Verses 8:1–4

DIGGING DEEPER

The inner sanctuary within the cathedral Christian faith; the tree of life in the middle of the Garden of Eden; the highest peak in a range of mountains — such are some of the metaphors used by interpreters who extol chap. 8 in Romans. This is the chapter we start this week.

SOME KEY IDEAS FROM THIS WEEK’S PASSAGE

CONDEMNATION — Nevertheless, as the “in Christ Jesus” in v. 2 — and in v. 1 — has already indicated, the Spirit’s liberating work takes place only within the situation created by Christ. Verse 3 spells this out, showing that the Spirit can liberate the believer from sin and death only because in Christ and his cross God has already “condemned” sin. Believers are no longer “condemned” (v. 1) because in Christ sin has been “condemned”: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weakened by the flesh, God did; by sending his own Son in the form of sinful flesh and concerning sin he condemned sin in the flesh.

Nomos is now clearly the Mosaic law, and the clause succinctly states the most important point Paul makes about this law in the epistle — that it has proved incapable of rescuing people from the domain of sin and death. (cf. 3. 19, 3:28; 4,12–15; 7,7–25). But the law should not be criticized for this — for in a phrase that echoes 7:14b (“I am fleshly”), Paul reminds us that the law has failed only because “it was weakened by the flesh.” Nor should we think of the flesh as frustrating the intentions of the law, for the law was never given as a means to secure righteousness.

Flesh as in 7:5, is not the flesh of our bodies, or the bodies themselves, but the “this-worldly” orientation that all people share. It is this power that the law cannot break; indeed, as Paul has made clear, the law serve to strengthen the power of sin (cf. 5:20; 7:5). Luther uses a very appropriate analogy to make the point:

It is as with a sick man who wants to drink some wine because he foolishly thinks that his health will return if he does so. Now if the doctor, without any criticism of the wine, should say to him: “It is impossible for the wine to cure you, it will only make you sicker,” the doctor is not condemning the wine but only the foolish trust of the sick man in it. For he needs other medicine to get well, so that he then can drink his wine. Thus also our corrupt nature needs another kind of medicine than the Law. by which it can arrive at good health so that it can fulfill the Law (Scholium on 8:3).

In light of this criticism of the law in Romans, and the focus on liberation from sin and death in v. 2, “what the law could not do” is not to condemn sin (e.g., Godet), but to break sin’s Power — or, to put it positively, to secure eschatological life.

It is God himself who has done what the law could not do, and he has done it through the sending of “his own Son.” In most references to the “sending” of the Son the focus is on the incarnation. But the sacrificial allusions later in this verse show that, without eliminating allusion to the incarnation, Paul’s application of the language is broader, with a particular focus on the redemptive death of the Son (cf. also Gal. 4:4), Paul’s description of the way in which God sent the Son contributes to this sacrificial focus. “In the form of sinful flesh” emphasizes the full participation of the Son in the human condition.” Like the phrases “born from a woman, born under the law” in Gal. 4:4, it shows that the Son possesses the necessary requirement to act as our substitute. But why does Paul say that Christ came in “the homoioma of sinful flesh” Certainly, in light of “in the flesh” later in this very verse, Paul cannot mean that Christ had only the “appearance” of flesh.” Moreover, the word homoioma here probably has the nuance of “form” rather than “likeness” or “copy.” In other words, the word does not suggest superficial or outward similarity, but inward and real participation or “expression.” It may be, then, that Paul wants simply to say that Christ really took on “sinful flesh.” But this may be going too far in the other direction. Paul uses homoioma here for a reason; and it is probably, as in 6:5 and 5:14, to introduce a note of distinction. The use of the term implies some kind of reservation about identifying Christ with “sinful flesh.” Paul is walking a fine line here. On the one hand, he wants to insist that Christ fully entered into the human condition, became “in-fleshed” (in-carnis), and, as such, exposed himself to the power of sin (cf. 6:8–10). On the other hand, he must avoid suggesting that Christ so participated in this realm that he became imprisoned “in the flesh” (cf. the negative use of this phrase in 7:5 and 8:8. 9) and became ,thus, so subject to sin that he could be personally guilty of it. Homoioma rights the balances that the addition of “sinful” to “flesh” might have tipped a bit too far in one direction.

As our substitute, Christ “was made sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21) and suffered the wrath of God, the judgment of God upon that sin (cf. hilasterion in Rom. 3:25; Gal. 3:13).” In his doing so, of course, we may say that sin’s power was broken, in the sense that Paul pictures sin as a power that holds people in its clutches and brings condemnation to them. In executing the full sentence of condemnation against sin, God effectively removed sin’s ability to “dictate terms” for those who are “in Christ” (v. 2). The condemnation that our sins deserve has been poured out on Christ, our sin-bearer; that is why “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (v. 1). (Moo pg 477–81)

MISSIONAL QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION

• In what ways does this text proclaim good news to the poor and release to the captives, and how my our social locations make it difficult to hear that news as good?
• How does this text clarify what God is doing in our world, in our nation, in our cities, and in our neighborhoods — and how may we be called to be involved in those purposes?
• How does this passage Challenge the way you lead or participate in your microchurch?