Although this has been the general course of opinion on this subject, some of the most evangelical men, especially on the continent of Europe, have agreed with Erasmus in Ins view of this passage. This was the case with Francke, Bengel, &e., of a previous age; and with Knapp, Flatt, Tholuck, &e., of our own day; not to mention the distinguished writers of England and our own country, who have adopted the same1 view. There is nothing, therefore, in this opinion, which implies the denial or disregard of any of the fundamental principles of evangelical religion. Still, that the view of the passage which so long pre vailed in the Church, and which has been generally adopted by evangelical men, is the correct one, seems evident from the fol lowing considerations.
I. The onus probandi is certainly on the other side. When the apostle uses not only the first person, but the present tense, and says, "I consent to the law that it is good," "I delight in the law of God," "I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind," &c., those who deny that he means himself, even though he says I myself, or refuse to acknowledge that this language expresses his feelings while writing, are surely bound to let the contrary very clearly be seen. Appearances arc certainly against them. It should be remembered that Paul uses this language, not once or twice, but uniformly through the whole passage, and that too with an ardour of feeling indicative of language coming directly from the heart, and expressing its most joyful or painful experience. This is a consideration which cannot be argumentatively exhi bited, but it must impress every attentive and susceptible reader. To suppose that the apostle is personating another, either, as Grotius* supposes, the Jew first before the giving of the law, and then after it; or as Erasmus thinks, a Gentile without the law, as opposed to a Jew under it; or as is more commonly supposed, an ordinary individual under the influence of a knowledge of the law, is to suppose him to do what he does nowhere else in any of his writings, and what Is entirely foreign to his whole spirit and manner. Instead of thus sinking himself in another, he can hardly prevent his own individual feelings from mingling with, and moulding the very statement of objections to his own reasoning: see chap. iii. 3 — 8. One great difficulty in explaining his epistles, arises from this very source. It is hard to tell at times what is his language, and what that of an objector. If any one will examine the passages in which Paul is supposed to mean another, when he uses the first person, he will see how far short they come of affording any parallel to the case supposed in this chapter. f In many of them he undoubtedly means himself, as in 1 Cor. iii. 5, iv. 3, &c.; in others the language is, in one sense, expressive of the apostle's real sentiments, and is only perverted by the objector, as in 1 Cor. vi. 12; while in others the personation of another is only for a single sentence. Nothino- analogous to
* /V/o, id est, genus Israeliticum cum vixit ante legem — in Aegypto scilicet. Sec his comment on ver. 9.
tliis passage is to be found in all his writings, if indeed lie is not here pouring out the feelings of his own heart.
II. There is no necessity for denying that Paul here speaks of himself, and describes the exereises of a renewed man. There is not an expression, from beginning to the end of this section, which the holiest man may not and must not adopt. This has been shown in the commentary. The strongest declarations, as, for example, "I am carnal, and sold under sin,'1 admit, indeed, by themselves, of an interpretation incon sistent with even ordinary morality; but, as explained by the apostle, and limited by the context, they express nothing more than every believer experiences. What Christian docs not feel that he is carnal? Alas, how different is he from the spirits of the just made perfect! How cheerfully does he recognise his obligation to love <;.,d with all the heart, and yet how con stantly does the tendency to self and the world, the law in his members, war against the purer and better law of his mind, and bring him into subjection to sin! If, indeed, it were true, as has been asserted, that the person here described ''succumbs to sin IN EVERY IXSTAXCE of contest"* the description would be inapplicable not to the Christian only, but to any other than the most immoral of men. It is rare indeed, even in the natural conflict between reason and passion, or conscience and corrupt inclination, that the better principle does not succeed, not once merely, but often. There is, however in"
even approaching to the implication of such a sentiment in the whole passage. Paul merely asserts that the believer is, and ever remains in this life, imperfectly sanctified; that sin con tinues to dwell within him; that he never comes up to the- lull requisitions of the law, however anxiously lie may desire it. Often as he subdues one spiritual foe. another rises in a differ ent form; so that lie cannot do the things that he would; that is, cannot be perfectly conformed in heart and life to the image of God.
It must have been in a moment of forgetfulncss, that such a, man as Tholuck could quote with approbation the assertion of Dr. A. Clarke: "This opinion has most pitifully and shame fully, nut only lowered the standard of Christianity, but destroyed Its influence and disgraced its character." What lamentable blindness to notorious facts does such language evince! From the days of Job and David to the present hour, the holiest men have been the most ready to acknowledge and deplore the existence and power of indwelling sin. Without appealing to individual illustrations of the truth of this remark, look at masses of men, at Augustinians and Pelagians, Calvinists and Remonstrants: in all ages the strictest doctrines and the sternest morals have been found united. It is not those who have most exalted human ability, that have most advan tageously exhibited the fruits of its power. It has been rather those who, with the lowest views of themselves, and the highest apprehensions of the efficacy of the grace of God, have been able to adopt the language of Paul, " What I would, that do I not;" and who, looking away from themselves to him through whom thev can do all things, have shown the Divine strength manifested in their weakness.
III. While there is nothing in the sentiments of this passage which a true Christian may not adopt, there is much which cannot be asserted by any unrenewed man. As far as this point is concerned, the decision depends, of course, on the cor rect interpretation of the several expressions employed by the apostle. 1. What is the true meaning of the phrases "inward man" and "law of the mind," when opposed to "the flesh" and "the law in the members'"? The sense of these expressions is to be determined by their use in other passages; or if they do not elsewhere occur, by the meaning attached to those which are obviously substituted for them. As from the similarity of the passages, it can hardly be questioned, that what Paul here calls "the inward man" and "law of the mind," he, in Gal. v. 17, and elsewhere, calls "the Spirit;" it is plain that lie intends, by these terms, to designate the soul considered as renewed, in opposition to the "ilesh," or the soul considered as destitute of Divine influence. '2. It is not in accordance with the scriptural representation of the wicked, to describe them as consenting to the law of God; as hating sin, and *tniLrirlinu; against it; groaning under it as a tyrant's yoke; us delighting in the law of God, i. e. in holiness: doing all this, not as men, but as men viewed in a particular aspect as to the inward or new man. This is not the scriptural representation of the natural man, who does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, and cannot know them, 1 Cor. ii. 14. On the contrary, the carnal mind is enmity against God and his law. They therefore who are in the flesh, that is, who have this carnal mind, hate and oppose the law, Horn. viii. 7, 8. The expressions here used by the apostle, are such as, throughout the Scriptures, are used to describe the exercises of the pious, "whose delight is in the law of the Lord, Ps. i. '2. o. Not only do these particular expressions show that the writer is a true Christian, but the whole conflict here described is such as is peculiar to the sincere believer. There is, indeed, in the natural man. something very analogous to this, when his conscience is enlightened, and bis better feelings come into collision with the strong inclination to evil which dwells in bis mind. But this struggle is very far In-low that which the apostle here describes. The true nature of this conflict seems to be ascertained beyond dispute, by the parallel passage in Gal. v. IT, already referred to. It cannot be denied, that to possess the Spirit is, in scriptural language, a characteristic mark of a true Christian. - But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. viii.!'. Those, therefore, who have that Spirit, are Christians. This being the case, it will not be doubted that the passage in Galatians, in which the spirit is represented as warring a"-:iin^t the flesh, and the fie>h against the spirit, is descriptive of the experience of the true believer. Hut the conflict there described is identical with that of which the same apostle speaks in this chapter. This is evident, not merely from the fact that one of the antagonist principles is, in both cases, called flesh, but because the description is nearly in the same words. L, conse quence of the opposition of the flesh and spirit, Paul tells the Galatians they cannot do the things that they would; and he says here of himself, that in consequence of the opposition between the flesh and the law of his mind, what he would he did not. The same conflict and the same bondage arc described m each case; and if the one be descriptive of the exercises of a true Christian, the other must be so also.
IV. The context, or the connection of this passage with the preceding and succeeding chapters, is in favour of the common interpretation. The contrary is, indeed, strongly asserted by those who take the opposite view of the passage. Tholuck seems to admit that, were it not for the context, the whole of the latter part of the chapter might well be understood of the believer: see his remarks on ver. 14. And Professor Stuart says, u I repeat the remark, that the question is not, whether what is here said miyht be applied to Christians; but whether, from the tenor of the context, it appears to have been the intention of the writer that it should be so applied. This prin ciple cannot fail to settle the question concerning such an application." P. 558. It may be proper to pause and remark, that such statements involve a renunciation of the arguments derived from the inapplicability to the real Christian, of what is here said. Everything is here admitted to be in itself appli cable to him, did but the context allow it to be so applied. Yet every one is aware that no argument is more frequently and strongly urged against the common interpretation, than that the description here given is, in its very nature, unsuitable to Christian experience. On the same page which contains the passage just quoted, Professor Stuart says, "As, however, there
is no denying the truth of these and the like declarations,* and no receding from them, nor explaining them away as meaning less than habitual victory over sin; so it follows, that when vs. 14 — 25 are applied to Christian experience, they are wrongly applied. The person represented in these verses, succumbs to sin IN EVERY INSTANCE of contest." This is cer
tainly an argument against applying the passage in question to the Christian, founded on the assumption that it is, from its nature, entirely inapplicable. And the argument is perfectly conclusive, if the meaning of the passage be what is here stated. But it is believed that this is very far from being its true mean ing, as shown above. This argument, however, it appears, is not insisted upon; everything is made to depend upon the context.
Many distinguished commentators, as Alfonso Turrettin, Knapp, Tholuck, Flatt, and Stuart, consider this chapter, from ver. T to the end, as a commentary upon vcr. 5, in which verse the state of those who are in "the flesh" is spoken of; and the first part of the next chapter as a commentary on ver. (J, which speaks of those who are no longer under the law. Accord ingly, vs. 7 — -5 are descriptive of the exercises of a man yet under the law; and viii. 1 — IT, of those of a man under the gospel, or of a believer. It is said that the two passages are in direct antithesis; the one describes the state of a captive to sin, vii. 2o, and the other the state of one who is delivered from sin, viii. '2. This is certainly ingenious and plausible, but is founded on a twofold misapprehension; first, as to the nature of this captivity to sin, or the real meaning of the former passage, vii. 14 — - ">; and, secondly, as to the correct inter pretation of the latter passage, or viii. 4 — IT. If vii. 14 — -5 reallv describes such a captivity as these authors suppose, in which the individual spoken of "succumbs to sin in every instance, " there i>, of course, an end of this question, and that too without any appeal to the context for support. I>ut, on the other hand, if it describes no sueh state', but, as Tholuck and Professor Stuart admit, contains nothing which mi/jJtt not be said of the Christian, the whole; force of the argument is gone; verses T — 2~> are no longer necessarily a comment on ver. ->, nor viii. 1 — IT on ver. (J. The antithesis of course ceases, if the interpretation, to which it owes its existence', be abandoned. The matter, after all, therefore1, is made to depend on the1 cor rect exposition of the passage (vs. 14 — -~>) itself. A particular interpretation cannot first be assumed, in order to make out the antithesis; and then the1 antithesis be assumed, to justify the interpretation. This would be reasoning in a circle. In the second place, this view of the context is founded, as is believed, on an erroneous exegesis of viii. 1 — IT. The first part o( tnat chapter is not so intimately connected with the latter part of this; nor is it designed to.-how that the Christian is delivered from "the hvw of sin and death'' in Jits ruonlnTx. For the grounds of this statement, the reader is referred to the com mentary on the passage in question. Even if the reverse were the fact, still, unless it can be previously shown that vs. 14 — '25 of this chapter describe the state of a man under the law, there is no ground for the assumption of such an antithesis between the two passages as is supposed in the view of the context stated above. Both passages might describe the same indivi dual under different aspects; the one exhibiting the operation of the law, and the other that of the gospel on the renewed mind. But if the exposition given below of viii. 1 — IT, is correct, there is not a shadow of foundation for the argument derived from the context against the common interpretation of vii. 14—25.
The wdiole tenor of the apostle's argument, from the begin ning of the epistle to the close of this chapter, is not only con sistent with the common interpretation, but seems absolutely to demand it. His great object in the first eight chapters, is to show that the whole work of the sinner's salvation, his justifica tion and sanctification, are not of the law, but of grace; that legal obedience can never secure the one, nor legal efforts the other. Accordingly, in the first five chapters, he shows that we are justified by faith, without the works of the law: in the sixth, that this doctrine of gratuitous justification, instead of leading to licentiousness, presents the only certain and effectual means of sanctification. In the beginning of the seventh chapter, he shows that the believer is really thus free from the law, and is now under grace; and that while under the law he brought forth fruit unto sin, but being under grace, he now brings forth fruit unto God. The question here arises, Why is the holy, just, and good law thus impotent? Is it because it is evil? Far from it; the reason lies in our own corruption. Then, to show how this is, arid why the objective and authorita tive exhibition of truth cannot sanctify, the apostle proceeds to show how it actually operates on the depraved mind. In the first place, it enlightens conscience, and, in the second, it rouses the opposition of the corrupt heart. These are the two elements of conviction of sin; a knowledge of its nature, and a sense of its power over ourselves. Hence the feeling of selfcondemnation, of helplessness and misery. Thus the law slays. This is one portion of its effect, but not the wrhole; for, even after the heart is renewed, as it is but imperfectly sanctified, the law is still unable to promote holiness. The reason here again is not that the law is evil, but that we are carnal, ver. 14. Indwelling sin, as the apostle calls it, is the cause why the law cannot effect the sanctification even of the believer. It pre sents, indeed, the form of beauty, and the soul delights in it after the inward man; but the corrupt affections, which turn to self and the world, are still there: these the law cannot destroy. But though the law cannot do this, it shall eventually be done. Thanks to God, through Jesus Christ, our case is not hopeless!
The apostle's object would have been but half attained, had he not thus exhibited the effect of the law upon the believer's mind, and demonstrated that a sense of legal bondage was not necessary to the Christian, arid could not secure his sanctifica tion. Having done this, his object is accomplished. The eighth chapter, therefore, is not so intimately connected with the seventh. It does not commence with an inference from the discussion in vs. 7 — -5, but from the whole preceding exhibi tion. k> There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." Why'.' Because they are sanctified? No; but because they are not under the law. This is the main point, from first to last. They are delivered from that law, which, however good in itself, can onlv produce sin and death, ver. '1. In view of this insufficiency of the law, God, having sent his Son as a, sacrifice for sin. lias delivered them from it, by condemning sin in him, and has thus secured the justification of believers. Through him they sati>fy the demands of the law, and their salvation is rendered certain. This, however, implies that they do not live after the fle>h, but after the Spirit, agree ably to the doctrine of the sixth chapter; for salvation in sin is a contradiction in terms.
There is. therefore, no such antithesis between the seventh and eighth chapters, as the opposite interpretation supposes. It is not the design of the latter to show that men are delivered from indwelling sin; or that the conflict between the "law in the members" and u the law of the mind," between the flesh and Spirit, ceases when men embrace the gospel. Hut it shows that this consummation is secured to all who are in Christ, lo all who do riot deliberately and of choice walk after the flesh, and make it their guide and master. In virtue of deliverance from the law, and introduction into a state of grace, the believer has not only his acceptance with God, but his final deliverance from sin secured. Sin shall not triumph in those who have th« Spirit of Christ, and who, by that Spirit, mortify the deeds of the body.
If, then, the context is altogether favourable to the ordinary interpretation; if the passage is accurately descriptive of Christian experience, and analogous to other inspired accounts of the exercises of the renewed heart; if not merely particular expressions, but the whole tenor of the discourse, is inconsistent with the scriptural account of the natural man; and if Paul, in the use of the first person and the present tense, cannot, with out violence, be considered otherwise than as expressing his own feelings while writing, we have abundant reason to rest satisfied with the obvious sense of the passage.
1. No man is perfectly sanctified in this life. At least, Paul was not, according to his own confession, when he wrote this passage., vs. 14 — 2o.
2. The law is spiritual, that is, perfect, deriving its character from its author, the Spirit of God. It is, therefore, the unerr ing standard of duty, and the source of moral light or know ledge. It should, therefore, be everywhere known and studied, and faithfully applied as the rule of judgment for our own conduct, and that of others. Evangelical doctrines, therefore, which teach the necessity of freedom from the law as a cove nant of works, i. e. as prescribing the terms of our justification before God, derogate neither from its excellence nor its author ity. It is left to do its proper work in the economy of redemp tion; to convince of sin, and be a guide to duty, vcr. 14, &c.
3. The mere presentation of truth, apart from the influ ences of the Spirit, can neither renew nor sanctify the heart, ver. 14, &c.
4. Inability is consistent with responsibility. " To perform that which is good I find not," that is, I cannot, ver. 18; Gal. v. IT. As the Scriptures constantly recognise the truth of these two things, so are they constantly united in Christian experience. Every one feels that he cannot do the things that he would, yet is sensible that he is to blame for not doing them.
Let any man test his power by the requisition to love God per fectly at all times. Alas! how entire our inability; yet how deep our self-loathing and self-condemnation!
5. The emotions arid affections do not obey a determination of the will, vs. 10, 18, 10, 21. A change of purpose, therefore, is not a change of heart.
6. The Christian's victory over sin cannot be achieved by the strength of his resolutions, nor by the plainness and force of moral motives, nor by any resources within himself. lie looks to Jesus Christ, and conquers in his strength. In other words, the victory is not obtained in the way of nature, but of grace, vs. 14 — 25.
1. As the believer's life is a constant conflict, those who do not struggle against sin, arid endeavour to subdue it, are riot true Christians, vs. 14 — 25.
2. The person here described hates sin, ver. 15; acknow ledges and delights in the spirituality of the divine law, vs. 1<>, 22; he considers his corruption a dreadful burden, from which he earnestly desires to be delivered, ver. 24. These are exercises of genuine piety, and should be applied as tests of character.
3. It is an evidence of an unrcnewed heart to express or feel opposition to the law of (Jod. as though it were too strict; or to be disposed to throw oft' the blame of our want of conformity to the divine will from ourselves upon the law. as unreasonable. The renewed man condemns himself, and justifies (Jod, even while he confesses and mourns his inability to conform to the divine requisitions, vs. 14 — 25.
4. The strength and extent of the corruption of our nature are seen from its influence over the best of men, and from its retaining more or less of its power, under all circumstances, to the end of life, ver. 25.
5. This corruption, although its power is acknowledged, "so far from being regarded as an excuse or palliation for our indi vidual offences, is recognised as the greatest aggravation of our guilt. To say, with the feelings of the apostle, "I am carnal,"
is to utter the strongest language of self-condemnation and selfabhorrence, vs. 14 — 25.
6. Although the believer is never perfectly sanctified in this life, his aim and efforts are ever onward; and the experience of the power of indwelling sin teaches him the value of heaven, and prepares him for the enjoyment of it, vs. 14 — 25.
PAUL had now finished his exhibition of the plan of salvation. He had shown that we are justified gratuitously, that is, by faith in Jesus Christ, without the works of the law. He had proved that, so far from this freedom from the law leading to the indulgence of sin, it is necessary to our sanctifieation, because the law is as inadequate to the production of holiness in the sinner, as it is to secure pardon or acceptance with God. That such is the insufficiency of the law, he proved by exhibit ing its operation both on the renewed and unrenewed mind. Having accomplished all this, he leaves, in the chapter before us, the field of logical argument, and enters on the new and more elevated sphere of joyous exultation. As, however, there is always warmth of feeling in the apostle's argument, so also is there generally logical arrangement in his highest triumphs.
His theme here is the security of believers. The salvation of those who have renounced the law, and accepted the gracious offers of the gospel, is shown to be absolutely certain. The whole chapter is a series of arguments, most beautifully arranged, in support of this one point. They are all traced back to the great source of hope and security, the unmerited and unchanging love of God in Christ Jesus. The proposition is contained in the first verse. There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus: they shall never be condemned or perish.
1. Because they are delivered from the law; all its demands being fulfilled in them by the mission and sacrifice of Christ, vs. 1 — 4. 2. Because their salvation is actually begun in the regeneration and sanctification of their hearts by the Holy Spirit. Those who have the Spirit of Christ have the Spirit of life, vs. 5 — 11. 3. Not only is their salvation begun, but they are the children of God, and if children, they are heirs, vs. 12 — 17. 4. The afflictions which they may be called to endure, are not inconsistent with this filial relation to God, because they are utterly insignificant in comparison with the glory that shall be revealed in them; and under these afflictions they are sustained both by hope and the intercessions of the Holy Spirit, vs. 18 — 28. o. Because they are predestinated to the attainment of eternal life; of which predestination their present sanctification or effectual calling is the result, and therefore the evidence, vs. 28 — 30. G. Because God has given his Son to die for them, and thereby to secure their justifica tion and salvation, vs. 31 — 34. 7. Because the love of God is infinite and unchangeable; from which nothing can separate us, vs. 3-5 — 30. Thus from the proximate cause of salvation, or the indwelling of the Spirit, does the apostle rise with everincreasing confidence, to the great source and fountain of all, in the love of God.*
Although, according to this view of the chapter, it is one whole, it may, for the sake of convenience, be divided into three sections.
ROMANS VIII. 1—11.
Tins section contains the development of the first two of the apostle's arguments in favour of the position, that those who are in Christ Jesus shall never be condemned. The immediate reason is assigned in the second verse — they are delivered from the law. For, in view of the insufficiency of the law, God sent
* The same general view of the design of this chapter, and of the course of the apostle's argument, is given in the analysis of this epistle, by Stephen de Brais.
forth his Son as a sacrifice for sin, vcr. 3; and thus secured the justification of all believers, vcr. 4. Being thus delivered from the law, they walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, and this possession of the Spirit is incipient salvation: because the carnal mind, which, of course, all who are in the flesh pos sess, is death; whereas a mind under the government of the Spirit is life and peace. Such is the very nature of the case. Holiness is salvation, vs. 5 — 7. The reason that death is the necessary consequence of being carnally minded, is the essen tial opposition between such a state of mind and God. Hence, those who have this state of mind are the objects of the Divine displeasure, vs. 7, 8. As, however, believers are not under the government of the flesh, but of the Spirit, their salvation is secured, even to the resurrection of the body. For if the Spirit of Him who raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in them, he shall also quicken their mortal bodies, vs. 9 — 11.
VERSE 1. There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. It is a matter of considerable importance to the understanding of this chapter, to decide what is its precise relation to the preceding part of the epistle. The word therefore indicates that what follows is an inference; but from what? From the conclusion of the seventh chapter, or from the Avhole previous discussion? The latter seems to be the only correct view of the context; because the fact that there is no condemnation to believers, is no fair inference from what is said at the close of the preceding chapter. Paul does not mean to say, as Luther and others explain vcr. 1, that there is nothing worthy of condemnation in the Christian, because with his mind he serves the law of God. Nor does he mean, at least in the first few verses, to argue that believers shall not be condemned, because they are freed from the dominion of sin. But the inference, in the first verse, is the legitimate conclusion of all that Paul had previously estab lished. Believers shall be saved, because they are not under the law, but under grace, which is the main point in all that Paul has yet said. There is, therefore, now, i. e. under these circumstances, viz. the circumstances set forth in the previous part of the epistle. The decision of the question as to the con nection depends on the view taken of the apostle's argument. If he argues that believers are not liable to condemnation, because with the mind they serve the law of God, then the con nection is with what immediately precedes. But if his argu ment is, that those in Christ are not exposed to condemnation, notwithstanding their imperfect sanctification, because Christ has died as a sacrifice for their sins, then the connection is with the main argument of the epistle. Since men, being sin ners, cannot be justified by works; since by the obedience of one man, Jesus Christ, the many are made righteous; and since through him, and not through the law. deliverance from the subjective power of sin is effected, therefore it follows that there is no condemnation to those who are in him.
There is no condemnation, o'josi^ xardxotu.fs.j does not mean niliil dcimnatione dignum (nothing worth v <>f condemnation,) as Erasmus and many others render it, but there /.s no condemna tion. Those who are in Christ are not exposed to condemnation. And this a^ain is not to be understood as descriptive of their present state merely, but of their permanent position. They are placed beyond the reach of condemnation. They shall never be condemned. The meaning of a proposition is often best understood by the arguments by which it is sustained. It is so in this case. The whole chapter is a proof of the safety of believers, of their security not only from present condemna tion, but from future perdition. Nothing shall ever separate them from the love of God, is the triumphant conclusion to which the apostle arrives. Those to whom there is and never can be any condemnation, are described, first as to their rela tion to Christ, and secondly as to their character. The first assigns the reason of their security, the second enables us to determine to whom that security belongs. First, they are in Christ. In what sense? This must be determined, not so much from the force of the words, as from the teachings of Scripture. 1. They arc in him federally, as all men were in Adam, 1 Cor. xv. 22, Rom. v. 12 — 21. 2. They are in him vitally, as the branch is in the vine, John xv. 1 — T; or, as the head and mem bers of the body are in vital union, 1 Cor. xii. 27, Eph. i. 23.
This union arises from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. xii. 13, vi. 15, 19. 3. They are in him by faith, Eph. iii. 17, Gal. iii. 26, 27. It is not in virtue of any one of these bonds of union exclusively, but in virtue of them all (so far as adults are concerned,) that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. It follows from the nature of this union, that it must transform the character of those who are its subjects. If, therefore, any man is in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature, 2 Cor. v. 17, John xv. 4, Phil. iii. 19, Col. ii. 6, 1 John ii. 5, iii. G. As the union includes the bodies of believers, as well as their souls, 1 Cor. vi. 15 — 19, so this transforming power will ultimately extend to the former as well as to the latter, Rom. viii. 10, 11. In this verse, (according to the common text,) the transforming power of this union with Christ is expressed by saying, that those who are in him, walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. To walk means to regulate the inward and outward life. It includes, therefore, the determination of the judgments, the feelings, the purposes, as well as the external conduct. The controlling principle in believers is not the flesh, i. e. the corrupt nature, but the Holy Spirit who dwells in them, as the source of knowledge, of holiness, of strength, of peace and love. They are not aacr/c/oi governed by the #«/><-, but -vs'j/jLaT'xo! governed by the Spirit. The only evidence therefore to ourselves, or to others, of our being in Christ, is this subjection of the whole life to the control of his Spirit, so that we discern and believe the truth, 1 Cor. ii. 14 — 16, and are governed by it. When the word ~^zrJ[J.a is not only without the article, and opposed to odpz, it may be understood of the Spirit as the principle of life in the believer, and in that view be equivalent to the new man, or the renewed principle. This is the view adopted by many as the meaning of the word in this passage. This clause, however, is of doubtful authority. It occurs in ver. 4, and may by a transcriber have been trans ferred to this place. The whole clause is omitted in the major ity of the uncial MSS., and by the great body of modern critics. The Litter clause only is omitted in the MSS. A. D. in the Vul gate, and by Chrysostom, which reading is adopted by Bengel. VERSE 2. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, &c. This verse assigns the reason why there is no condemnation to those who arc in Christ, as is evident from the use of for, with which the verse commences.
The law of the Spirit is here opposed to the law of sin and death, mentioned in the other clause of the verse. The inter pretation of the one phrase, therefore, must decide that of the other. There are three different views which may be taken of the verse. 1. The word law may be used here as it is in vs. 21, 23, of chap, vii., for a directing poiver; and Spirit, by metonymy, for that which the Spirit produces, i. c. sanctified affections; and the words of life may mean, producing life. The sense would then be, ' The power of the renewed principle which tends to life, has delivered me from the power of sin which tends to death.' In other words, 'The law of the mind has delivered me from the law of sin which is in the members.' So Beza and many others. 2. The word law is taken in nearly the same sense; but Spirit of life is understood to mean the Holy Spirit, considered as the author of life. The sense then is, 'The power of the life-giving Spirit has delivered me from the dominion of the law of sin and death in mv members.' So
Calvin, and others: " Legem. Spiritus improprie vocat Dei Spiritum, qui animas nostras Christi sanguine aspergit, non tantum ut a peccati labe emundet quoad reatum; sed in vennn puritatem sanctificet." The objection to this interpretation,
that it seems to refer our freedom from condemnation to our regeneration, he proposes to meet by saying that Paul does not state the cause, but the method of our deliverance from guilt:
"Negat Paulus externa legis doctrina id nos consequi, sed dum Spiritu Dei renovamur, simul etiam justificari gratuita venia, no peccati maledictio in nos amplius recumbat. Perindc ergo valet hacc sentia acsi dixisset Paulus, regenerationis gratiam ab imputatione justitirc nunquam disjungi." 3. According to the
third view, the law of the Spirit of life is the gospel, i. e. the law of which the life-giving Spirit is the author. Of course, the other member of the verse, instead of describing the corrupt principle in men, means the law of God, which, as Paul had taught in chap, vii., is incidentally the cause of sin and death. The sense of the passage then is, ' The gospel has delivered me from the law.' So Witsius, &c.
This last seems decidedly to be preferred, for the following reasons: 1. Although the two former interpretations are con sistent with Paul's use of the word law, neither of them so well suits the context, because neither assigns the reason why believers are not exposed to condemnation. Paul asserts that those who are in Christ are restored to the divine favour. Why? Because they are sanctified? No; but because they have been freed from the law and its demands, and introduced into a state of grace. 2. It is not true that believers are deli vered from the law of sin in their members. If the terms law of the Spirit, and law of sin, are to be understood of the good and evil principle in the Christian, how can it be said that by the former he is, in this life, delivered from the latter? This would be in direct contradiction to chap. vii. and to experience. 3. The terms here used may naturally be so understood, because the word law, in its general sense, as rule, is applicable and is applied to the gospel, Horn. iii. 27, especially when standing in antithesis to the law of works. The gospel is called the law of the Spirit, because he is its author: see the phrase "minis tration of the Spirit," 2 Cor. iii. 8. In the other member of the verse the law is called the law of sin and death, because productive of sin and death. This is no more than what Paul had said expressly of the law in the preceding chapter, vs. 5, 13, &c. Arid in 2 Cor. iii. G, the law is said to kill: it is called the dtfJLXowa TO~J d-a^d-rou, (the ministration of death,) and the deaxowa r^c xaTaxplffscoz, (ministration of condemnation.) There the same contrast between the dcaxovia rorj fravdrou and the otazoi'la Torj Ttusv/jiaTOZ is presented, as here between the I*O/JLOZ rorj frai<d-oi> and the i'O/w- TOIJ x^eu/mToz. 4. This interpreta tion alone assigns an adequate ground for the declaration of the preceding verse. That declaration, the result of all that Paul had yet proved, is that believers, and believers only, are per fectly safe; and the reason assigned is the sum of all the argu ment from the commencement of the epistle. They are not under the law, but under grace; the law of the Spirit has freed them from the old law of works. 5. The next verse favours, if it does not absolutely demand, this interpretation. It gives the reason why believers are thus freed from the law, viz. it was insufficient for their salvation, " it was weak through the flesh." 0. The use of the aorist '/jfeu&epcoas, which shows that the freedom spoken of is an accomplished fact, confirms this interpretation. Deliverance from the law of sin in the members is a gradual process; deliverance from the law is effected once for all; and with regard to the believer, it is a fact accom plished.
The words kv Xowrw, in Christ, may be connected with the immediately preceding words T?^!>'^C, the life which is in Christ; or with u ±6tiu~ x.r./., the law of the Spirit which is in Christ. As, however, the connecting article (r/^ or o,) which is necessary at least definitely to indicate either of those con structions, is wanting, the words in (question are generally con nected with the following verb, //c^V^/werc, in Cltrist //W(/ me; that is, it was in him, and therefore through him, that this deliverance was effected. The meaning of this verse, therefore, in connection with the preceding, is, k There is no condemnation to those who are in Christ, because they have been freed in him by the gospel of the life-giving Spirit, from that law which, although good in itself, is, through our corruption, the source of sin and death.' J>eing thus free from the curse of the law, and from the obligation to fulfil its demands, as the condition of life, and consequently freed from a legal spirit, their sins are gratuitously pardoned for Christ's sake; thev are made partakers of the Spirit of God, are transformed more and more into his image, and God is pledged to preserve them unto eternal life.
VERSK:}. This verse is connected with the preceding l>v the particle ]-<>.<>, fur. • We are delivered from the law, for the law could not effect our salvation.' The words TO iw'j^</-ov Tur) lofwj maybe rendered either, the i//i}>ot<'>tc//,,f the bur, or what 2S impossible t<> the law. The choice between these renderings depends on the grammatical structure of the passage. First, TO aow/roi/ may be taken as the accusative, arid the preposition di<\ be supplied, on account of the imjtnteney of lite hue; or, secondly, it may be taken as the accusative absolute, as to the impotency of the law, i. e. in view of its impotency; or, thirdly, it may be taken as the nominative, and in apposition with the following clause. The sense would then be, w The impossibility of the law — God condemned sin;' i. e. the condemnation of sin is what is impossible to the law. This is the view commonly adopted, especially by those who understand the apostle to be speaking of sanctification, and who therefore take condemned sin to mean destroyed sin. As, however, that clause does not mean to destroy sin, but judicially to condemn it, the first clause cannot strictly be in apposition with it. The law could condemn sin. What it cannot do is to free us either from its guilt or power. It can neither justify nor sanctify. On this account, the second exposition of the first clause of the verse just mentioned, is to be preferred: 'In view of the impotcncy of the law, God sent his Son,' &c. This insufficiency of the law, as the apostle had taught in the preceding chapters, is not due to any imperfection of the law itself. It is holy, just, and good. It requires nothing more than is right. If men could comply with its righteous demands, the law would pronounce them just. If they wore free from the infection of sin, "the form of truth and knowledge in the law," the perfect exhibition which it makes of the will of God, would avail to maintain and advance them in holiness. But as they are already under sin, under its guilt and power, the law is entirely impotent to their justification or sanctification. The apostle therefore says, that the law is impotent, Iv w, became that (see Heb. ii. 18) it is weak through the flesh, ota r£c aaoy.bz, i. e. through our cor ruption. It is our being depraved that renders the law weak, or impotent to s.avc God sending (or having sent 77=7^'^) his own /Vow, rov ko.oTo7} vfov. The term Son here evidently designates the eternal personal Son. He was from eternity, and in virtue of his Divine nature, and not in virtue either of his miraculous birth, or his exaltation, the Son of God. The greatness of the work to be accomplished, and the greatness of the love of God impelling him to our redemption, are strongly exhibited in these words. It was not a creature, even the most exalted, whom God sent on this mission, but his own Son, one with him in essence and glory.
Two things are further stated concerning this mission of the Son of God. First, the form under which he appeared in the world; and, secondly, the object for which he was sent. As to the form in which he appeared, it was in the likeness of sinful flexh. It was not simply lv ffanxl (in the flesh,} clothed in our nature; for that might have been said, had he appeared in the glorious, impassive nature of Adam before the fall. Much less was it in iv aarjxt h-tm^'a- (in sinful flesh,} for that would imply that his human nature was denied, contrary to II eb. iv. 15, and to all Scripture; but it was iv btw>co(m-c aaozbz huapriaz, (in the likeness of sinful flesJt.) that is. in a nature like to our sinful nature, but not itself sinful. Christ took our physically dilapidated nature, subject to the infirmities which sin had brought into it. lie was therefore susceptible of pain, and weariness, and sorrow. lie could be touched with a sense of our infirmities. lie was tempted in all points as we arc. lie is therefore a merciful and trustworthy High Priest. The object for which God sent his Son, clothed in this feeble, suffer ing nature of ours, is expressed by xu: -?<>> fin(i.n-[(i.~* (<m<! for sin.) This may mean cither on account <f,v/>?, whether for its expiation or its removal, being undetermined; or it ni;iv bo understood in a sacrificial sense. Christ was sent for the expia tion of sin, or as a sacrifice for sin. 1. In favour of tin's is the usus loquendi, as 77=^; d.tiapria^ is so often used in this sense: see Num. viii. 8, Ps. xl. 7, (in the LXX. 30(5.) Lev. vi.:2f>, 3D, Ileb. x. <!, 8, 18, xiii. 11. Thus also in Gal. i. 4, Christ is said to have given himself ~in\ rW//*r.'<vji/ ^tuny, for, i. e. as a sacri fice for, our *z??,<?. 2. The analogy of Scripture, as it is so abundantly taught in the word of God, is that Christ was sent to make expiation for sin, to wash away sin, to offer himself unto God as;i sacrifice for sin. When, therefore, it is said that he was sent for sin, or gave himself for our sins, the implication is almost unavoidable that the meaning is, he was sent as a sacri fice for sin. 3. The immediate context demands this interpre tation; for the effect ascribed to this sending Christ for sin, is that which is due to a sacrifice or expiation. What the law could not do, was to reconcile us unto God. It was in view of the impotency of the law to effect the salvation of sinners, that God sent his Son to make expiation for their offences, and thus bring them back to himself. He thus condemned sin in the flesh; that is, he condemned it in the flesh, or nature, which his Son had assumed. Christ took upon himself our nature, in order to expiate the guilt of that nature. The expiation must be made in the nature which had sinned. As Christ, the apostle tells us, Heb. ii. 14— 18, did not undertake the redemption of angels, he did not assume their nature, but took part in flesh and blood. That the words xarexpe^s rrp b.au.o~io.v (he condemned sin,) docs not mean that he destroyed sin, but that he punished it, visited it with the penalty of the law, is evident.
1. Because xardxpeva) never means to destroy, but always means to condemn. It is perfectly arbitrary, therefore, to depart from the ordinary meaning of the word in this particular place.
2. The sacrifice of Christ was the condemnation of sin. That is, he bore our sins. He was made a curse, in the sense that he endured the curse due to sin. His sufferings were penal, as they were judicially inflicted in satisfaction of justice. The proximate design and effect of a sacrifice is expiation, and not reformation or inward purification. When therefore the apostle speaks, as he here does, of what God did by sending his Son as a sacrifice for sin, lie must be understood to speak of the sacrificial effect of his death. 3. The context requires this interpretation. The argument of the apostle is, that there is no xaTdptfJLO. (condemnation) to us, because God -/arsor^s (con demned) sin in Christ. The other interpretation supposes him. to say, that there is no condemnation to us, because sin is destroyed in us. That is, we are justified on the ground of our own inherent goodness or freedom from sin. But this is con trary to the Scriptures, and to the faith of the Church. u Clare
affirmat Paulus," says Calvin, "ideo expiata fuisse peccata Christi morte, quia Legi impossibile erat, justitiam nobis conferre." The apostle, he adds, teaches, " Legem nihil prorsus habere momenti ad conferendam justitiam. Yides ergo, nos penitus excludi ab operum justitia: ideoquc ad Christi justi tiam nos confugere, quia in nobis nulla esse potcst. Quod scitu in primis necessarium cst; quia Christi justitia nonquam, vestiemur, nisi prius certo noverimus, propriae justitiic nihil nos habere." In saying, however, that the proximate object and
effect of a sacrifice is to expiate sin, and therefore that sin is thereby condemned and not destroyed, it is not forgotten that propitiation is the end of expiation; that our sins arc atoned for by the blood of Christ, in order to our being restored to his image and favour. Justification is not on account of, or on the ground of sanctification, but it is in order to it; and therefore the two arc inseparable. The justified are always sanctified.
And therefore, so far as the meaning is concerned, there is no objection to saying, that the condemnation of sin of which the apostle here speaks, includes the idea of its extirpation or destruction as a necessary consequence. But it is nevertheless important, not only to a due understanding of his argument, but also to the integrity of scriptural doctrine, to remember that the condemation of sin in the person of Christ, expresses its expiation by his blood, and not the destruction of its power in us. It is Christ as the substitute of sinners, bearing the curse for them, that is here presented to our view. This even Olshausen admits, who says, "'The conclusion of this verse expresses in the most decisive1 terms the vicarious (stellvertretenden) atoning death of the Saviour."
VKIISI-: 4. Th<tt. tin1 ri<ilit('<>u*n<'iM <>f tlu' late ni)<jlit be fulfilled in?*x. \c. This verse expresses the design of (_I.»d in sending liis Son, and in condemning sin in the flesh. He did thus con demn it, "i'su. in order t/mt the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled. The meaning, therefore, of this passage is deter mined bv the view taken of ver. o. If that verse means, that God, by sendin:: his Son, destroyed sin in us, then of course this verse must mean, 'He destroyed sin, in order that we should fulfil the law;' i. e. that we should be holy. J>ut if \er. o is understood of the1 sacrificial death of Christ, and of the con demnation of sin in him as the substitute of sinners, then this verse must be u;idrr>t'iod of justification, and not of sanctification. He condemned sin, in order that the demands of the law miu'ht be satisfied. This is the view of the passage given even by the majoritv of the early Fathers, and by almost all evan gelical interpreters, including the Reformers. l- Qui intelligunt Spiritu Christi renoyatos legem implere, commentuiu a sensu Pauli penitus alienum afierunt; neque enim eo usque proficiunt fideles, quumdia peregrinantur in mundo, ut justificatio legis in illis plena sit, vel integra. Frgo hoc ad veniam refer re nreesse cst; quia, dum nobis accepta fertur Christi obedientia, legi satisfaction cst, ut pro justis censeamur." That this is the true meaning of the passage appears not only from the connection and the course of the argument, but also from the following considerations: 1. It is consistent with the strict and natural meaning of the words. The word ocxaiw/JLa, hero used, means, first, something righteous, and then, second, something declared to be righteous and obligatory, an ordinance or precept; and, third, a righteous decision, a just judgment, as when in Rom. i. 29, the heathen are said to know the ocxaico/m, the righteous judgment of God; and, fourth, the act of declaring righteous, justification. In this sense oexaUo/jia is antithetical to xardxpt/m. The dfxalco/jLa rorj W/JLOU, therefore, may mean, the righteous requirement of the law, that which satisfies its demands. In strict accordance therefore with the sense of the words, we may explain the passage to mean, 'that the demands of the law might be satisfied in us.' That is, that we might be justified. Christ was condemned, that to us there might be no condemna tion, lie was made sin, that we might be made righteousness, 2 Cor. v. 21. Or, if we take or/acco/m in the sense of (Rechtfertigungsurtheil) a declaration of righteousness, an act of justi fication, the same idea is expressed: ' Sin was condemned in Christ, in order that the sentence of justification might be ful filled, or carried into effect in us.' This is the explanation which Eckermann, Kollner, Philippi, and other modern inter preters adopt. 2. The analogy of Scripture. To make this passage teach the doctrine of subjective justification, that we are freed from condemnation or delivered from the lawr by our inward sanctification, is to contradict the plain teaching of the Bible, and the whole drift and argument of this epistle. 3. The concluding clause of the verse, (who walk not after the flesh, &c.) demands the interpretation given above. In the other view of the passage, the latter clause is altogether unne cessary. Why should Paul say, that Christ died in order that they should be holy wrho are holy, i. e. those who walk not after the flesh? On the other hand, the second clause of the verse is specially pertinent, if the first treats of justification. The benefits of Christ's death are experienced only by those who walk not after the flesh. The gospel is not antinomian. Those only are justified who are also sanctified. Holiness is the fruit and evidence of reconciliation with God. There is no con demnation to those who walk after the Spirit; and the right eousness of the law is fulfilled by those who walk after the Spirit. In both cases, the latter clause is designed to describe the class of persons who are entitled to appropriate to themselves the promise of justification in Christ. 4. Finally, as intimated in the above quotation from Calvin, it is not true that the righteousness of the law, in the sense of complete obedience, is fulfilled in believers. The interpretation which makes the apostle say, that we are delivered from the law by the work of Christ, in order that the complete obedience which the law demands might be rendered by us, supposes what all Scripture and experience contradicts. For an exposition of the last clause of the verse, see ver. 1.
VERSE 5. For they that arc after the flesh do mind the things of tlie flesh. The immediate object of this and the following verse is to justify the necessity of limiting the blessings of Christ's death, to those who walk not after the ilesh, but after the Spirit. The /or, therefore, connects this verse, not with the main idea, but with the last clause of the preceding. Men must be holy, because sin is death, whereas holiness is life and peace. The necessity of spirituality, therefore, lies in the very nature of things.
Titey who are after tJ/e flesh, those irlin are in the flesh, the carnal, are expressions of like import, and describe those who are governed by the flesh, or by their nature considered as corrupt. The corresponding series, ////// u:ho are after the ^ nil' it, tc lit) are in tiie Spirit, tin' xjiiritiial* deseribe those who are under the government of the II<>!v (Jhost. Of the former class it is said they mind the tliinas <>f tin1 flrxh, of the latter, they tiiind the things <>f t/te Spirit. The word c/io^il.^ is de rived from cr/'^, which is used for the seat of all mental affec tions and faculties, and therefore (:<>()^i«) has a wide meaning. It expresses any form of mental activity, any exorcise of the intellect, will, or affections. Tltey rnind, ((ppowjmv,) therefore, means, they make the object of attention, desire, and pursuit. T/te tilings (if the jlexh. are the objects on which their hearts are set, and to which their lives are devoted. Things of the flesh are not merely sensual things, but all things which do not belong to the category of the things of the Spirit. Compare Matt. xvi. 23, orj c<>o\,~.1~ ~ii. ~o~i (~hor>, thou savourest not the things of Crod. Phil. iii. 10, ol ra k-l-fxa <f(toi,orj\,-z~. Col. iii. 2, &c. The English word wind is used with much the same latitude. The idea evidently is, that the objects of attention, desire, and pursuit, to the carnal, are corrupt and worldly; while to the spiritual, they are the things which the Spirit pro poses and approves.
VERSE 6. For to be carnally minded is death. The f&p heroes by many taken as a mere particle of transition, equiva lent to but. 'But to be carnally minded is death.' The utter incompatibility between the indulgence of sin and a state of salvation is thus clearly expressed. It is impossible that justi fication should be disconnected with sanctification, because a sinful and carnal state of mind ig death. It is better, however, to take fd() in its usual sense of for. The connection may then be with ver. 4, so that verses 5 and 6 arc coordinate, ver. 6 presenting an additional reason why believers do not walk after the flesh. They do not thus walk, for to do so is death. Or, the connection is with ver. 5. Justification is limited to the holy, for to live after the flesh is death. The phrase (fowr^ia r^c 0v.f>x6z is substantially of the same import with ^oovslv ra TTjZ aafjzoz, the minding the things of the flesh. It is thus active in its signification. It is, however, more in accordance with the proper signification of the word to understand it as expressing a state of the mind. This is implied in the English version, to be carnally minded. The idea is not merely that the actual seeking the things of the flesh leads to death; but that a carnal state of mind, which reveals itself in the desire and pursuit of carnal objects, is death. And by death is of course meant spiritual death, the absence and the opposite of spiritual life. It includes alienation from God, unholiness, and misery. On the other hand, the <pp6vr/fj.a rorj xv&jftaTOZ is that state of mind which is produced by the Spirit, and which reveals itself in the desire and pursuit of the things of the Spirit. This state of mind is life and peace. Therein consists the true life and blessedness of the soul. This being the case, there can be no such thing as salvation in sin; no possibility of justification without sanctification. If partakers of the benefits of Christ's death, we arc partakers of his life. If we died with him, we live with him. This is pertinent to the apostle's main object in this chapter, which is to show that believers never can be condemned. They arc not only de livered from the law, and justified by the blood of Christ, but they are partakers of his life. They have the <f>p6vy/j.a rou 7ivz'JfJ.a.TOZi which is life and peace.
VERSE 7. Because the carnal mind is enmity against Crod. This is the reason why the (fpovr^ua r^c aa<r/.o~ is death. It is in its nature opposed to God, who is the life of the soul. His favour is life, and therefore opposition to him is death. The carnal mind is enmity to God, for it is not subject to the law of God. The law of God, however, is the revelation of his nature, and therefore opposition to the law, is opposition to God. This opposition on the part of the carnal mind is not casual, occasional, or in virtue of a mere purpose. It arises out of its very nature. It is not only not subject to the law of God, but it cannot le. It has no ability to change itself. ()thenvi>e it would not be death. It is precisely because of this utter impotencv of the carnal mind, or unrenewed heart, to change its own nature, that it involves the hopelessness which the word deatii implies. Compare 1 Cor. ii. 14, where the same truth is asserted: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God — neither can he know them." "JViv cnnit potest. En," says Calvin, Miberi arbitrii facultas, quam satis evehere sophistic noqueunt. Certe Paulus disertis verbis hie ailirmat quod ipsi pleno ore detestantur, nobis esse impossible subjicere legis obedientiic.... I'rocul igitur sit a Christiano pectore ilia de arbitrii libertate gentilis philosophia. Si-rvum pcccati se quisque, ut re vcra est, agnoscat, quo per Christi gratiam manu missus liberetur; alia libertate prosus stultum est gloriari." To the same effect the modern German commentators, whether mystic, rationalistic, or evangelical. l'No man." says Olshau-
6cn, '-can free himself from himself:" "Von sich selbst karin eich keiner selbst losmachen, es muss cine hohere Liebe kommen, die ilm meha anzieht, als sein Ich." "The will itself is fallen away from God," says Baumgarten-Crusius. And the evangelical Philippi says: "This verse is a strong argument against the doctrine of the so-called Ubcrum arlitrium of the natural man. For this carnal state of mind, which cannot sub ject itself to the will of God, is not produced by any act of man's will, nor can it be removed by any such act; it consti tutes, according to the apostle's doctrine, the original nature of man in its present or fallen state."
VERSE 8. The necessary consequence of this opposition of a mind governed by the flesh, towards God, is that those who are in this state are the objects of the divine displeasure. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please Grod. To be in the flesh, as before remarked, is to be under the government of the flesh, or corrupt nature, to be destitute of the grace of God, It is an expression applied to all unrenewecl persons, as those who are not in the flesh are in the Spirit.
Cannot please Grod. 'Apsaxsev rtnl generally means to be pleasing, or acceptable to any one; Matt. xiv. G, 1 Cor. vii. 32, Gal. i. 10, 1 Thess. ii. 15. Not to be pleasing to God, is to be the objects of his displeasure. Enmity towards God (Z-jfd-pa sec 6sov) has as its necessary consequence, subjection to the enmity of God, (l^d-pa 0soD.) The apostle's immediate purpose is to show, that to be carnally minded is death. It must be so, for it is enmity towards God. But those who hate God are the objects of his displeasure; and to bo the objects of the wrath of God, is perdition. Surely, then, to be carnally minded is death. In vs. 9 — 11, the apostle applies to his readers what he had just said, and shows how it is that ((fob^im ro5 Ttve'jfjLaTOz,) to be spiritually minded, is life and peace.
VERSE 9. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, i. e. ye are not carnal, but spiritual. The Spirit, so to speak, is the element in which you live. Such the Roman Christians were by profession and by repute, for their faith was spoken of throughout the world. Their real character, however, was not determined either by their professions or their reputation. The apostle therefore adds, if so be the Spirit of Grod dwell in you. This is the only decisive test. Every other bond of union with Christ is of no avail without this. We may be members of his Church, and united to him by being included in the number of his people, yet unless we are partakers of that vital union which arises from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, we are his only in name. Our version gives ei'-sp (if so be) its ordinary and proper sense. "AT^o," says Hermann ad Viger, § 310, "usurpatur de re, quiB esse sumitur, sed in incerto relinquitur, utrum jure an injuria sumatur; ei'fs autem de re, quse jure sumta creditur." Sometimes, however, ei'-sp has the same force as el'^s (since); as, 2 Thess. i. 6, ^seeing it is a righteous thing with God." The ordinary sense of the particle, however, is better suited to this passage. The Spirit of God is every where; yet he is said to dwell wherever he specially and per manently manifests his presence. Thus he is said to dwell in heaven: he dwelt of old in the temple; he now dwells in the Church, which is a habitation of God through the Spirit, Eph. ii. '2'2; and he dwells in each individual believer whose body is a temple of the Holy Ghost, 1 Cor. vi. 1(J. Compare John xiv. 19, 1 Cor. iii. 10, '2 Cor. vi. 10, 2 Tim. i. 10, &c. JVow if any man have not the Spirit of Christ. It is obvious that the Spirit of Christ is identical with the Spirit of God. The one expression is nterchanged with the other: fc If the Spirit of God dwell in you, you are true Christians; for if the Spirit of Christ be not in you, you are none of his.' This is the reasoning of the ajx)stle. "Spirit of Christ," therefore, can no more mean the temper or disposition of Christ, than "Spirit of God" can mean the disposition of God. Uoth expressions designate the Holy Glrjst, the third person in the adorable Trinity. The Holy Spirit is els,vhere called the Spirit of Christ, Gal. iv. 1(J, Phil. i. ll>, 1 Pet. i. 11. Whatever the genitive expresses in the one case, it does in the other, lie is of the Spirit of Christ in the sane sense in which he is the Spirit of God. In other words, the Spirit stands in the same relation to the second, that he docs to the first person of the Trinity. This was one of the po'nts of controversy between the Greek and Latin Churches; the latter insisting on inserting in that clause of the Creed which speaks of the procession of the Holy Ghost, the words "filioque," (and from the Xnn.) For this the gratitude of all Christians is due to the Latin Church, as it vindicates the full equality of the Son witli the Father. Xo clearer assertion, and no higher exhibition of the Godhead of the Son can be con ceived, than that which presents him as the source and the possessor of the Holy Ghost. The Spirit proceeds from, and belongs to him, and by him is given to whomsoever he wills. John i. oo, xv. _!(), xvi. 7, Luke xxiv. 2'-', kc.
VERSE 10. And if, or rather, but if, (s: or) Christ be in you. 'If a man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his; but if Christ be in him, he is partaker of his life.' From this inter change of expression it is plain that to say that the Spirit of
Christ dwells in us, and to say that Christ dwells in us, is the same thing. And as the former phrase is interchanged with Spirit of God, and that again elsewhere with God, it follows, that to say, God dwells in us, the Spirit of God dwells in us. Christ dwells in us, and the Spirit of Christ dwells in us, are only different ways of expressing the same thing. " Qui Spiritum habet, Christum habct; qui Christum litibct, Deum habet." Bcngel. This scriptural usage finds its explanation in the doctrine of the Trinity. While there is one only, the living and true God; yet as there arc three persons in the Godhead, and as these three are the same in substance, it follows, that where the Father is, there the Son is, and where the Son is, there is the Spirit. Hence our Lord says, "If any man love me, he will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Johi xiv. 23. And the apostle John says, ""Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God." 1 John iii. 15. "I and my Father," says Christ, "are one." He therefore who hath the Son, hath the Father a'so. There is another familiar scriptural usage illustrated in this verse. Christ is properly an official designation of the Theanthropos, as the anointed Prophet, Priest, and King of his people. It is however used as a personal designation, and is applied to our Lord, as well in reference to his human as to his divine nature. Hence the Bible says indifferently, Christ died, and that he created all things. In this and other passages, therefore, when Christ is said to dwell in us, it is not Christ as man, nor Christ as the Thcanthropos, but Christ as God. Compare 2 Cor. xiii. 5, " Knowr ye not that Jesus Christ is in you." His indwelling in his people is as much a function of his divine nature, as his creating and upholding all things by the word of his power.
And if Christ (be) in you, the body is dead because of sin, &c. As this verse is antithetical to the preceding, as should be ren dered but: 'If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his; but if Christ be in you, although the body must die on account of sin, the spirit shall live because of righteous ness.' The Spirit is the source of life, and wherever lie dwells, there is life.
The body indeed is dead, TO fi.si> ccoaa vsxpbv. That here is to be taken in its literal sense is plain, because such is the proper meaning of the word. It is rarely, if at all, used in the figurative sense in which aan~ (flesh) so often occurs. This interpretation also is required by the antithesis between body and spirit, in this verse. The context also demands this view of the passage, both because of the reference to the resurrec tion of Christ, which was of course literal, and because in the next verse we have the phrase "mortal bodies,'' which does not admit of a figurative interpretation. The sense also afforded by the literal meaning of the word is so natural, and so suited to the context, as to preclude the necessity of seeking for any other. In this view the majority of commentators concur. Others, however, understand by awna, the corrupt nature, or the whole nature of man, his soul and body, as distinguished from the Spirit as the principle of divine life. The word i<zxobi> is made to mean ^-.^I'/niDai^n^. ]»<t t<> d'nth, mortified; and oc anji.n-'ji:^, an <«-<-<>unt <>f.*///, is made equivalent to r/ htmoTia, as to sin. This evidently does unnecessary violence to the literal meaninur of the words. The body is dead in the sense that it is not onlv obnoxious to death, but as it is already the seat of death. It includes in it the principle of decay. This necessity of dvinir is <>n </<-<-«i/t>f <>f *///. It is not inconsistent with the perfection of the redemption of Christ, that its benefits are not received in their fulness the moment we believe. We remain subject to the pains, the sorrows, the trials of life, and the necessity of dving, although partakers of the life of which lie is the author. That life which is imparted in regeneration, is gradually developed until it has its full consummation at the resurrection.
The spirit is life lerauxe of ri^liteousn^ss. By spirit here, is not to be understood the Holy Spirit, but the human spirit, because it stands opposed to //<;</// in the former clause. The body is dead, but the spirit is life. It should not therefore be printed with a capital S, as in the ordinary copies of the Eng lish version. The sense in which the spirit is life, is antithetical to that in which the body is dead. As the body is infected with a principle of decay which renders its dissolution inevitable, so the soul, in which the Holy Spirit dwells, is possessed of a principle of life which secures its immortal and blessed exist ence. Because of righteousness; dtxatoff'juy, as opposed to &/jtator:a, must be taken in its subjective sense. It is inward righteousness or holiness, of which the apostle here speaks, and not our justifying righteousness. It is because the Holy Ghost, as dwelling in believers, is the source of holiness, that he is the source of life. The life of which he is the author, is the life of God in the soul, and is at once the necessary condition and the effect of the enjoyment of his fellowship and favour. We shall continue in the enjoyment of the life just spoken of, because the principles of this new and immortal existence are implanted within us. Regeneration is the commencement of eternal life. The present possession of the Spirit is an earnest of the unsearchable riches of Christ, Eph. i. 14. In this view the verse is directly connected with the main object of the chapter, viz. the security of all who are in Christ Jesus. To such there is no condemnation, because they have been freed from the law which condemned them to death; and because the work of salvation is already begun in them. They have eternal life. John vi. 47.
VERSE 11. Bat if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you. Such periphrases for Crod as that which this verse contains, are very common with the apostle, (see Horn. iv. -4, tVc..) and are peculiarly appropriate when the force of the argument in some measure rests on the fact to which the descriptive phrase refers. Because God had raised up Christ, there was ground of confidence that he would raise his people up also. Two ideas may be included in this part of the verse: first, that the very possession of that Spirit, which is the source of life, is a pledge and security that our bodies shall rise again; because it would be unseemly that anything thus honoured by the Spirit, should remain under the dominion of death; and, secondly, that the resurrection of Christ secures the resurrec tion of those that are his, according to Paul's doctrine in 1 Cor. xv. 23. The argument of the apostle is, that the same Spirit which was in Christ, and raised him from the dead, dwells in us, even in our bodies, (1 Cor. vi. 19,) and will assuredly raise us up.
lie that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken
your mortal bodies. This clause cannot, -with any regard to usa<re or the context, be understood of a moral resurrection, or deliverance from sin, as it is explained by Calvin and many others. See the analogous passage, '2 Cor. iv. 14. The apostle designs to show that the life which we derive from Christ, shall ultimately effect a complete triumph over death. It is true that our present bodies must die, but they are not to continue under the power of death. The same Spirit which raised Christ's body from the grave, shall also quicken our mortal bodies. The word is not I'j'zcoz'ii but ^ojorro^rT^, which imports more than a mere restoration of life. It is used only of believers. It expresses the idea of the communication of that life of which Christ is the author and the source. And this life, so far as the bodv is concerned, secures its conformity to the glorious body of the risen Son of God.
By his Spirit that <ltvrUi-tIt In)/<>u, or, as it must be rendered according to another reading, tv On ai-munt of //is Spirit that dwelleth in //<>". For the reading otv. TO z^or/.a'j^ <L')~U'J ~^i'ju.(L, Wetstein quotes the MSS. I). F. F. G. and many of the more modern MSS., together with the Syriac and Latin versions, and several of the.Fathers. This reading is adopted by Eras mus, Stephens, Mill, Bengel, Griesbach, and Knapp. For the reading ota rov ^vo^xoDvroc, *.r./., Mre quoted the MSS. A. 10. 2-. -j4.:>S.;jl)ei the editions of Colinajus,.He/a, tlie Complutensian, and many of the Fathers. Lachmann and Tischendorf retain the common text. This passage is of interest, as the reading k\,owyj\,-oz w;ls strenuously insisted mi in the Macedo nian controversy respecting the personality of the Holy Ghost. The orthodox Fathers contended, that as the genitive was found in the most ancient copies of the Scriptures then extant, it should be retained. If the dead are raised by the Holy Ghost, then the Holy Ghost is of the same essence with the Father and the Son, to whom, elsewhere, the resurrection of the dead is referred. This argument is valid, and, other things being equal, is a good reason for retaining the common text. The sense, however, is in either case substantially the same. According to the former, the meaning is, that the resurrection of believers will be effected by the power of the Spirit of God; and according to the latter, that the indwelling of the Spirit is the ground or reason why the bodies of believers should not be left in the grave. The internal evidence is decidedly in favour of the former reading: 1. Because Paul uses precisely these words elsewhere, "By the Holy Spirit," &c., 1 Tim. i. 14, &c. 2. Because throughout the Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments, what God does in nature or grace, he is said to do by his Spirit. Passages are too numerous and too familiar to be cited. 8. Because the Jews seem to have referred the resurrection of the body specially to the Holy Ghost.* As the external authorities are nearly equally divided, the case must be considered doubtful. If the latter reading be adapted, this clause would then answer to the phrase, on account of righteousness, in the preceding verse. ' On account of the indwelling of the Spirit,' expressing the same general idea under another form. Our souls shall live in happiness and glory, because they are renewed; and our bodies too shall be raised up in glory, because they are the temples of the Holy Ghost. In the widest sense then it is true, that to be in the Spirit, is to be secure of life and peace.
It will be remarked, that in this verse, arid elsewhere, God is said to have raised up Christ from the dead, whereas, in John x. IT, 18, the Saviour claims for himself the power of resuming his life. So here (according to the common reading) we are said to be raised up by the Holy Spirit; in John vi. 40, Christ says of the believer, "/will raise him up at the last day;" and in 2 Cor. iv. 14, and in many other places, the resurrection of believers is ascribed to God. These passages belon^ to that numerous class of texts, in which the same work is attributed to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and which, in connection with other sources of proof, show conclusively that "these three are one;" and that the persons of the Adorable Trinity concur in all works ad extra.
* Wetstein quotes such passages as the following, from the Jewish writers:
"Tempore future Spiritus meus vivificabit vos." "Spiritus Sanctus est causa resurrectionis mortuorum," £c.
1. As the former part of this chapter is an inference from the previous discussion, and presents a summary of the ureat truths already taught, we find here united the leading doctrines of the first portion of the epistle. For example, justification is by faith, ver. 1; believers are not under the law, ver. 2; the law is insufficient for our justification; God has accomplished that object by the sacrifice of his Son. vs. o, 4; and this bless ing is never disconnected with a. holy life, ver. 4.
2. The final salvation of those who are really united to Christ, and who show the reality of their union by good works, is secure. This is the doctrine of the whole chapter. This section contains two of the apostle's arguments in its support. 1. They are free from the law which condemned them to death, vs. 2 — 4. 2. They are partakers of that Spirit which is the, author and earnest of eternal life, vs. "> — 11.
3. Jesus Christ is truly divine. He is "Cod's own Son," i. e. partaker of his nature. The Holy Ghost is his Spirit, and he dwells in all believers, vs.:], 11.
4. Jesus Christ is truly a man. He came in the likeness of men, ver. 3.
5. Christ was a sacrifice for sin, and his sufferings were penal, i. e. they were judicially inflicted in.support of the law. ' God punished sin in him,' ver. '•}.
(!. The justification of believers involves a fulfilling of the law; its demands are not set aside, ver. 4.
7. Everything in the Bible is opposed to antinomianism. Paul teaches that justification and sanct ifical ion cannot be dis joined. No one is, or can be in the favour of God, who lives after the flesh, vs.,"> — 11.
8. The necessity of holiness arises out of the very nature of things. Sin is death, whereas holiness is life and peace. God has made the connection between sin and misery, holiness;iud happiness, necessary and immutable, ver. G. The fact that holy men suffer, and that even the perfect Saviour was a man of sorrows, is not inconsistent with this doctrine. Such suffer ings never proceed from holiness. On the contrary, the Divine Spirit was, and is a wellspring within of joy and peace, to all who arc sanctified. In itself considered, therefore, moral purity is essentially connected with happiness, as cause and effect.
1>. All unrcnewcd men, that is, all " who are in the flesh," arc at once the enemies of God, and the objects of his dis pleasure. Their habitual and characteristic state of mind, that state which every man has who is not " in the Spirit," is enmity to God, and consequently is the object of his disappro bation, vs. 6, 8.
10. The Holy Ghost is the source of all good in man. Those who arc destitute of his influences, arc not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; for no man can call Jesus Lord, that is, can really recognise his authority, but by the Holy Ghost, vs. 5—8.
11. Death, and the other evils to which believers are exposed, arc on account of sin, vcr. 10. They are no longer, however, the evidences of God's displeasure, but of his parental love, Heb. xii. 6.
12. The redemption of Christ extends to the bodies as well as the souls of his people, vcr. 11.
1. There can be no safety, no holiness, and no happiness to those who arc out of Christ. No safety, because all such are under the condemnation of the law, vs. 1 —3; no holiness, because only such as are united to Christ have the Spirit of Christ, vcr. 0; and no happiness, because " to be carnally minded is death," vcr. 6. Hence those who are in Christ, should be very humble, seeing they are nothing, and lie is everything; very grateful, and very holy. And those who are out of Christ, should at once go to him, that they may attain safetv, holiness, and happiness.
2. The liberty wherewith Christ has made his people free, is a liberty from the law and from sin, vs. 2, 5. A legal spirit, and an unholy life, are alike inconsistent with the Christian character.
3. Believers should be joyful and confident, for the law is fulfilled; its demands arc satisfied as respects them. Who then can condemn, if God has justified? ver. 4.
4. There can be no rational or scriptural hope without holi ness, and every tendency to separate the evidence of the divine favour from the evidence of true piety, is anti-Christian and destructive, vs. 4 — 8.
5. The bent of the thoughts, affections, and pursuits, is the only decisive test of character. "They who arc after the flesh do mind the tilings of the flesh," <fcc., ver. 5.
6. It is therefore a sure mark of hypocrisy, if a man who pro fesses to be a Christian, still minds earthly things, that is, has his affections and efforts supremely directed towards worldly objects.
7. We may as well attempt to wring pleasure out of pain, as to unite the indulgence of sin with the enjoyment of happi ness, vs. 0, 7.
8. How blinded must those be, who, although at enmity witli God, and the objects of his displeasure, are sensible neither of their guilt nor danger! vs. 7, 8.
0. The great distinction of a true Christian, is the indwell ing of the Holy Spirit. Hence his dignity, holiness, and hap piness, vs. 1' — 1 1.
10. If the Spirit of God dwells in the Christian, how careful should he be, lest anything in his thoughts or feelings would be offensive to this divine guest!
11. Christians are bound to reverence their bodies, and pre serve them from all defilement, because they are the members of Christ, and the temples of the Holy Ghost, ver. 11.
Tin? section* contains two additional arguments in.support of the great theme of the chapter — the safety of all who are in
* It was remarked above, that the division of this chapter into sections is merely arbitrary. For, although there are several very distinct topics intro duced, yet the whole is intimately interwoven and made to bear on one point. In passing, too, from one argument to another, the apostle does it so naturally, that there is no abruptness of transition. The connection, therefore, between the last verse of the preceding section and the first verse of this, and between the last of this and the first of the following, is exceedingly intimate. It is only for the sake of convenient resting places for review, that the division is made.
Christ. The first is derived from their adoption, vs. 12 — 17, and the second from the fact that they are sustained by hope, and aided by the Spirit, under all their trials; so that every thing eventually works together for their good, vs. 18 — 28.
Paul had just shown that believers were distinguished by the indwelling of the Spirit. Hence he infers the obligation to live according to the Spirit, and to mortify the deeds of the body, ver. 12. If they did this, they should live, ver. 13. Not only because, as previously argued, the Spirit is the source of life, but also because all who are led by the Spirit are the children of God. This is a new ground of security, ver. 14. The reality of their adoption is proved, first, by their own filial feelings; as God's relation and feelings towards us are always the coun terpart of ours towards him, ver. 15. Secondly, by the testi mony of the Spirit itself with our spirits, ver. 1G. If children, the inference is plain that believers shall be saved, for they are heirs. Salvation follows adoption, as, among men, heirship does sonship. They are joint heirs with Jesus Christ, ver. 17.
It is nowise inconsistent with their filial relation to God, nor with their safety, that believers are allowed to suffer in this world: 1. Because these sufferings are comparatively insignifi cant, vs. 18 — 23. 2. Because they are sustained by hope. 3. Because the Spirit itself intercedes for them. In amplifying the first of these considerations, the comparative insignificancy of the sufferings of this present state, the apostle presents in contrast the unspeakable blessedness and glory which are in reserve for believers, ver. 18. To elevate our conceptions of this glory, he represents: 1. The whole creation as looking and longing for its full manifestation, ver. 19, &c. 2. All those who have now a foretaste of this blessedness, or the first fruits of the Spirit, as joining in this sense of present wretchedness, and earnest desire of the future good, ver. 23.
These afflictions, then, are not only thus comparatively light in themselves, but they are made still more tolerable by the constant and elevating anticipation of the future inheritance of the saints, vs. 24, 25. And not only so, but the Spirit also sustains us by his intercessions, thus securing for us all the good we need, vs. 26 — 28. The salvation, then, of believers is secure, notwithstanding their sufferings, inasmuch as they are children, and are sustained and aided by the Holy Spirit.
VERSE 12. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to lire- after the flesh. We have here an example of what the rhetoricians call //teiusis, where less is said than is intended. So far from being debtors to the ilesh, the very reverse is the case. This passage is an inference from the exhibition of the nature and tendency of the flesh, or the carnal mind, as hostile to God, and destructive to ourselves, vs. 5, 8. As this is its nature, and believers are no longer in the ilesh, but in the Spirit, thev are under the strongest obligations not to live after the one, but after the other. We are debtor*; uc^/.STa: inttkv. We are the debtors, not of the Ilesh, but, as the implication is, of the Spirit. Of the t\vo controlling principles, the ilesh and the Spirit, our obligation is not to the former, but to the latter. To lice <tf(<T tin1 /A'*//; Torj '/,<J~<L (Ki.nyjL "'/^. r.l. he genitive is, here, either the genitive of design, * in order that we should live after the ilesh;' or it depends on oyseASTCte, agreeably to the formula, oc'c-'/c'r^c ^!L- ~'^'- ~^°C, J tun debt"/' to untie one for something. The sense would then bo, ' We do not owe the ilesh a carnal life.' The former explanation is the simpler and more natural.
VKKsro 13. The necessity of thus living is enforced by a repetition of the sentiment of ver. »i. T«> live after the iloh is death; to live after the Spirit is life. F»r if t/e lice after the flesh, ye shall die; 1,nt if ye thrnn.jh t/>e Spirit, &c. The neces>itv of holiness, therefore, is absolute. No matter what professions we mnv make, or what hopes we may indulge, justi fication, or the manifestation of the divine favour, is never separated from sam-tiiication. Ye shall die; //J/./srs fatod-vqaxzw, ye are about to die; death to you is inevitable. Compare Matt. iv. 24, 1 Thess. iii. 4, James ii. 12. The death here spoken of, as appears from the whole context, and from the nature of the life with which it is contrasted, cannot be the death of the body, either sob'lv or mainly. It is spiritual death, in the com prehensive scriptural sense of that term, which includes all the penal consequences of sin here and hereafter, chap. vi. 21, viii. 6,
Gal. vi. 8. But if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. The use of the word mortify, to put to death or destroy, seems to have been suggested by the context. 'Ye shall die, unless ye put to death the deeds of the body;' see Col. iii. 5. The destruction of sin is a slow and painful process.
Deeds of the body.*' It is commonly said that body is here equivalent to flesh, and therefore signifies corruption. But it is very much to be doubted whether the word ever has this sense in the New Testament. The passages commonly quoted in its behalf, Horn. vi. 6, vii. 24, viii. 10, 13, are very far from being decisive. If the common reading, therefore, is to be retained, (see note,) it is better to take the word in its literal and usual sense. The deeds of the body is then a metonymical expression for sinful deeds in general; a part being put for the whole. Deeds performed by the body, being the deeds which the body, as the organ of sin, performs.
The destruction of sin is to be effected through the Spirit, which does not mean the renewed feelings of the heart, but, as uniformly throughout the passage, the Holy Spirit which dwells in believers: see ver. 14, where this Spirit is called " Spirit of God." Ye shall live, that is, enjoy the life of which the Spirit is the author; including therefore holiness, happiness, and eternal glory.
VERSE 14. For as many as are led by the Spirit of G-od, they are the sons of God. This is the reason why all such shall live; that is, a new argument is thus introduced in support of the leading doctrine of the chapter. Believers shall enjoy eternal life, not only because they have the Spirit of life, but because they are the sons of God. To be led by the Spirit, and to walk after the Spirit, present the same idea, viz. to be under the government of the Spirit, under two different aspects, Gal. v. 18, 2 Pet. i. 21. The former phrase refers to the constant and effectual influence of the Holy Ghost in regulating the thoughts, feelings, and conduct of believers. Are the sons of
* Instead of ov^/estTo?, D. E. F, G., the Vulgate and many of the early writers have o-it^Kj'?, which Bengel and Griesbach approve. Although this reading looks like a gloss, it has much in its favour from the weight of these MSS., and the usual mode of speaking of this apostle.
God. The term son, in such connections, expresses mainly one or the other of three ideas,, and sometimes all of them united. 1. Similarity of disposition, character, or nature; Matt. v. 9, 45, "That ye may be the children (Gr. sons) of your Father which is in heaven." So, too, " sons of Abraham" are those who are like Abraham; and " children of the devil" are those who are like the devil. 2. Objects of peculiar affection. Rom. ix. 20, Those who were not my people, "shall be called the sons of the living God;" 2 Cor. vi. 18. "Ye shall be my sons and daugh ters, saith the Lord Almighty." So frequently elsewhere. 3. Those who have a title to some peculiar dignity or advan tage. Thus the "sons of Abraham" are those who are heirs with Abraham of the same promise. Gal. iii. 8, se<{., John i. 12, 1 John iii. 2, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be," &c. The term may indeed express anv one of the various relations in which child ren stand to their parents, as derived from them, dependent on them, &c. The above, however, are the most common of its meanings. In this passage, the first and third ideas appear specially intended: ' Believers shall live, because they are the peculiar objects of the divine affection, and are heirs of his kingdom,' vs. 15, 1<5. That those who are led by the Spirit are reallv the sons of God, appears from their own filial feedings, arid from the testimony of the Spirit. The indwelling of the Spirit of (rod raises those in whom he dwells, into the state of sons of God. By regeneration, or new birth, they are born into a higher life; are made partakers, as the apostle Peter says, of the divine nature; and are thus, through and in Christ, t-he source of their new life, the objects of the divine love, and the heirs of his kingdom.
VERSE 15..For //<' Jmr<> not rccciccd tlu' spirit of bondage again to fear, lid t/c 1iav<'. received the fyurit of adoption, &c. That is, 'The Holy Spirit, which you have received, does not produce a slavish and anxious state of mind, such as those experience who arc under the law; but it produces the filial feelings of affection, reverence, and confidence, and enables us, out of the fulness of our hearts, to call God our Father.'
The phrase, the spirit of bondage, may mean a feeling or eense of bondage, as "spirit of meekness," 1 Cor. iv. 21, may mean meekness itself; and "spirit of fear," 2 Tim. i. 7, fear itself. This use of the word spirit is not uncommon. Or it may mean the Holy Spirit as the author of bondage: 'Believers have not received a Spirit which produces slavish feelings, but the reverse.' The context is decidedly in favour of this view: because Paul has been speaking of the Holy Spirit as dwelling in Christians. This Spirit is that which they have received, and is the author of their characteristic feelings. In the wwds again to fear, there is an evident allusion to the state of believers prior to the reception of the Spirit. It was a state of bondage in which they feared, i. e. were governed by a slavish and anxious apprehension of punishment. In this state are all unconverted men, whether Jews or Gentiles, because they arc all under the law, or the bondage of a legal system.
Spirit of adoption; the Spirit that produces the feelings which children have. The Spirit is so called because he adopts. It is by him we are made the sons of God, and his indwelling, as it produces the character of sons, so it is the pledge or assurance of sonship, and of final salvation, Eph. i. 14. The contrast here presented between the xi/zit/m oo'j/s/^c and the 7rv£y«tt utottiffiaz, is parallel to that between ooMoe and u>oi, in Gal. lii. 28 — 20, iv. 1 — 8. Those who are unrenewed, and under the law, are dou^ot, slaves; they are under the dominion of servile fear, and they have no right to the inheritance. Those who are in Christ by faith and the indwelling of his Spirit, are sons, both in their inward state and feelings, and in their title to everlasting life. The interpretation followed by Luther, who renders XV&IUJL vlothmaz, " ein kindlichcr Geist,'' makes spirit, here, mean disposition, feeling, and the genitive (ulod-z0ia~) thr genitive of the source: "the disposition which flows from adoption or sonship." But this is not only incon sistent with the context, but with such passages as Gal. iv. 6, where what is here called the Spirit of adoption, is said to be the Spirit of the Son of God, which God sends forth into our hearts..By wliicli we cry, Abba, Father, i. e. which enables us to address God as our Father. "Clamor," says Bengcl, " scrmo veliemens, cum desederio, fiducia, fide, constantia." Abba is the Syriac and Chaldee.form of the Hebrew word for father, and therefore was to the apostle the most familiar term. As such it would, doubtless, more naturally and fully express his filial feeling towards God, than the foreign Greek word. It is rare, indeed, that any other than our mother tongue becomes so inwoven with our thoughts arid feelings, as to come up spon taneously when our hearts are overflowing. Hence, expressions 'of tenderness arc the last words of their native language which foreigners give up; and in times of excitement, and even deli rium, they are sure to come back. Paul, therefore', 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. The repetition of two synonyrncs may, however, be employed to give fuller utterance to his feeling. This is Grotius's idea: ulmitatur pueroniiii patribtis blandientiurn voces. Mo< est blandientium n-petere voces easdem." It is a very common opinion that Paul used both words, to intimate that all distinction between different nations was now done away. " Significat. enim I'aulus, it;i mine per totum mundum publicatam esse Dei inisericonliam, ut promi.-cue linguis omnibus invocetur: quemadmodurn Augiistinus ob>ervat. Ergo inter omnes gentes consensiim exprimere voluit." (.\dcin. The former explanation serins more natural and satisfactory.
A MUSK TO. Tin'. Spirit itxetf Le<u'elJi 'fitness with our spirit, that inc. are t/te c/ti/ilrrn »f (J,,,7. 'Not onlv do our own filial feelings towards God prove that we are his children, but the Holy Spirit itself conveys to our souls the assurance of this delightful fact.'
The Spirit itself (V/vro TO rrvcv^/, and not T<> a'jTu ~^-J>tuL, which would mean, t//e same xpirit) is, of course, the Holy Spirit. 1. Because of the obvious distinction between it and our spirit. '2. Because of the use of the word throughout the passage, o. Because of the analogy to other texts, Avhich can not be otherwise explained. Gal. iv. (5, '-(iod hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father;" Rom. v. 5, " The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost given unto us," \e,
Bt'cireth witness with our spirit, (j'jrifj.aoT'jos' T(u -^s'j/ifh! fjiw»; that is, 'beareth witness, together with our own filial feelings, to our spirit.' Although it is very common for com pound verbs to have the same force with the simple ones, yet, in this case, the context requires the force of the preposition to be retained, as two distinct sources of confidence are here men tioned, one in ver. 15, the other in this verse. Beareth witness to, means confirms or assures. i The Spirit of God produces in our spirit the assurance that we are the children of God.' How this is done we cannot fully understand, any more than we can understand the mode in which he produces any other effect in our mind. The fact is clearly asserted here, as well as in other passages. Sec Rom. v. 5, where the conviction that we are the objects of the love of God, is said to be produced uby the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." See 2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5, Eph. i. 13, iv. 30; and in 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5, 1 John ii. 20, 27, and other pas sages, the conviction of the truth of the gospel is, in like man ner, attributed to the Holy Spirit. From this passage it is clear that there is a scriptural foundation for the assurance of salvation. Those who have filial feelings towards God, who love him, and believe that he loves them, and to whom the Spirit witnesses that they are the children of God, cannot doubt that they are indeed his children. And if children, they know they are heirs, as the apostle teaches in the following verse.
VERSE 17. And if children, then heirs; lietrs of God, and joint heirs with (J/in'st, &c. This is the inference from our adoption, in favour of the great theme of the chapter, the safety of believers. If the children of God, they shall become par takers of the inheritance of the saints in light. The words to inherit, heirs, and inheritance, are all of them used in a general sense in the Scriptures, in reference to the secure possession of any good, without regard to the mode in which that pos session is obtained. They are favourite terms with the sacred writers, because possession by inheritance was much more secure than that obtained by purchase, or by any other method. There are three ideas included in these words, accessory to that which constitutes their prominent meaning — the right, the cer tainty, and the unalienable character of the possession. Hence, when the apostle says, believers are the heirs of God, he means to recognise their title, in and through the Redeemer, to the promised good, as well as the certainty and security of the pos session. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise," Gal. iii. 29. In Gal. iv. 7, we have the same argument as in the passage before us, "Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ;'' see Col. iii. 24, Ileb. ix. 15, Eph. i. 14, &c. Joint heirs with Christ. These words are intended to designate the inheritance which believers are to receive. It is not any possession in this world, but it is that good of which Christ himself is the recipient; we are to be partakers of his inheritance. This idea is frequently presented in the Scriptures. ''Enter ye into the joy of your Lord," Matt. xxv. 21; "That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom," Luke xxii. 80; "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne/' &c., Ilev. iii. 21, and in many other places.