers not alone to the foregoing æùῆò (Luther, Beza, and others); and æùÞ 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 ôïῦ ðíåýì . ôῆò æùῆò alone (Flatt), but to the whole ὁ íüìïò ôïῦ ðíåýì . ô . æ . (Calvin, Köllner, Tholuck). The fulness of life in Christ is the Spirit (see Joh_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 íüìïò , the personal righteousness; and as it has proved itself to be the completed íüìïò , 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.
The law of the Spirit is not identical with the íüìïò ôïῦ íïüò (Köllner, Schröder), but still the latter is connected with the former. The íüìïò of the íïῦò is the ontological disposition which has attained its complete historical and concrete realization in the íüìïò of the Spirit. Meyer observes, that the Christian institution of salvation is not meant, as íüìïò ðßóôåùò in Rom_3:27. Yet it is surely identical, to a certain degree, with the íüìïòðßóô ., but not with the Christian institution of salvation.
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 [ ἠëåõèÝñùóÝí ìå . 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 [ ôïῦíüìïõ ôῆò ἁìáñôßáò êáὶ ôïῦ èáíÜôïõ .] Because the false law of sinful propensity in the members is, according to Rom_7:23, a law of sin, so is it also a law which tends to death, according to Rom_8:24. Although the Apostle the designs to say that this freedom is followed by freedom from the Mosaic law (Rom_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 íüìïò ðíåýì . is not altogether identical with the íüìïò ðßóô . (Calovius). In the law of faith, the emphasis rests on the faith, but here on the íüìïò ; there, the question is the principle of justification, but here, the principle of holiness. The individualizing ìå ceases here.
Rom_8:3. For what the law could not do [ ôὸ ãὰñ ἀäýíáôïí ôïῦ íüìïõ ]. 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 ἐðïßçóå (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 Meyer and Tholuck; particularly êåöÜëáéïí äÝ , Heb_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 ἐðïßçóå before èåüò , not agreeably to the forms, yet certainly in harmony with the thought. The genitive íüìïõ denotes the incapacity of the law to deliver from sin (Vater has referred the íüì . to the law of the Spirit; Schulthess, to the law of Divine and human love).
In that it was weak. The ἐí 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 ἠóèÝíåé again takes up the idea of incapacity.
Through the flesh [ äéὰ ôῆò óáñêüò ]. Meyer: Through the guilt of the flesh. Besser: Through effect of the flesh. We must not forget the fact, that the division of the óÜñî has also made out of the law a division of the carnal letter. [The preposition äéÜ 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; Gal_3:19; Heb_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 [ ἐí ὁìïéþìáôé óáñêὸò ἁìáñôßáò . Sinful flesh is not altogether exact. ÓÜñî 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 (Php_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 ἐí óáñÆὶ ἁìáñô ., 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, but His inward body from heaven), as well as the opposite views of Dippel, Hasenkamp, Menken, and Irving. “According to them, ὁìïéùìá does not denote likeness, but equality. But although ὃìïéïò combines both meanings, yet that of likeness alone belongs to the substantives ὁìïéùìá and ὁìïéùóéò ; besides, the other meaning is contradicted by the analogy of Scripture in Heb_4:15.”
And on account of sin [ êáὶ ðåñὶἁìáñôßáò . The êáἱ 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 êáἱ 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 óὰñî ἁìáñôßáò , of the false óÜñî ; the second, that a mission on account of sin was undertaken by the Son of God himself (see Mat_21:37). “ Êáὶ ðåñὶ ἁìáñô . has been connected with êáôÝêñéíå by the Itala (per carnem), Tertullian (de res carn., c. 66), the Vulgate (de peccato), Chrysostom, Theodoret, Luther, Baldwin, and Bengel. But the êáὶ is against this;” Tholuck. The ἁìáñôßá in ðåñὶ ἁìáñô . 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-offering çַèּàä ; 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 1Jn_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 [ êáôÝêñéíåí ôὴí ἁìáñôßáí ἐí ôῇ óáñêß . The article is used here with ἁìáñôßáí , 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, 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 áὑôïῦ from ἐí ôῆ óáñêἰ (comp., on the contrary, Eph_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 Rom_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.—Yet Tholuck finally turns to the allusion of this passage to the guilt of sin, and thus we must understand by óÜñî (p. 394) not the óÜñî of Christ, but “the sinful human nature, which, although only k áè ’ ὁìïßùìá , was also possessed by Christ (Philippi, De Wette).” The latter does not belong here. But then there would also follow from this an atonement êáè ’ ὁìïéùìá . The interpretation of the êáôÝêñéíå by interfecit (Grotius, Reiche, &c.), does not suit the nature of Christ. Meyer properly observes, that the êáôÜêñéìá has been chosen in reference to the êáôÜêñéìá in Rom_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. This suits the wider meaning of no condemnation (Rom_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 Rom_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 áὑôïῦ . 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 óÜñî 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. 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 ( ἳíá ) 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 Rom_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.
Rom_8:4. That the righteousness [or requirement] of the law [ ἳíá ôὸäéêáßùìá ôïῦ íüìïõ . Ἵíá , telic, introducing the purpose of the condemnation of sin in the flesh. Lange renders äéêáὶùìá : 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 äéêáὶùìá (“quite simply, as Rom_1:32; Rom_2:26; comp. also Rom_5:16”) as the requirement of the law; that which the law stipulates. Yet we have seen above, that äéêáὶùìá 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 óêïðὸòôïῦ íüìïõ (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 Rom_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 ðëçñïῦí and the ἐí 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 ðëçñþóùìåí ) 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, ðëçñþèç ̣ ἐí ἡìῑí . 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. Eph_2:10; Col_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. [ ôïῖò ìὴ êáôὰ óÜñêá ðåñéðáôïῦóéí , ὰëëὰ êáôὰ ðíåῦìá . Êáôἁ 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 condition 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 êáôὰ ðíåῦìá designates only the sanctifying Divine principle itself, as objective, and different from the human ðíåῦìá ! 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 óἁñî , 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 ðíåῦìá 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 Rom_8:2 (“the law of the Spirit of life”) and Rom_8:5 (“the things of the Spirit”), where ðíåῦìá evidently means the Holy Spirit.—The E. V. has very properly expressed this by the use of the capital letter.—R.]
Do mind the things of the flesh [ ôὰ ôῆò óáñêὸò öñïíïῦóéí . The verb means, think of, care for, strive after (Alford). Meyer notices the presence of the article, making óÜñî 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, ïἱ äὲ êáôὰ ðíåῦìá , completes the thought that the two tendencies totally exclude each other.—[It also follows that ôὰ ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò , 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.]
Rom_8:6. For the mind of the flesh is death [ ôὸ ãὰñ öñüíçìá ôῆò óáñêὸò èáíáôüò ]. The connection here formed by ãὰñ is singular. Tholuck: “It could serve to prove only the second half of Rom_8:5, while the correspondence of the members of the sentence leads us to expect a proof of both halves of Rom_8:5. Thus the view gains probability, that, according to the Greek and Hebrew ( ëּé ) use of language, the proof in Rom_8:6 performs for that in Rom_8:5 the parallel service of assigning reasons for the ôïῖò ìὴ , ê . ô . ë ., in Rom_8:4.” Meyer makes the ãὰñ the proof of the second half of Rom_8:5, ïἱ äὲ êáôá ðíåῦìá . “Motive why they make the interests of the ðíåῦìá the end of their efforts.” We regard, however, the ãὰñ as proof that the åἶíáé êáôὰ has a corresponding öñïíåῖí and öñüíçìá as a result. For the óÜñî has a öñüíçìá , yet all its öñüíçìá 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. 1Ti_5:6; Eph_2:1; Eph_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, ôὸ äὲ öñüíçìá ôïῦ ðíåὺìáôïò .] The opposite is the öñüíçìá ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò (for the åἶíáé êáôὰðí . is itself ðí .); it is life and peace. 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.
Rom_8:7. Because the mind of the flesh. [ Äéüôé introduces a proof, here confined to the former half of Rom_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 öñüíçìá , &c., = èáí ., lies in its opposition to the source of life, its enmity against God [ ἒ÷èñá åἰò èåüí ], with which the displeasure of God necessarily corresponds. 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 [ ôῷ ãὰñ íüìù ̣ ôïῦ èåïῦ ïὐ÷ ὑðïôÜóóåôáé . 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 [ ïὐäὲ ãὰñ äýíáôáé ]. 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 óÜñî denotes human nature with the accessory idea of its sinful character. But to this it may be said, that the question is not the óÜñî in itself, but a öñüíçìá ôῆò óáñêüò ; that is, a óÜñî 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.]
Rom_8:8. And those who are in the flesh cannot please God [ ïἱ äὲ ἐí óáñêὶ ὂíôåò èåῷἀñÝóáé ïὐ äýíáíôáé . The E. V. strengthens äÝ into so then, following Beza, Calvin, and others, who made it = ïὖí . (So Hodge.) It is much better, with De Wette, Philippi, Meyer, to consider it metabatic. It continues the thought of the first clause of Rom_8:7. There seems to be no necessity for assuming a suppressed ìÝí , as Alford does. On this account we render and instead of but.—R.] Ὄíôåò ἐí óáñêß = ὂíôåò êáôὰ óÜñêá , but the expression here is stronger; see above. The incapacity in Rom_8:8, then, follows from the incapacity of Rom_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 ὂíôåò ἐí óáñêß , 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 ãñÜíìá and óÜñî . [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.]