Romans 8:3

Rom_8:3-4

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh.

The requirement of the law

I. The Divine purpose for man, whether in the old testament or the new, is the same. The reader who turns from the one to the other seems to have passed into a new world. The things, such as sacrifices, etc., that seemed of most importance in the one, seem of no importance at all in the other. But under seeming divergence, there is essential unity--a unity that comes to the surface in the text. Here we read of the righteousness, or better still, the requirement of the law. Now what was this? Not what it seemed to the great mass of the Jews. Had the Pharisee who prayed, God, I thank Thee, etc., been asked, he would have given a list of things to be done or avoided. But now and then a prophet caught a glimpse of this purpose. Now it is the Preacher, Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, etc. Then it is Isaiah (Isa_58:6-7). Now it is Micah (Mic_6:8). Then it is David in the fifty-first Psalm, The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, etc. The end of the law was not to make formalists, but good men. And the purpose of God is the same under the Christian dispensation. What God desires is not certain forms, services, emotions, but the renewal of the whole nature, inner and outer.

II. Christ has come that Gods purpose might be completely attained. Attained as it never could have been in any other way--that it might be fulfilled in us. The architect sees in vision a glorious building. As yet it is empty. The masons labour and it is filled full, completed, realised. The father has a dream for his son just starting in life. When the son lives that life and becomes the pride of his father, he fulfils it. What St. Paul means is that our Father has had a dream for us. And that that dream might be accomplished, that we might become good, God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin. And in Christ He did all that was needed. He condemned sin just where it needs condemning, in the sinners heart. He made a full and complete atonement. He supplied the mightiest of all motives to a new life in the constraining love of Christ. And He promised the most effectual of all help in the gift of His Spirit. Have we, too, a dream? Do we want to be true children of God? Christ is the only Way. Trust, love, and follow Him, and you shall have the righteousness of the law fulfilled in you.

III. There is but one process by which this purpose can be attained. The sphere in which it is to be done is that of active, not of contemplative life. In business and home duties and cares we have to decide whether we will yield to the cravings of the flesh or the promptings of the Spirit. And it is as we walk in that Spirit, and take up our cross and deny ourselves, that we grow up into Christ, become like Him, and Gods plan--our perfection and happiness--is fulfilled in us. (J. Ogle.)

Law helpless

The Laocoon may serve as an artistic embodiment of Rom_7:14 to end. But the issues of the struggle differ. Laocoon is overcome; St. Paul conquers, in the grace of Christ. Self-effort for righteousness is a hopeless struggle. St. Paul found the more excellent way.

I. There is one thing man must somehow attain--it is righteousness.

1. Except for this pursuit of righteousness, it is not worth being a man at all. Without it how is man higher than the beast? No man really lives save as he pursues this. No man can ever be satisfied save as he attains this.

2. But what is righteousness? It is--

(1) Conformity of inward conditions and outward conduct. It is of the lack of this harmony St. Paul complains. This he called unrighteousness.

(2) Conformity of both spirit and conduct to the revealed will of God. For that must be our standard.

3. Taking these ideas of righteousness then, it appears that men wholly fail to attain it by self-effort. And self-effort ends in a despairing sense of the power of sin. Then arises the question--Can we attain righteousness by any helps we can secure? Try two.

II. The offer of help by the law. What is law? The plain statement of what is right, made to us with befitting sanctions. This cannot help us to righteousness. Because--

1. Of its nature. It can only disclose sin and condemn. I had not known sin, but by the law. It cannot give life.

2. Of the corruption of man. He is weak through the flesh; he cannot do the thing that he would. There is no hope of ever making flesh render perfect obedience. It is plain that law is helpless.

III. The offer of help by God. This help is in no sense intended to set law aside. It is the offer of power to obey. And the offer is made in Christ Jesus, who came into the world bringing a new force of Divine life. How, then, does God in Christ help? Not as law does, trying to shape conduct and force the flesh, but by quickening the spirit, renewing the will, moulding the inclination, inspiring the soul with love to God, and holy desires. And this succeeds. Thus urged and inspired, the spirit can master the flesh, and win the righteousness which the law requires. (R. Tuck.)

The laws inability to justify and save

I. Of what law doth the apostle here speak? Gods own law, in its strict and proper acceptation, viz., that revelation which the great Lawgiver hath made of His will, therein binding the reasonable creature to duty. But what law of God? Either that primitive law which He imposed upon Adam (and in him upon all mankind), upon the keeping of which He promised life, upon the breaking of which He threatened death; or else, that law which He gave Israel from Sinai, namely, the decalogue or moral law, which was but a new draught of the law first made with Adam.

II. What is the thing in special which the law could not do?

1. You read (Rom_7:1) of exemption from condemnation. Now this the law could not do; the law can condemn millions, but it cannot save one.

2. You read (Rom_7:2) of being made flee from the law of sin and death. Herein, too, was the law impotent; it might lay some restraints upon, but never bring down the power of sin.

3. There is the blessed empire of the spirit over the flesh, as also the full and perfect obeying of the laws commands; neither of these could the law effect.

4. Reformation of life the law could not do.

5. The text speaks of the condemning of sin; the law can condemn the sinner, but not (in a way of expiation) sin itself.

6. There is the reconciling of God and the sinner, the satisfying of infinite justice, the justifying of the guilty, the giving of a right and title to heaven. Now the law was under an impossibility of effecting any of these.

III. What is the weakness of the law here spoken of?

1. The word is used to set forth any debility, whether it be natural or preternatural, as being occasioned by some bodily disease. The apostle speaks of the weakness of the commandment (Heb_7:18), and weak and beggarly elements (Gal_4:9). Here a higher law was in his eye, and yet he attributes weakness to it also; it could not do because it was weak, and it was weak because it could not do.

2. This weakness of the law is not partial, but total; it is not the having of a lesser strength, but the negation of all strength. A man that is weak may do something, though he cannot do it vigorously, exactly, and thoroughly; but now (as to justification and salvation) the law is so weak that it can do nothing.

IV. What the flesh is here by which the law is made thus weak? The corrupt, sinful, depraved nature that is in fallen man. Observe that the weakness of the law is not from the law itself, but from the condition of the subject with whom it hath to do. When man was in the state of innocency, the law (Samson like) was in its full strength, and could do whatever was proper to it; yea (as to itself), it is able yet to do the same; but the case with us is altered; we cannot now fulfil this law, nor come up to what it requires of us, and therefore it is weak. The strongest sword in a weak hand can do but little execution; the brightest sun cannot give light to a blind eye. The law strengthens sin, and sin weakens the law (1Co_15:56).

1. The special matter of the laws weakness.

(1) With respect to justification (Rom_3:20; Gal_2:16; Gal_2:21; Gal_3:11; Gal_3:21-22; Act_13:39).

(2) In reference to eternal life. It never yet carried one sinner to heaven. Consider it as the covenant of work, so its language is do and live (chap. 10:5). Now man in his lapsed state cannot do according to the laws demands, therefore by it there is no life for him.

2. The grounds or demonstrations of the laws impotency.

(1) It requires that which the creature cannot perform. Before the law can do any great thing for a person it must first be exactly fulfilled; for though man hath lost his power the law hath not lost its rigour. Though the sinner be as the poor broken debtor, yet the law will not compound with him, but will have full payment of the whole debt. Now this is impossible.

(2) The law doth not give what the creature needs; it asks above his strength and gives below his want.

(a) He must have grace, sanctification, holiness, etc., but the law will not help him to these. It is holy itself, but it cannot make others holy; it can discover sin, but it cannot mortify sin. The law is a killing thing, but it is of the sinner, not of the sin; it hath by reason of the flesh a quite other effect; for it doth rather enliven, increase, and irritate sin, as water meeting with opposition grows the more fierce and violent; and the disease, the more it is checked by the medicine, the more it rages (Rom_7:8).

(b) The law calls for duty, but it gives no strength for the performance of it, Pharaoh-like, who exacted brick but allowed no straw.

(c) Great is the sinners need of faith; for without this no justification, no peace with God, no heaven. Now the law knows nothing of faith; nay, it is diametrically opposite to it (Gal_3:12).

(3) The law could not do, because it could not heal that breach which sin had made betwixt God and the sinner. It can make no reparation for what is past. Suppose the sinner could for the future come up to a full conformity to the law, yet the law would be weak, and the creature could not thereby be justified, because reparation and satisfaction must be made for what is past, which to make is impossible to the law.

Application:

1. Heres matter of deep humiliation to us. How should we lament that sinful nature by reason of which the law cannot do that for us which otherwise it would!

2. It is necessary that I should vindicate the honour of the law, and obviate mistakes and bad inferences.

(1) Notwithstanding this weakness of the law, yet give it that honour and reverence which is its due. Remember whose law it is, as also what an excellent law it is in itself (Rom_7:12).

(2) Take heed that you do not cast off the law upon the pretence of its weakness, for it is, notwithstanding, obligatory to all (Rom_3:31).

(3) Neither must you look upon the law as altogether--

(a) Weak. For though as to some things it be under a total impotency, yet as to other things it still retains its pristine power. It cannot take away sin, or make righteous, or give life, but as to the commanding of duty, the directing and regulating of the life, the threatening of punishment upon the violation of it, here it can do whatever it did before.

(b) Useless. For though the law be not of use as to justification, yet it is of use as a monitor to excite to duty, as a rule to direct, as a glass to discover sin, as a bridle to restrain sin, as an hatchet to break the hard heart, as a schoolmaster to whip you to Christ (Gal_3:24).

3. Was the law thus unable to do for the sinner what was necessary to be done? then never look for righteousness and life from and by the law. It highly concerns every man in the world to make sure of righteousness and life; but these are only to be had in Christ in the way of believing, not in the law in the way of doing.

4. See here the admirable love of God, and be greatly affected with it. The law was weak; and now the merciful God finds out another way; He sent His own Son in the likeness, etc. (T. Jacomb, D. D.)

The impotence of the law

I. What is it that the law could not do? It could not fulfil in us its own righteousness. It could not cause us to exemplify that which itself had enacted. As to any efficiency upon us, it was a dead letter, and did as little for the morality of the world as if struck with impotency itself, and bereft of all the means or the right of vindication.

1. The apostle introduces a caution, that he might not appear to derogate from the law. The law was not weak in itself, but through the flesh. There is a native efficiency, in all its lessons and enforcements, which is admirably fitted to work out a righteousness on the character of those to whom it is addressed. It is no reflection on the penmanship of a beautiful writer that he can give no adequate specimen of his art, on the coarse or absorbent paper which will take on no fair impression. Nor is it any reflection on the power of an accomplished artist that he can raise no monument thereof from the stone which crumbles at every touch. And so it is because of the groundwork, and not of the law, that the attempt has failed.

2. And it is to be observed that the fulfilment of the righteousness of the law in us was a thing to be desired--not merely that the universe might become richer in virtue, but that the law might in us achieve the vindication of its honour. It could not do the first, through the weakness of the flesh. And as little can it do the second, excepting in those on whom it wreaks the vengeance of its insulted authority.

(1) It does not work in the persons of the impenitent the virtues which it enjoins, nor fulfil in this sense its own righteousness upon them. But it wreaks upon these persons the vengeance which it threatens, and in this sense may be said to make fulfilment of its righteousness.

(2) In the persons who walk after the Spirit--how can the law, in reference to them, acquit itself of its juridical honours? for they too have offended. Let us see--

II. How the gospel adjusts this deficiency. There was something more than a Spirit necessary to work in us a righteousness--even a sacrifice to make atonement for our guilt.

1. The first step was to make ample reparation for the injuries sustained by the law, and so, by satisfying its rights, making a full vindication of its righteousness. That law which was written on tables of stone had to be appeased for its violated honour ere it was transferred into the fleshly tablets of our heart. The blood of remission had to be shed ere the water of regeneration could be poured forth; and so the Son of God came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and became a sin offering, and sustained the whole weight of sins condemnation, and, after ascending from the grave, had that Holy Ghost committed unto Him under whose power all who put their trust in Him are enabled to walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Thus, historically, the atonement took place before the more abundant ministration of the Spirit.

2. And so also, personally, a belief in that atonement has the precedency to a sanctifying operation over the sinners heart. Not till we accept Jesus Christ as the Lord our righteousness shall we experience Him to be the Lord our strength.

Conclusion:

1. In order that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, it is not enough that we walk as spiritual men. The more spiritual in fact that you are, the greater will your sensibility be to the remaining deficiencies of your heart and temper and conversation. So that to the last half hour even of a most triumphant course in sanctification, you must never lose sight of Him on whom has been laid the condemnation of all your offences, and count for your justification before God on nothing else than oil Jesus Christ and on Him crucified.

2. However zealously the righteousness of Christ must be contended for as the alone plea of a sinners acceptance, yet that the benefit thereof rests upon none save those who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (T. Chalmers, D. D.)

The laws failure and fulfilment

The law of God is perfect. You cannot add anything to it, nor take anything from it, without spoiling it. There is nothing wrong but the law condemns it, and there is nothing right but the law approves it. The soul of it is contained in one word, love; but it comprehends every form of duty which springs out of our relationship to God or man.

I. What the law can and cannot do. It cannot save a lost soul. The law, as originally given to Adam, would have produced in him a perfect life. But we have fallen, and this has made the law weak for the accomplishment of Gods purpose of justification. The law of England protects honest men, and deters many from committing crime; but it is practically powerless in the case of some habitual criminals. The defect is not in the law, but in the person with whom it has to deal.

1. It sets before us a straight path. Up the mountain side I see the way to the summit. But I have fallen into an abyss, and cannot stir. Now that path, like the law, cannot help me to follow it. Still, it is useful to know the way.

2. It shows us our deflections and stains. It is like the looking glass, which cannot take away a single spot, but can only show where it is.

3. It upbraids us for our sin, but it cannot forgive.

4. It gives no inclination to do the right, but often creates the contrary inclination (chap. 7.). There are some things men would not think of doing if they were not forbidden.

5. It does not lend us any aid towards the fulfilment of its commands.

6. When we have broken the law it brings no remedy. Of mercy the law knows nothing. On one occasion some workmen were quarrying some rocks; and having made all ready for a blast--drilled the holes, filled them with gun cotton, and connected the fuzes--they warned everyone away from the place of danger. Then the fuzes were lighted, and the workmen withdrew; but, to their horror, they saw a little boy, attracted by the lights, running towards them. Those strong men shouted to the boy, Go back! go back! But of course the boy, having the same nature as the rest of us, only went the more quickly into the danger. Still the men cried, Go back! go back! They were like the law, powerless; not because their voices were weak, but because of the material with which they had to deal. But the mother of the boy heard the call, and seeing his fearful peril, dropped on one knee, opened her arms wide, and called, Come to mother! come to mother! The boy stopped, hesitated a moment, then ran to her embrace, and so escaped the danger. What all the shouts of the strong men could not do, the gentle voice of the mother accomplished. Their voices were like the law, which says, Go back! go back! Her voice was like the sweet sound of the gospel, Come to Jesus! come to Jesus! Note--

II. Gods glorious method.

1. He sends. He does not wait for us to come to Him.

2. He sends His Son. He had but one, His Only-begotten; but that He might bring many sons unto glory, He sent that one.

3. He sends Him in the flesh. Verily He took not on Him the nature of angels. There He is, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh.

4. He sends Him in the likeness of sinful flesh. His flesh was like sinful flesh, but it was not sinful flesh.

5. He sends Him on account of sin.

6. He sends Him to be a sacrifice for sin. Our sin was laid on Him; and when God came to visit sin He found it laid on Christ, and He smote it there. For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust.

7. He thus condemns sin in the flesh. Christs death condemned sin. You may find strong words with which to censure sin, and no words can be too strong. But sin was never so condemned as when Jesus died. This blot must put out, not the candles and the moon and the stars, but the sun himself. This poison is so virulent that the immortal must die. Now is sin condemned as the vilest thing in the universe. It has forced the hand of Divine justice to smite down even Christ Himself instead of guilty men.

III. Gods glorious achievement.

1. In Christ the righteousness of the law is fulfilled, it is vindicated. I, guilty by Gods law, am condemned to punishment. But I am one with Christ. He stands for me. He takes the sin as though He had committed it, and suffers what I ought to have suffered; and so Gods law is vindicated. Thus the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in every believer, because his accepted Substitute and Surety has borne the punishment. Then there is an end of the law, says one. Stay, if a man disobeys, and is punished, he does not thereby escape from the duty of obedience. The law is always our creditor for a perfect obedience. Now, there could not have been such obedience rendered to the law even by sinless Adam as the Christ rendered to it. I take, today, the perfect obedience of my Lord, and appropriating it by faith, I call Him, The Lord my righteousness.

2. The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the Christian by the grace of God. When we believe in Christ we not only receive pardon, but also renewal. I speak for all who love Christ. You do long to obey Him. Ay, and you do obey Him. You have laid aside the works of the flesh. You love God, and you love your neighbour. And though not perfectly, yet in a large measure, the law is fulfilled in you. I would try to live as if my salvation depended upon my works alone; and yet I do so knowing all the while that I am justified by faith, and not by the works of the law. Thus present obedience is actually rendered.

3. This righteousness is fulfilled through Christ. The obedience to the law is fulfilled in us out of gratitude to Christ.

(1) What the law could not do, the dying Christ has done. His sacrifice makes us hate evil. Naming the name of Christ, we depart from iniquity; for we realise that it was not Roman soldiers and rabble Jews alone who nailed Him to the tree, but it was our sins that did it.

(2) Gratitude to Christ also incites us to the good. Shall He do all this for me, and I do nothing for Him? If Be gave His life for me, then I will give my life to Him. He has bought it; He deserves it; and He shall have it. I will no longer live to the flesh, since in the flesh Christ condemned my sin. Thus the holy law is cheerfully fulfilled.

4. This righteousness is fulfilled in the energy of the Spirit; in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. God not only works for us, but He also works in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. The Spirit applies the work of Christ to the soul. Why should not everyone receive, by the Spirit, this new life at this moment? Then it will grow, for we walk after the Spirit; we do not stand still. As we obey the law of God, we shall receive more and more of His power; for it is written, that He is given to them that obey Him. He first teaches us to obey, and then, when we obey, He dwells with us in greater fulness; and then the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

The impotency of the law through the flesh

The voice of Sinai was powerless to save, because our flesh was too weak to throw off the bondage of sin. Just so a rope is powerless to save the drowning man who has not strength to grasp it. Whereas even such might be saved by the living arms of a strong man. If the flesh could do what the mind approves, the law would be able, by revealing the badness of the rule of sin, to dethrone it, and thus save us. But the flesh cannot drive out its dread inhabitant. Consequently the law, which cannot breathe new strength into the flesh, but only knowledge into the mind, is too weak to save us. (Prof. J. A. Beet.)

The weakness of the law

Now in this verse we have--first, a defect implied; and secondly, a defect supplied. The defect supplied in these, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, etc.

I. The defect implied--What the law could not do, in that it was, etc. First, to speak of the defect itself, What the law could not do. What could not the law do? Why it could not justify us, or free us from sin and condemnation. It could not make us perfectly holy and righteous in the sight of God. This is likewise held forth to us in divers other places besides (Act_18:38-39; Gal_3:21; Heb_7:18). Now this imperfection and insufficiency which is in it will further appear unto us in these regards: first, because the law does not offer to us any pardon or forgiveness of those things which are done against the law. The law it hath in it an accusing power, but it hath not in it an absolving power; it threatens the curse, but it does not tender the promise. It is the ministration of condemnation, but it is not the ministration of life. And accordingly we meet with divers expressions in Scripture to that effect (Gal_3:10; Jam_2:10; 2Co_3:6, etc.). Secondly, the law, as it does not tender forgiveness, so neither does it give faith whereby to apprehend and lay hold upon forgiveness which is tendered. Now this the law doth not do, but only the gospel; the law does neither reveal faith to us nor work it in us. Thirdly, the law does not give us any power neither, whereby to keep the commandments of God, but leaves us in this point altogether feeble. Why, but if the law be not able to justify us, wherefore, then, serveth the law? as the apostle makes the expostulation (Gal_3:19). To this we answer as the apostle there answers himself, that it serves in regard of transgressions, and so is useful to these following purposes: first, as a looking glass, wherein to see our own ugliness and deformity. When we reflect upon our own lives and ways and then compare them with the law of God, then we see how short they are, and how far from true perfection. Secondly, it serves as a schoolmaster to lead us and drive us to Christ; while it discovers to us our own imperfection it carries us to seek for protection in another, that is, in Him. As the stings of the fiery serpents drove the Israelites to look up to the brazen serpent, so the stings of the law they drive us to look up to Christ; and as the needle makes way for the thread, so does the law make way for the gospel. Thirdly, it serves as a rule of life and new obedience which we are to conform ourselves unto. The second is the occasion of this defect whence the law was thus unable, and that is here expressed to be by the flesh. It was a thing never yet done that anyone which was a mere man did fulfil the law. And this (to give you some account of it) may be thus demonstrated to us as coming thus to pass. First, from the inbred concupiscence which all men are infected withal: those which have in them a principle which does continually oppose and fight against the law, they are not able to fulfil the law. Now this have all men in this world, even the best that are; therefore they are not able to fulfil it. That this principle it is very much battered and mortified, and in a great measure subdued, but yet it is not wholly removed. The second may be taken from that actual sin which flows from original, as there is in us a corrupt nature which does indispose us to the keeping of the law, so there are also in us many daily transgressions which do plainly take us off from keeping of it. Thirdly, it may be also demonstrated from the weakness and imperfection of grace. Fourthly, it may be likewise shown from the nature of the law itself, and that is that it is spiritual. The law requires more than the outward action, also the inward affection; and not only some imperfect endeavour, but also the perfectest degree of obedience which can be performed. Lastly, it is from hence clear that none can here in this present life fulfil the law from that necessity which lies upon everyone to pray for the forgiveness of sins. Our inability which we have voluntarily brought upon ourselves does not hinder God from exacting that which is His own. The use of this point may be to humble us in the sight of our own insufficiency and misery which is upon us, especially when we shall consider that we have brought it upon ourselves. All evils are at any time so much the more tedious as we ourselves have any hand in procuring them and bringing them about.

II. The second is the defect supplied--God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, etc. There are three main particulars here observable of us: first, the Author of our deliverance, and that is God. Secondly, the means of our deliverance, and that is Christ. Thirdly, the effect of our deliverance, and that is the condemnation of sin: God sending forth His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin, etc. We begin with the first, the Author or principal Efficient, and that is here signified to be God. And when we speak of this there are three things here further considerable. First, the goodness of God. And secondly, the wisdom of God. And thirdly, the power of God. All these in this dispensation. First, here was the exceeding goodness and mercy of God, that when He saw and observed into what a condition we had brought ourselves did not now leave us in this condition, but sought out, and found out a way for the delivery of us. This was the exceeding riches of mercy which is here to be taken notice of by us. And this it may be further amplified from divers considerations. First, from the state in which we stood to Himself, and that is of enmity and hatred (Rom_7:10). Secondly, from the stale in which He stood to us. It was God that was first wronged, and yet it was God that first began to think of the means of reconciliation. Thirdly, His independency upon us: He stood in no need of us, He could have done well enough without us. Fourthly, His preterition and passing by of other creatures who by their creation were more glorious than ourselves. What does all this serve for but to enlarge our hearts more in thankfulness to God who has done so graciously for us and with us? The second is the wisdom of God; God in His wisdom. And that especially in observing this order and method. First, He would suffer us to be miserable before He would make us absolutely and eternally happy. The law must first be weak through the flesh before God sends His Son. Thirdly, here was also His power. And whilst here in this text our salvation is reduced to God as the principal Author and Efficient of it, it is hereby made to be strong salvation, especially if we consider in what a case we were before He undertook it. Though the law were unable to save us, yet God for all that is not unable. Hence it is that the Scripture still represents our salvation to us under this notion. I am the Lord thy God and thy Saviour (Isa_43:3; Isa_43:12, etc.). The mighty God, etc. (Isa_9:6). If it were in any hands besides His we might jointly fear the miscarriage of it. The second particular branch considerable in the second general of the text is the means of deliverance, and that is here expressed to be the sending of Christ, in these words, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin. In which passage we have three things more considerable of us: first, the person sent, and that is the Son of God, Gods own Son. Secondly, the manner of sending Him, and that is in the likeness of sinful flesh. Thirdly, the end for which, and that is for sin. We begin with the first of these, viz., the person sent, Gods own Son. And there are no less than three main articles of our Christian faith, all at once, which are here exhibited unto us. First, here is the Godhead and Divinity of Christ. Secondly, here is the manhood and incarnation of Christ. And thirdly, here is the union of the two natures of Christ in one person. The second is the manner of sending Him, In the likeness of sinful flesh. This we may take notice of to this purpose, namely, to show unto us how requisite it is for ourselves, in whatever business we undertake, especially of great consequence, to have our call and mission from God, that He sends us and appoints us thereunto. When He calls us, and designs us, and sets us apart, as He did Christ, we may expect help from Him. Secondly, in order to Gods acceptance and approbation. It will from hence be more pleasing to God what we do, and well taken by Him. Thirdly, in order likewise to success. There is likelihood of some good to follow upon that performance which is undertaken by designation from God. The third thing here considerable is the end, and that is expressed to be for sin. For sin, that is, to be an offering for sin (2Co_5:21). Now God had herein a regard to a double consideration: first, His own glory, as sin was opposite to that. And secondly, our good, as sin was opposite to this likewise. What does all this teach us? First, from hence to take notice of the grievous and fearful nature of sin. That which could not be helped but by the sending of the Son of God into the world, that was certainly no small grievance, nor to be reckoned so by us. Secondly, let us not set up that which Christ came to take away, lest we thereby make His coming of no effect unto us. The third and last is the effect or accomplishment of it: Christs obtaining of the end for which He came, and Gods obtaining of the end for which He sent Him, in these words--He condemned sin in the flesh. There are two things here considerable of us: first, that which Christ did. And secondly, the state or condition which He did it in. That which He did was the condemnation of sin. The state which He did it in was in the flesh, as it is here expressed unto us. In this dispensation of God, for the condemning of sin by Christ, there were divers things at once remarkable, and so considerable of us: first, Gods infinite justice, in that He would not let sin go unpunished. Secondly, Gods infinite mercy, in that He would punish sin in the surety, and not in the proper person himself that had offended. Thirdly, Gods infinite wisdom, in contriving of a way for the uniting and reconciling of these two attributes together, His justice and His mercy. Perfect justice satisfied, and perfect mercy enlarged. Fourthly, Gods infinite power, in that He could do that which none other could do besides. Let us take heed of speaking and pleading for sin which is thus condemned by God Himself; seeing He has passed sentence upon it, let us not open our mouths for it. (Thomas Horton, D. D.)

The weakness of the law and the power of the gospel

I. The weakness of the law. It could not--

1. Give peace to the conscience.

2. Renew the affections.

3. Sanctify the life. Corrupt flesh too rebellious and mighty to be controlled by it.

II. The power of the gospel.

1. The atonement of Christ gives peace to the conscience.

2. The grace of God renews the heart.

3. The Holy Spirit by His indwelling consecrates the life. (J. J. S. Bird, M. A.)

The believers deliverance

I. What God has done for us.

1. He has done what the law could not do. This moral law is the great code of holy requirement, enjoined by God upon all His intelligent creatures for the double purpose of forming their characters and regulating their lives. Now the law is found totally unable to accomplish this object by reason of our weakness and depravity. It is the flesh which is too weak to bear the pressure of the law, just as there are pebbles too friable to bear the friction of polishing, or just as there are mirrors too distorted and dingy to reflect any light.

2. God has sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.

(1) We thus see that what the law could not do no creature in the universe could do. To bring any pure created nature into contact with mans depravity would tend not to remove that depravity, but only to jeopardise the higher nature. Thus, with two streams, the one clear and the other turbid, when they mingle, it is not the clear stream which purifies the turbid one, but the reverse. Only God Himself could be trusted to mingle intimately with mankind, and lay hold upon the seed of Adam to raise it up from defilement and misery.

(2) He has sent that Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. The Saviour shared in our infirmities, but yet He was without sin. Though born of a woman, He was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.

3. This was for sin. If this be taken in the general sense of on account of sin, or with reference to sin, still we must think principally of His great atoning death. It was on the Cross that the Lamb of God took away the sin of the world (1Pe_2:24).

4. God thus condemned sin in the flesh, i.e., Christ on the Cross condemned sin to lose its hold upon mankind, and despoiled it of its tyrannous control; or else condemned to destruction the sin which is in our flesh. Here we see how Jesus saves His people from their sins. This word condemned suggests a comparison with Rom_7:1. The condemnation which should have come upon us has come upon our sins instead. And thus, while we are forgiven, we are also delivered from the thraldom of sin, that henceforth we should serve it no more.

II. What God has wrought in us.

1. Nothing is more clear than that Christ intends His people to be actually holy (Tit_2:11; Tit_3:3-6). Here, then, we see the double glory of the gospel over the law. It can do what the law cannot do, in that it can confer on us a full and sufficient pardon, and also save us from the continued dominion of sin, and cause us to walk in newness of life. If a man hate God and his neighbour, it can make him love them; if he be a drunkard, it can make him sober; if an idolater, it can turn him from his idols; if a liar, it will make him truthful, etc.

2. Let us, then, see how it is that God works this mighty change within us.

(1) Our hearts are won to holiness and the love of God by the incarnation and sufferings of His Son.

(2) They are set free to a life of holiness by the removal of our guilt and condemnation by the sacrifice of Jesus.

(3) They are directly strengthened and vivified for a career of holy living by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, the purchase of Jesus death, and the gift of His exaltation. (T. G. Horton.)

The Christian plan

I. The occasion of its introduction. The inefficiency of the law.

1. What could not the law do? That which man as a sinner required for his salvation. It could neither regenerate nor justify. Man wanted both the nature for and the title to heaven, and the law could give neither.

2. Why the law could not do this?

(1) Not because there is anything in it essentially inimical to happiness: law is essentially good. It was tweak through the flesh, i.e., in consequence of mans depravity. It cannot make man happy, because man is corrupt.

(2) This weakness of law is its glory. It is the glory of law that it cannot stoop to human imperfections; were it to do so the order of the moral universe would be destroyed.

II. The history of its development. God sending His own Son, etc. Observe--

1. The mission of Jesus. God sent Him to do what the law could not do--regenerate and justify. Sovereign love is the primal spring.

2. The incarnation of Jesus. In the likeness of sinful flesh. Only the likeness. His humanity was necessary as an example and as an atonement.

3. The sacrifice of Jesus. For a sin offering, etc.

III. The design of its operation. He did not come to abrogate, relax, or supersede law, but to fulfil it, that its righteousness might be fulfilled in the sinner. The Christian plan does this by presenting law--

1. In its most attractive forms. In the life of Jesus.

2. In connection with the greatest motives to obedience. In Christ you see Gods infinite respect for law as well as His love for sinners.

3. In connection with the greatest helper--the Holy Spirit. It is expedient for you that I go away, etc., (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The state of Christianity today

1. The text is a distinct statement that Judaism had come to the end of its influence. It had educated them to a point where, while men had need of more, it had nothing more to give.

2. We hear men speak of the Christian religion like Paul spoke of the Jewish. It is patronisingly said, It has done a good work; but men are so far educated by it now that it is no longer able to meet the want of our times; but from some source we are to expect a latter-day glory, which will be to Christianity what Christianity was to Judaism.

I. What are the evidences that Christianity is beginning to wane?

1. It is said that Churchism is wearing out.

(1) But, even if that were true, the Church is no more religion than the masonry of the aqueduct is the water that flows in it. Schools are a very different thing from intelligence, though intelligence uses them as instruments. Churches may change without changing in one single iota the substance of religion.

(2) But besides this, the spirit of man, in religion, intermits. There has never been a steady growth in anything--neither in science nor government. If, then, there is now a decadence of interest in religion, it might show simply that we are in one of these stages of temporary inactivity.

2. It may be said that the thinking men, particularly in the direction of science, are less and less believers in revelation. And the statement has some truth in it. But in the history of the race we find that one element usually takes precedence of every other, and absorbs everything, cheating the other elements. In some ages it is the religious element; in others it is cold, hard thought; then this has given way to periods of enthusiastic and even superstitious devotion. Just now we are in a period of mere material investigations. But we shall certainly come to another period ere long. If now the spiritual elements are cheated, the time will soon come when these things will begin to balance themselves. So soon as that growth which seems to unsettle the old faith has adjusted itself, the religious wants of the soul reassert themselves, and ere long the old statements are overlaid with new religious developments, and with religious truth in new forms.

II. What are the evidences that Christianity is not on the wane?

1. Is faith giving place to indifference? On the contrary, probably never was there an age in which there was so deep a religious faith as now. What men call a want of faith is oftentimes only unwillingness to accept so little as hitherto has been included in the articles of faith. It is the reaching out of the soul in new aspirations. It is asking for more, not for less.

2. Is the devotional spirit decayed? It is changing and ought to change. As progress in intelligence raises men into a better conception of God, and their own place in creation, there will be a new mode of reverence, a new method of devotion. The element of love has greatly increased, so that there is now far more of the filial spirit. The devotional spirit, though far less ascetic than it was, is more prevalent; and in the community there is far more respect for religion than formerly.

3. Never was there such a spirit of propagation as now. Never were so much pains taken to rear men for teaching the faith. Never was there so large a demand for, and supply of its instruments, in the form of religious books and papers: and, above all, never was there such a spirit of building churches, and supplying them in waste and destitute places.

4. Is the family today less or more under the influence of a true spiritual Christianity than it formerly was? There never was a period when there were so many high-toned and pure Christian families as today.

5. Has the Christian religion shown any signs of failing as a reforming power in its application to the morals of the day? Is there less conscience, less hope, less desire to purify the individual and the community? Religion dying? What, then, mean the execrations of wicked men? The Church losing its power? Why, then, are men so complaining of its intrusion, telling us to stay at home and preach the gospel, and not to meddle with things that do not concern us? It is the light which streams from the gospel which wakes the owls and the bats.

6. Has the Christian spirit lost its power over government and public affairs? I think the conscience of our community never was so high as it is today. Everywhere is the gospel leavening public administrations, and raising up an intelligent Christian public sentiment which is itself as powerful upon governments as winds are upon the sails of ships. If these things be so, are we quite ready yet to assume the condition of mourning? On the contrary, of all periods of the world this would be the last that I should have chosen to lift up my hands in despair and say, Religion is dying out, and must yield to a new dispensation.

Conclusion:

1. We may expect some changes, but none other than to deepen religious life and faith in religious truth. There will be a better understanding of the human heart, and better modes of reaching it with religious truth. But no amount of change in these external instrumentalities will affect in the slightest degree the power of the religious element.

2. The instrumentalities of religion hereafter, we may believe, will be more various. Laws, and customs, and instruments, being filled with a religious spirit, will become means of grace to a degree that hitherto they have never done.

3. Many think that preaching is worn out: a great deal of preaching is worn out. Many think churches useless: a great many churches are useless. But would you judge the family in the same way? Would you say that fatherhood is worn out because there are a great many poor husbands and fathers?

4. There never was a time, young men, when you had so little occasion to be ashamed of Christ or of religion. If men all around you, with all manner of books and paper, are telling you glozing tales of the decadence of religion, say to them, Let the dead bury their dead, but follow thou Christ. It is a falsehood. The glory of religion never was so great. Its need was never more urgent. Its fruits were never more ample. Its ministers were never more inspired by Gods ministering angels than now. (H. Ward Beecher.)

God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin.--

Gods own Son

Emphatic to mark--

1. The greatness of His love.

2. The adequacy of the means for the salvation of men. (T. Robinson, D. D.)

Of Christs being the natural and eternal Son of God

1. Christ was Gods Son. Notice the several attestations of this great truth. That of John Baptist (Joh_1:34); of Nathaniel (Joh_1:49); Peter (Mat_16:16); the Centurion (Mat_27:54); the Eunuch (Act_8:37); Martha (Joh_11:27); the devils themselves (Mat_8:29; Mar_3:11). Christ often asserted His Sonship; and the Father in a most solemn and open manner attested it (Mat_3:17; Mat_17:5).

2. But Christ is here said to be Gods own Son. In the original it is the Son of Himself, or His proper Son (as verse 32). God is Christs proper Father (Joh_5:18). He is not barely a son, but a son in a peculiar manner.

Consider Him--

I. Comparatively. And so He is thus styled to distinguish Him from all other sons. For God hath sons--

1. By creation, as e.g., the angels (Job_1:6; Job_38:7), and Adam (Luk_3:38).

2. By the grace of regeneration and adoption (Joh_1:12-13; Jam_1:18; Gal_4:3; Eph_1:5).

3. By nature; one that is a son of another rank and order. In this respect God hath but one, namely, Christ. Upon which account He sometimes appropriates the paternal relation in God unto Himself (Luk_10:22; Joh_14:2). And elsewhere He distinguishes betwixt God as being His Father and being the Father of believers (Joh_20:17).

II. Absolutely, and abstractedly from all other sons, so He is Gods own proper Son. The expression points to His being eternally begotten, and to His being begotten in the Divine essence. As to the latter, the Son was begotten in that essence rather than out of it. And some tell us that here we are not to consider Christ essentially as He is God, but personally as the Divine essence subsists in Him as the second person. In the first consideration as He was God He had the Divine essence in and of Himself, and so He could not be begotten to it, for He was God from Himself. In the second notion, as He was God personally considered, or as He was the second person and the Son, so He was of the Father and not of Himself; for though He was God of Himself, yet He was not Son of Himself (see Joh_7:29; Psa_2:7; Pro_7:22-27; Mic_5:2; Joh_1:14; Joh_1:18; Joh_3:16; Joh_3:18; 1Jn_4:9). There are three properties belonging to Christ in His Sonship which are incommunicable to any other.

1. He is a Son co-equal with His Father (Joh_5:18; Php_2:6).

2. He is a Son co-essential with the Father (Joh_10:30; Col_1:15; Heb_1:3).

3. He is the co-eternal Son of God the Father (Rev_1:8; Rev_2:8; Heb_1:5; Heb_1:8).

Application:

1. Is Christ thus Gods own Son? I infer then--

(1) That He is God. Not a God by office only, not a made God, but God truly, properly, essentially (1Jn_5:20). Generation is always the production of another in the same nature; like ever begets like; as it is said of Adam he begat a son in his own likeness after his image (Gen_5:3), and must it not be so here in the Fathers begetting of Christ?

(2) That He is a very great and glorious person. Though Christs dignity and preeminence is not the ground of His Sonship, yet His Sonship is the ground of His dignity and preeminence.

(3) That the work of redemption was a very great work, for God sent His own Son about it. The greater the person who is employed in a work the greater is that work.

2. Was Christ Gods own Son? Let me from hence urge a few things upon you.

(1) Study Christ much in this relation, that you may know Him as the proper, natural, essential Son of God (1Co_2:2; Php_3:8). But--

(a) In all your inquiries be sure you keep within the bounds of sobriety (1Co_4:6). Do not pry too far into those secrets which God hath locked up from you; content yourselves with what He hath revealed in His Word and stay there.

(b) Join study and prayer together. He studies this mystery best who studies it most upon His knees. This is not savingly to be known without special and supernatural illumination from Christ through the Spirit (Mat_16:16-17; Joh_1:18; 1Jn_5:28).

(2) Believe Him to be such, and believe on Him as such. The first we call dogmatical, the second justifying and saving faith.

(3) How, then, should all honour and adore Him? Certainly upon this Sonship the highest, yea, even Divine adoration itself is due to Him (Joh_5:23). Give Him--

(a) The honour of worship (Heb_1:6).

(b) The honour of obedience (Mat_17:5).

(4) Admire and wonder at the greatness of Gods love in His sending of Him. (T. Jacomb, D. D.)

Christs mission

Before close handling this subject note--

1. This sending of Christ strongly implies His pre-existence. That which is not cannot be sent. And one would think the Scriptures are so clear in this that there should not be the least controversy about it. For they tell us that Christ was in Jacobs time (Gen_48:16); in Jobs time (Job_19:25); in the prophets time (1Pe_1:11); in Abrahams time, yea, long before it (Joh_8:56, etc.); in the Israelites time (1Co_10:9); Isaiahs time (Joh_12:41). How fully and plainly is His pre-existence asserted in Joh_1:1-3; Eph_3:9; Col_1:16-17; Heb_1:2; Joh_17:5; Php_2:6.

2. His personality, by which I mean He existed before He took flesh, not as a thing, quality, dispensation, or manifestation, but as a proper, personal subsistence. And He must be so, or else He could not be the subject of this sending. For He is sent to take the likeness of sinful flesh upon Him.

3. The distinction that is betwixt the Father and Christ. One sends and the other is sent. The Father and the Son are one in nature and essence, yet they are distinct persons. The apostle had spoken of the Spirit in the former verse; in this He speaks of the Father and of the Son, thus teaching the Trinity. I will endeavour now:--

I. To clear up the nature of the act.

1. Negatively. This sending of Christ was--

(1) Not His ineffable and eternal generation, or sonship grounded upon that. He was sent who was the Son of God, but He was not the Son of God as He was sent; His Sonship was the result of His generation, not of His mission.

(2) Not any local secession from His Father, or any local motion from the place where He was, to some other place where He was not. The Father sent Him to this lower world, yet here He was before; the Father sent Him from heaven, yet, as to His Godhead, He remained in heaven still (1Jn_3:13). So when He ascended, He went from earth, and yet He was on earth still as to His spiritual presence (Mat_28:20). Man He went from us, but as God He is as much with us as ever.

2. Affirmatively, this sending of Christ lies--

(1) In Gods choosing, appointing, ordaining Him from everlasting to the office and work of the Mediator (1Pe_1:20).

(2) In Gods qualifying and fitting of Him for His great work. God never puts a person upon any special service but first He qualifies him for that service. Christ must have a body to fit Him for dying and suffering, that God provided for Him (Heb_10:5). And whereas He must also have the Spirit, that too the Father doth furnish Him with (Isa_42:1; Joh_3:34).

(3) In Gods authorising and commissioning Him to what He was to be and to do. Christ had a commission from God under hand and seal (Joh_6:27). As princes when they send abroad their ambassadors or appoint their officers, they give them their commissions sealed to be their warrant for what they shall do; so God the Father did with Christ.

(4) In the Fathers authoritative willing of Him to take mans nature upon Him, and in that nature so to do, and so to suffer (Heb_10:7; Joh_10:18; Php_2:8).

(5) In Gods trusting of Him with His great designs. When we send a person about our affairs, we repose a trust in him, that he will be faithful in the management of our concerns.

II. To answer an objection and remove a difficulty. That which hath been spoken seems to derogate from the greatness and glory of Christs person: for if God sent Him, then, argue some, He is inferior to the Father. But--

1. Sending doth not always imply inferiority or inequality; for persons who are equal upon mutual consent may send each the other. And thus it was between God the Father and Christ. When the master sends the servant, he goes because he must; but when the Father sends the Son He goes readily, because His will falls in with His Fathers will (Joh_10:36; cf. Joh_17:19; Rom_8:32, cf. Gal_2:20).

2. We must distinguish of a two-fold inferiority, one in respect of nature, and one in respect of office, condition, or dispensation. As to the first, Christ neither was nor is in the least inferior to the Father. In respect of this He thought it not robbery to be equal with God. As to the second, Christ being considered as Mediator, it may be said of Him that He was inferior to the Father (Php_2:7-8; Joh_14:28).

III. To inquire into the grounds and reasons of Christs mission. In the general, some must be sent. Since neither the law, nor anything else, could operate to any purpose towards the advancing of Gods honour and the promoting of the sinners good, it was necessary that God Himself should interpose in some extraordinary way; which thereupon He accordingly did in the sending of Christ. But more particularly, suppose a necessity of sending, yet why did God pitch upon His Son? Might not some other person have been sent, or might not some other way have been found? I answer, No; Christ the Son must be the very person whom God will send. And Him He pitched upon because--

1. He was the person with whom the Father had covenanted about this very thing.

2. God saw that was the very best way which could be taken. He had great designs to carry on, as, e.g., to let the world see what an evil thing sin was, how impartial His justice was, what an ocean of love He had in His heart, and to lay a sure foundation for the righteousness and salvation of believers. Now there was no way for the accomplishing of these comparable to this of Gods sending His Son.

3. As this was the best and the fittest way, so He was the best and the fittest person to be employed. This appears from, and was grounded upon--

(1) His two natures, the hypostatical union of both in His person. He was God (Joh_1:1; Php_2:6; 1Jn_5:20; Rom_9:5; Isa_9:6; Tit_2:13). He was also man (1Ti_2:5); then, too, He was God-man in one person (Col_2:19). Now who could be so fit to bring God and man together as He who was Himself both God and man?

(2) His glorious attributes; His power, wisdom, mercy, goodness, faithfulness, holiness, etc.

(3) His Sonship and near relation to God. Who so fit to make others the adopted sons of God as He who was Himself the natural Son of God?

(4) The glory and dignity of His person as the image of God (Col_1:15; Heb_1:3). Now who so fit to restore man to Gods image as that man who was the essential image of God?

4. He was the only person that could be sent, for none but He could accomplish mans redemption.

(1) There were evils to be endured, which were above the strength of any mere creature to endure.

(2) There were evils to be removed--the wrath of God, the guilt of sin, the curse of the law--which no mere creature was able to remove.

(3) There were also blessings to be procured, as reconciliation with God, justification, adoption, eternal salvation, which no such creature possibly could procure.

Practical improvement:

1. Was Christ sent? and did God thus send Him? What doth this great act of God call for from us?

(1) To admire God. Here is the greatest thing that ever God did, or ever will do; it was much that He should make a world, but what is the making of a world to the sending of a Son?

(2) To admire the love of God the Father, and alway to entertain good thoughts of Him (Eph_1:3-5). Some gracious persons lie under the temptation that they can with more comfort think of the Son than of the Father. But surely God is love, and this very sending of His Son represents Him as full of mercy, goodness, and grace.

(3) To love Christ greatly. God sent Him, but how willing was He to be sent upon the errand of your salvation l

(4) To imitate Christ with respect of His being sent. Thus, never go till you be sent, then go readily.

(5) To take heed that you do not rest with the external sending of Christ. There is a two-fold sending of Him--

(a) To be man.

(b) Into man. He that would hope for salvation by Christ must have the latter as well as the former sending.

(6) To believe in Him (1Jn_5:13).

2. It affords abundant matter of comfort to all sincere Christians. Did God send Christ?

(1) Surely, then, great was His good will towards you (Luk_2:14).

(2) Then He is in good earnest in the matters of salvation.

(3) Then you need not fear but that the work of redemption is completed. When such a person sends, and such a person is sent, the thing shall be done effectually and thoroughly.

(4) Know to your comfort He hath not yet done. As to His own satisfaction He hath no more to do, but as to your glory and happiness He will yet do more. His first sending was to make the purchase, His second shall be to put you into possession.

(5) Set this against all.

(a) Against the weakness of the law. That which the law could not do, Christ did.

(b) Against the guilt of sin. Upon Christs sending presently you read of the condemning of sin. (T. Jacomb, D. D.)

Christ contemplated in His relation

I. To God.

1. He is Gods own Son.

2. Sent by God.

II. To the law.

1. He sustains.

2. Magnifies.

3. Fulfils it.

III. To man.

1. He visits him.

2. Assumes his nature.

3. Dies for him.

IV. To sin.

1. He atones for it.

2. Condemns it.

3. Destroys it. (J. Lyth, D. D.)

Condemned sin in the flesh.

How God condemned sin

1. Ever since man has fallen, two things have been desirable. The one, that he should be forgiven; the other, that he should be led to hate the sin into which he has fallen, and love the holiness from which he has become alienated. It were impossible to make a man happy unless both be equally realised. If his sins were forgiven, and yet he loved sin, his prospects were dark, If he ceased to love sin, and yet were lying under the guilt of it, his conscience would be tortured with remorse. By what process can man be both justified and sanctified?

2. Human reason suggests that a law should be given to man which he should keep. This has been tried, and the law which was given was the best law that could be framed. If, therefore, that law should fail to make men what they should be, the fault will not be in the law, but in the man. As the text says, it was weak through the flesh. It could not do what God never intended it should do. The law cannot forgive sin, nor create a love of righteousness. It can execute the sentence, but it can do no more. Now, in the text we are told how God interposed to do by His grace what His law could not do.

I. What God did. He sent His Son.

II. What was the immediate result of this? God condemned sin.

1. The very fact that God was under necessity, if He would save men and yet not violate His justice, to send His Son, condemned sin.

2. The life of our Lord Jesus Christ on earth condemned sin. You can often condemn an evil best by putting side by side with it the palpable contrast. There was a condemnation of sin in Christs very look. The Pharisees and all sorts of men felt it. They could not fail to see through His life what crooked lives their own were.

3. God condemned sin by allowing it to condemn itself. Most men deny that their particular transgressions are at all heinous. But God seemed to say, I will let sin do what it can; and men shall see henceforth what sin is from that sample. And what did sin do? Sin murdered the perfect man, and thus convicted itself.

4. God condemned sin by suffering Christ to be put to death on account of sin. Its heinousness demanded no lesser expiation. But why did not God exercise the sovereign prerogative of mercy, and at once forgive sin? How, then, could God have condemned sin? But if the righteous law be really so spiritual, and carnal man so weak, why not alter the law and adapt it to the exigency? I reply again, because such a procedure would not condemn the sin. On the contrary, it would condemn the law.

III. How this does what the law could not do. There were two desirable things, you will remember, that I started with.

1. That the offender should be pardoned. You can clearly see how that is done. If Jesus did suffer in my stead, henceforth it becomes not only mercy that absolves me, but justice that seals my acquittal.

2. But how does this tend to make men pure and haters of sin? When the Holy Spirit comes with power into a mans heart, and renews his nature, forthwith the impure are made chaste, the dishonest are made honest, and the ungodly are made to love God. And by the same means there comes into the heart an enmity against the sin which caused the suffering of Christ. (C. H. Spurgeon.)

Sin condemned in the flesh

The law here means that law of constraint, acting from without as precept and motive, which came to a head, in the dispensation of Moses. It is singular that this law--called the ministration of condemnation--could not condemn sin in the flesh, or secure the fulfilment of its own righteousness. This unfitted it to become an instrument of salvation. It could give us no help to get free from that very evil to which it was itself most opposed.

I. The great requirement. Condemnation of sin in the flesh signifies--

1. That the condemnation should pass from a mere threatening to an actual punishment in human nature. Condemnation can exist as a threatening, and if so, sin may be condemned in the law; but when sin is condemned in the flesh, there must be the actual infliction of punishment.

2. Such a condemnation as shall issue in the accomplishment of the righteousness of the law. The great problem is how to condemn sin effectually, and yet save the sinner.

II. The insufficient provision. The law was unable to do this. It could not condemn sin in the flesh through the weakness of the flesh. If terror could frighten man out of sin, the law has terror. If the relation of duty could secure the performance of duty, the law reveals duty. If the exhibition of holiness could allure to the law of holiness, the law exhibits that picture. But the corruption of the flesh is too strong for the law to conquer.

III. The perfect accomplishment. The gospel condemns sin in the flesh.

1. By the incarnation of Jesus. Sin cannot be adequately condemned (i.e., punished)

as an abstraction, but only in human nature, i.e., in the same nature in which it was committed, otherwise the threatening remains a dead letter.

2. By the sacrifice of Christ. For sin means an offering for sin. God laid on Christ the condemnation of the law. But how could Christ more effectively bear the punishment of the law than any other man?

(1) By virtue of His headship of His people. If the head suffers, the whole body being identified with that head, suffers also. A nation makes peace or war by the minister who is in power. So Christ bare our sins in His own body.

(2) By virtue of His innocence. He had no sins of His own to atone for, Thus He could be accepted instead of sinners.

(3) By reason of His divinity. The blow of justice must have destroyed any merely human being, but it could not destroy Christ. He was able to exhaust the penalty, and yet to survive. (P. Strutt.)

The condemnation of sin in the flesh

How did God condemn sin in the flesh, i.e., in human nature generally?

1. By exhibiting in the person of His Incarnate Son the same flesh in substance but free from sin, He proved that sin was in the flesh only as an unnatural and usurping tyrant. Thus the manifestation of Christ in sinless humanity at once condemned sin in principle. For this sense of condemnation by contrast see Mat_12:41-42; Heb_11:7. But--

2. God condemned sin practically and effectually by destroying its power and casting it out; and this is the sense especially required by the context. The law could condemn sin only in word, and could not make its condemnation effectual. Christ coming for sin not only made atonement for it by His death, but uniting man to Himself in newness of life (Rom_6:4) gave actual effect to the condemnation of sin by destroying its dominion in the flesh through the life-giving, sanctifying power of His Spirit. (Archdeacon Gifford.)

Christs holy life a living condemnation of sin

The flesh in Him was like a door constantly open to the temptations of pleasure and pain; and yet He constantly refused sin any entrance into His will and action. By this persevering and absolute exclusion He declared it evil and unworthy of existing in humanity. This was what the law, because of the flesh, which naturally sways the human will, could not realise in any man. The law could undoubtedly condemn sin on paper, but Christ condemned it in a real living human nature. Hence the reason why He must appear in flesh. For it was the very fortress where sin had established its seat that it behoved it to be attacked and conquered. Like the hero spoken of in the fable, He required Himself to descend into the infected place which He was commissioned to cleanse. Thus from the perfectly holy life of Jesus there proceeds a conspicuous condemnation of sin; and it is this moral fact, the greatest of the miracles that distinguished this life, which the Holy Ghost goes on reproducing in the life of every believer, and propagating throughout the entire race. This will be the victory gained over the law of sin (verse 2). Thus we understand the connection between the condemned of verse 3 and the no condemnation of verse 1. In His life He condemned that sin, while by remaining master of ours, would have brought it into condemnation. The condemnation of sin in Christs life is the means appointed by God to effect its destruction in ours. (Prof. Godet.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 8:3-4. For what the law could not do — Το γαρ αδυνατον του νομου, what was impossible to the Mosaic law, whether moral or ceremonial; that is, that freedom from the guilt and power of sin, and from spiritual and eternal death, which it could not minister; in that it was weak through the flesh — Through the depravity and infirmity of our fallen nature, which it was incapable of remedying or conquering. “The law was not weak or defective in itself. Its moral precepts were a perfect rule of duty, and its sanctions were sufficiently powerful to enforce obedience in those who were able to obey. But it was weak through the depravity of men’s nature, which it had neither power to remedy nor to pardon; and so could not destroy sin in men’s flesh. These defects of law are all remedied in the gospel; wherein pardon is promised to encourage the sinner to repent, and the assistance of the Spirit of God is offered, to enable him to believe and obey.” — Macknight. Accordingly it follows, God, — (Supply δυνατον εποιησε, hath made feasible, or hath done, namely, what the law could not do;) sending his own Son — Ιδιον υιον, his proper Son, his Son in a sense in which no creature is or can be his son; in the likeness of sinful flesh — Christ’s flesh was as real as ours, but it was like sinful flesh, in being exposed to pain, misery, and death: and for sin — The expression, περι αμαρτιας, here rendered, for sin, appears, from Heb 10:18, to be an elliptical phrase for προσφορα περι αμαρτιας, an offering for sin. The Son of God was sent in the likeness, both of sinful flesh, and of a sin-offering. He was like the old sin-offerings in this, that whereas they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh, he, by making a real atonement for sin, sanctifieth to the purifying of the spirit. Condemned sin in the flesh — That Isaiah , 1 st, Manifested its infinite evil, by enduring extreme sufferings, to render the pardon of it consistent with the justice and holiness of God, and the authority of his law. 2d, Gave sentence that its guilt should be cancelled, its power destroyed, and believers wholly delivered from it. And, 3d, Procured for them that deliverance. The sins of men, being imputed to, or laid on Christ, Isa 53:6, by his free consent, (he being our surety,) were condemned and punished in his flesh; and no such remarkable condemnation of sin was ever effected before, or will be again, unless in the condemnation of the finally impenitent to everlasting misery. But the apostle here seems rather to speak of the condemnation of sin, not in the flesh which Christ assumed for us, but in our persons, or in us while we are in the flesh. Now in this sense, it must be acknowledged, it was condemned in some measure under the law, as well as under the gospel; “for under the law there were many pious and holy men; but sin was condemned in their flesh, not by any power inherent in, or derived from, the law: their sanctification came from the grace of the gospel, preached to them in the covenant with Abraham, Gal 3:8, darkly set forth in the types of the law.” That the righteousness of the law — The holiness it requires, described Rom 8:5-11, might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit — Who are guided in our intentions and affections, words and actions, not by our animal appetites and passions, or by corrupt nature, but by the Word and Spirit of God. Love to God and man is the principal thing enjoined in the moral law, and is accounted by God the fulfilling of that law, Rom 13:10; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8. It must be observed, however, that “the righteousness of the law to be fulfilled in us, through the condemnation of sin in the flesh, and through our not walking according to the flesh, is not perfect obedience to [the moral law, or] any law whatever; [except that of faith and love;] for that is not attainable in the present life: but it is such a degree of faith and holiness, as believers may attain through the influence of the Spirit. And being the righteousness required in the gracious new covenant, made with mankind after the fall, and fully published in the gospel, that covenant, and the gospel in which it is published, are fitly called the law of faith, Rom 3:27; and the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, Rom 8:2; and the law of Christ, Gal 6:2; and the law of liberty, Jas 1:25; and the law foretold to go forth out of Zion, Isa 2:3; and the law for which the isles, or Gentiles, were to wait, Isa 42:4.” — Macknight. From this place Paul describes primarily the state of believers, and that of unbelievers, only to illustrate this.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Rom_8:3.—The flesh of Christ alone is sinless. “Created in the likeness of sinful flesh,” that He might be in all points tempted as men are.

Rom_8:4.—Might be fulfilled, be accomplished or done in us.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Rom_8:3-4

The method of law and the method of love.—The method of law has failed as a justifying and sanctifying force. Perhaps not failed in the divine plans; even human failure may be divine success. Law has failed “in that it was weak through the flesh.” Law could not overcome the obstructive forces of human passions, of a depraved moral nature. The method of love must now be tried; and if that fail—we may say it reverently—the divine resources are exhausted. But this method has not failed. Law cannot show one instance of success. Love can indicate many. If the method of love had triumphed in only one case, it would prove itself a success. But it can refer to multitudes. The method of love must be allowed to run the same lengthened course in human history which has been allotted to law before a verdict is pronounced; the method of love must be examined when the final roll is completed, when the vast multitude of the children of love are gathered to the home of love, and then God’s wisdom and power will be vindicated. The method of love is here exemplified and illustrated by and in:—

I. The act of sending.—“God sending His own Son”—emphasis on the words “His own.” God plucked the choice treasure from His bosom of love, and sent it forth on a strange errand; God plucked the sweetest flower from the eternal garden, and sent it forth to fill another world with its fragrance.

1. Thus the words point us to the fact of the Saviour’s pre-existence. Let us not deny the eternal existence of Christ because it is to us unknowable. Here let us rise from the known to the unknown, from a temporary to an eternal existence, and believe in that which we cannot comprehend. “In the beginning was the Word,” and this beginning is before the present system of things. It answers to that declaration in the old Testament where Wisdom, which is Christ personified, says, “The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way, before His works of old.” Here is eternal existence declared—or at least an existence which goes far beyond our powers of understanding, for it was before God’s works of old. Jesus Christ in His divine nature was not then the work of God, for He existed before all the works of God; and if Jesus be merely human, then He existed before Himself, which is absurd. And again, according to Micah, Jesus came out of Bethlehem as to His human nature, but as to His divine nature His goings forth have been from the days of eternity, from the days of old—old to us who are of yesterday; neither old nor young to Him who is “the same yesterday and to-day and for ever.” We are of yesterday, and had no previous existence. The doctrine of the migration of souls is futile, for it does not enrich consciousness or enlarge experience. Is there no growth in this migration? Why do not the great souls of the past show themselves with increased capacities in other human beings? Jesus Christ was before His birth. And His life shows a richness and a vastness which speak of pre-existence. Here is to be noted the coincidence between the Old Testament and the New, which reveal the divine unity of the Bible as proceeding from one God; for Jesus says, “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go unto the Father.” The personified Wisdom of the Old Testament and the incarnated Wisdom of the New are one. Jesus Christ was with the Father before His works of old. He came from the Father, from everlasting. Jesus Christ had a glory with the Father before the world was, the incomprehensible glory of an eternal existence, of being when there was no created being. Jesus Christ states the doctrine distinctly when He says, “Before Abraham was, I am”; or in other words, Before Abraham was I was. My existence is prior to the existence of him who gave tithes to Melchizedek. In this sense it was understood by the Jews when they took up stones to stone Him, as making Himself greater and older than Abraham. In this sense it must be understood by every intelligent student; and thus by this fact Melchizedek is a type of Christ, having neither beginning of days nor end of life. Therefore we say with St. Paul, “He is before all things, and by Him all things consist”; the universe subsists, keeps together, is held together in its present state, by the omnipotence of Jesus Christ. He is before all things, and thus had a prior existence, and is therefore divine. He is before all created things, and therefore uncreated. Our Saviour is glorious in the incomprehensibility of His eternal existence. He comes forth from eternity to save and rescue the sons of time, and with the treasures of eternity would enrich humanity. He comes forth from the sabbatic repose of eternity to the toils and anguish of time.

2. The words point us to the loving harmony which subsisted between the Father and the Son. It is to be observed that our Lord does not speak much of His own love to the Father, but rather lets it speak for itself, as all true love will. This agrees with His own utterance: “But that the world may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave Me commandment, even so I do.” And the world, looking at the Saviour’s life, at His devotion to the Father’s will, at His loving determination through all pains, agonies, and self-sacrifices to accomplish the Father’s purpose, will come to the conclusion that His love to the Father was above and beyond all human comparison. Oh that bur love were one of deeds as well as of words! John the Baptist gives an emphatic utterance as to the Father’s love of the Son. John, in bearing witness to the glory of Christ, says, “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His hands.” This is a mysterious statement, and we cannot hope fully to understand its meaning, for we only “know in part and prophesy in part,” for “we now see through a glass, darkly,” a smoked glass, and nothing is clear to the vision. Our ideas are indistinct, and the words we use for their conveyance are inadequate. Human language is imperfect to express the thoughts which we have of the things seen; how much more must it be imperfect for converse about the things that are unseen! When we speak of God the Father and God the Son by means of our feeble language, we must remember that our terms and figures are bounded, and cannot express all that we think, far less all that may be thought, on such a sublime theme. Not only is our language poor, but our thought is feeble. The words “the Father loveth the Son” are familiar words enough. “Father” and “son” are primal words. They are as roots to the vast tree of humanity. Out of them spring families, tribes, nations, vast dynasties. And yet what are they in that connection? In what sense is God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son? The Father, and yet not superior to the Son? The Son, and yet equal to the Father? We cannot tell. Sublime mystery, and yet blessed thought, that our human relationships are employed to set forth divine relationships. And the love which exists between the divine Father and the Son must be something beyond the power of our intellects to comprehend. All our notions of love, gathered from earthly manifestations, must be far from doing justice to the bright flame which illumines the divine nature. Mostly in this world love is not a pure flame—too often it is but “fantasies’ hot fire, whose wishes soon as granted fly”; but God’s love is like Himself, free from all imperfections; and to change our figure, it flows from Himself a life-giving stream, filling heaven with joy and with glory, and then shaping for itself other channels along which to send its vast overflowings. And oh, how the love-stream went out towards the Son of God! The earthly father loves the son by virtue of the subsisting relationship. A magical influence is that which binds the father to the son, and we cannot analyse this subtle emotion. It is divinely implanted, and is the reflection of God’s love to the Son. That love refreshed the Son of God in a past eternity. Before time commenced its solemn march, in a far back eternity, God loved the Son; for Jesus was ever the Father’s delight, rejoicing always before Him. Through the power of this love we are to suppose them moving in harmony and dwelling together in sabbatic repose. For true love, then, there must be harmony of nature,—

“The secret sympathy,

The silver link, the silken tie,

Which, heart to heart, and mind to mind,

In body and in soul can bind.”

Now it is almost impossible to secure this perfect oneness in human relationships. But between God the Father and God the Son there could be no disparity of either tastes or tendencies or years. They are one in nature, though two in person. Their perfect harmony is seen most strikingly in the scheme of human redemption. God the Father beheld human misery with divine compassion. When He was devising schemes whereby His banished ones might not be expelled from Him, God the Son said, I delight to do Thy will, O God. Here am I; send Me. I am ready to go, travelling in the greatness of My strength, mighty to save. We are not then to view the loving Father as a mere vindictive God, from whom the Son extracts salvation. The lovo of the Father as well as of the Son are equally manifest in the plan of redemption. There was perfect harmony in heaven, and this harmony between the Father and the Son is communicative and productive of harmony among the angelic hosts. In confirmation of this Jesus Christ says, “Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again.” In loving harmony they dwell together in eternity. And as we think of this loving harmony, we are induced to reflect how much is involved in the expression, “God sending His own Son.”

II. By the manner of sending.—“In the likeness of sinful flesh.” How great is Jesus Christ, and yet how He humbled Himself and took upon Himself the form of a servant! He assumed a true human nature. He was bone of Our hone and flesh of our flesh. In all things, sin excepted, He was made like unto His brethren. He was in the world identifying Himself with its deepest needs and highest interests. Ho had indeed infinite pity for the infinite pathos of human life. The tears of the world’s Creator are the world’s great boon. They crystallise themselves into jewels of undying hope for humanity. They mingle themselves with the world’s tears, and these lose more than half their bitterness. The Saviour’s tears flow on fields of mourning, and there spring up harvests of joy—on valleys of death, and they bloom with the sweet life of light and immortality. He did not shut Himself up in seclusion, but went about doing good. Christ was more concerned to show His divinity by the attribute of love than by the attribute of either omnipotence or omniscience. Omnipotence belonged unto Christ, but He ever kept it in check. He spake of His power, but seemed to speak of it as if to show to men how great was the restraining force of that love which could hold omnipotence in chains. Christ had power and love, and in the conflict love was allowed the victor’s place. Our Lord was omniscient, but He seldom used the attribute. Omnipotence was kept in abeyance; omniscience did not often appear; love never slept.

III. By the purpose of the sending.—“And for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

1. He destroyed sin in the flesh by a holy life. It is said that the direction which Socrates gave to philosophical inquiry was expressed in the saying that he brought “philosophy down from heaven to earth.” But Jesus Christ did a greater work, for He brought goodness down from heaven to earth, embodied it in His own person, and manifested it in all His actions. Socrates dreamt philosophical visions; but Jesus worked out schemes of benevolence, showed Himself the rare and radiant vision of goodness incarnate. We by no means undervalue Socrates and his work, and yet we must feel that he stands at an immense distance behind that vision of goodness which gladdened our sphere when Jesus Christ moved, full of grace and of truth, a being too good for earth, whom earth neglected and rejected, and yet by whose presence earth has been highly blessed, and to whose action earth owes a more glorious aspect. Some are bold enough to place Jesus Christ on a level only with Socrates, and in doing this they forget the unchallenged purity of the Saviour’s life, and do not bear in mind the facts brought before us in the utterances of Jeremy Taylor: “The best and most excellent of the old lawgivers and philosophers among the Greeks had an alloy of viciousness, and could not be exemplary all over: some were noted for flatterers, as Plato and Aristippus; some for incontinency, as Aristotle, Epicurus, Zeno, Theognis, Plato, and Aristippus again; and Socrates, whom their oracle affirmed to be the wisest and most perfect man, yet was by Porphyry noted for extreme intemperance of anger, both in words and actions; and those Romans who were offered to them for examples, although they were great in reputation, yet they also had great vices; Brutus dipped his hand in the blood of Cæsar, his prince, and his father by love, endearments, and adoption; and Cato was but a wise man all day—at night he was used to drink wine too liberally; and both he and Socrates did give their wives unto their friends; the philosopher and the censor were procurers of their wives’ unchastity; and yet these were the best among the Gentiles.” These charges were made by writers who lived very close upon the time at which the men flourished of whom they wrote, and yet an attempt at refutation was not made. And yet we do not know of any attempt to convict Jesus Christ of immorality near to the time in which He flourished. The verdict which Pilate uttered, “I find no fault in Him,” was practically unchallenged by the chief priests, scribes, Sadducees, Pharisees, and angry Jews. It was a verdict which all felt to be just, and which brought conviction to every mind. If there had been but one spot on this Sun of righteousness, there were not wanting men of microscopic power to find it out. Plate’s wife referred to Jesus as a just man. The centurion and they that were with him said, “Truly this was the Son of God,” “Certainly this was a righteous man.” The centurion had the conception of a divine-human, holy being. He felt that Jesus was just in claiming to be the Son of God, and he confessed further that Jesus was holy, and none were present to contradict. The suborned blasphemers, the two false witnesses, could only declare, “This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.” Jesus Christ stood the trying test of His own time, of the envenomed spirits that sought His destruction, who, if there had been any discovery to make, would have succeeded in the attempt; but His moral glory was superior to the fangs of jealousy and of wickedness. Thus the sanctity and holiness of Jesus were glorious in these darknesses, “as a beauty, artificially covered with a thin cloud of Cyprus, transmits its excellency to the eye, made more greedy and apprehensive by that imperfect and weak restraint.” Thus were found confessors and admirers even in the midst of those despites which were done Him upon the opposing designs of malice and contradictory ambition. Eighteen hundred years have passed away, and it has been reserved for a modern French writer to draw sensual pictures of the lascivious dalliances of the holy Jesus with beautiful Jewish maidens.[2] But the picture is a proof rather of the evil mind that gave it birth than of any reality in the case it is supposed to represent. If there had been anything of this kind, we may be sure that it would not have waited eighteen hundred years for the pen of a modern romancer to reveal. The opponents of Jesus, whether political, intellectual, or religious, must be crushed; while the adherents of Jesus shall live and flourish by the power of His undying life and by virtue of His ever-increasing justice. The Sun of Righteousness sails on in sublime tranquillity, shedding His beneficent beams in spite of telescopic glare, of the romancer’s daring, and of the sceptic’s bold denunciations. Yes, of all the great and good men who have walked this earth, dignified the race, and whose names have adorned the pages of history, Jesus Christ is by far the noblest, not only on account of His intellectual greatness, though here He was without rival, but on account of His pre-eminent goodness. His life was a thrilling record of goodness, shining through every feature, suggesting every thought, ennobling every action, clothing every utterance with beauty, and endowing Him with superhuman influence. So that we may indeed stand before Him and say, Thou art fairer than the sons of men,—fairer not in physical form, though thus He was comely; fairer not in mental capacity, though thus He was mighty; but fairer in holiness and in purity. So fair that, if we range the fields and gardens for types, we must gather the loveliest of flowers, for He is the rose of Sharon and the lily of the valley; if we explore the mineral world, we must take the most precious, for He is the treasure hid in the field and the pearl of great price; if we ascend to the heavens and travel from star to star, we must fix upon the most brilliant, for He is the bright morning star; if we retrace our course and go back to Israel’s history, we must think of Israel’s noblest characters, for Moses the world’s greatest lawgiver, Aaron the head of the priesthood, and David the noblest of Israel’s kings and the world’s richest poet, are types of David’s greater Son. Earth can give but faint types of Christ’s moral beauty, and He will transcend all the glories of heaven.

2. He destroyed sin in the flesh by a painful death. “The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many,” as the climax of His self-sacrificing ministry. Jesus Christ was a man of sorrows, and yet He moved with sublime tranquillity along the highways of life, and thus He was the best helper the children of sorrows ever met as well as a welcome guest at the feast. It is true that in the final issue sorrow broke His heart. This sorrow, however, was not His sorrow as a man, but as a mediator. We can neither climb the heights nor fathom the depths of the Saviour’s sorrow in the period of His crucifixion. In that one fearful cup of sorrow was compressed the world’s sin. He suffered for others in a sense in which no other has suffered, and therefore the heart-breaking nature of that calamity. If He had appeared in this world but not as a mediator, sorrow would have touched and yet would not have destroyed. Love to the eternal Father and love to the race induced Jesus Christ to tread the course of the lonely sufferer. And the solitariness of Jesus brings to our view the greatness of His love most vividly. As in lonely prayer He agonises on the mountain’s side, His mighty love comes beaming from His person and clothes the barren mountain with celestial beauty. When in lonely grandeur He treads the billows, they gleam with the brightness of His ineffable love. When in His solitary struggles He sweats as it were great drops of blood, His love transforms for devout souls the bead-drops of sweat into pearls radiating divine colours of attractive brilliance. When He cries, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” that cry is but the sad yet gracious musical strain which indicates the wondrous force of His all-mastering passion. The heavens were darkened, the sun was eclipsed, the earth reeled in its steady course, as if in astonishment that love so vast should meet a doom so fearful. No wonder that all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, beholding love incarnate rejected, crucified, tortured, beholding the way in which men treat the embodied perfection of virtue, smote their breasts and returned sorrowing! No wonder that the graves were opened, and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, as if to see if it were indeed true that love could find so ungrateful a return, and that none were found so enamoured of divine love’s charms as to rally round the Saviour in His defence and to His protection! The Saviour’s crucifixion is indeed calculated to give us an exalted view of the force of the Saviour’s love; but it is also calculated to give a depressing view of the degradation of our humanity. The darkness of earth’s sins and miseries and want of power to appreciate the highest goodness clouded over and eclipsed the light of heaven’s goodness. Earth has no darker sin, history has no blacker page, humanity has no fouler spot, than that of the Saviour’s crucifixion.

[2] “Les jeunes filles qui auraient peut-être consenti à l’aimer,” etc.

IV. By the gracious results of the sending.—Earth was darkened by the Saviour’s crucifixion, but through the darkness came ever-expanding streams of light. Thus Jesus was sin’s destroyer. Thus was opened up a way for the justification and sanctification of those who “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” We mourn that our sins crucified the Lord of light and of glory; but we rejoice that out of the sinless Sufferer’s offering arises the moral betterment and enrichment of mankind. Let us show our true gratitude by not crucifying the Son of God afresh, by triumphing over sin, by walking after the Spirit of light and of purity.

The coming of God’s own Son in the flesh.—The third verse may be read literally, and more intelligibly, by reversing the order of the clauses, thus: “God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh—a thing which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh.” Without entering on many collateral controversies, ancient or modern, which these words may suggest, we observe that the great lesson conveyed is that there was something which the law could not do, and which the incarnation of the Son of God did. He sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Not in sinful flesh, but “in the likeness of it.” Does this mean that Christ’s nature was a mere likeness of humanity? Surely, to put this question is to answer it; if Christ’s manhood were not real, then there is no solid footing for faith, hope, and charity on this stricken earth. But let us mark the very words of Holy Writ. God sent His Son in the likeness—not of flesh, but—of sinful flesh. It was in its very essence humanity; but it was not in essence sinful humanity. But it never was stained with sin, and He could not know the bitterness of remorse. And yet He knew that hiding of the Father’s face, that darkness of desolation, which is for us the first, last, worst result of transgression. I believe that though He never sinned He was really tempted to sin; and that therefore there must have been something in the nature of the God-man upon which the evil one could lay hold; that the chords which bound the heart of holy Jesus to the Father’s bosom were not so screened from assault, but that the devil seized and strained them till they moaned as though they would break. Yet were they not broken. How this was we cannot tell; but I will admit all mysteries and take my stand on the Scriptures which tell us that He suffered in soul and body from the mighty tempter’s power; suffered, as the strong wrestler suffers ere he hurls his antagonist upon the ground, as the soldier suffers ere he can rest his reeking sword on the trampled sod where the dead foe is stretched. He came in the flesh, but only in the likeness of sinful flesh. His was a true, a tried, but not a sinful humanity. What, then, did this mission of God’s Son accomplish that was beyond the power of the law? We answer:—

I. It showed that human nature is not essentially or originally sinful.—Into our world, thus explaining away its iniquity and shortcoming, Christ has brought vivid picture of holiness in His own life, teaching us that the law of God is at once true to the nature of man and to the nature of God. For when men looked at Him as He fulfilled the law, and saw how good He was, how pure and sinless, the first thought was, “How true a man!” and the next, “How divine!” There were indeed times when the sense of His perfection was insupportable, and the cry of the stricken heart was, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” Yet even this very cry led up to the confident conviction which said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

II. But, further, the mission of God’s Son in the flesh also enabled us to see at once the hatefulness of sin and the loveliness of holiness.—We can now hardly realise what a change in the nature of religious profession Christ has made. We now look upon a world into which Christ’s life has been infused, upon men and women who know that He is at once their model and their strength. But this is the result of a revolution. There was nothing in the world when Christ came, nothing in known history, to attract men to what we now understand by “holiness,” and gentle words never heralded such a revolution as did that cry of the great Teacher, “Take up My yoke and learn of Me.”

III. But, further, the mission of God’s Son effected the severance of the sinner from his sin.—That, as we have already seen, was what the law could not effect. But Christ has brought it about in fact and in our consciousness. It is in this strange division between the sinner and his sin that the power of Christ’s cross is seen.

IV. The mission of God’s Son thus brings it to pass that “the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”—Although this be the result in the blessed experience of very many, it is a fact resting on a further mystery. And some who can go along with us in what has been already said may now stop in uncertainty. The present life of Christ is imparted to me. It is not only that my sins are forgiven, but that the power of sin is taken away. It is not only that if I were like Christ I should be happy, but it is that Christ comes into me, and by His Spirit renews me day by day. Life could never come by law, and therefore righteousness could never come by law; but now life comes to men by Christ, a new life,—a life of holy thoughts and pure desires; a life of love, joy, patience, peace; a life which is like Christ’s life, rather which is Christ’s life. What is it to you and me that Christ has come? Is it the power of a new life? Is your religion only in your Bible, or is it in your heart? Is your Saviour in heaven or in you?—A. H. Charteris.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Rom_8:3-4

The presence of the Son proclaims the death of sin.—“Condemned sin”: proclaimed the doom of sin. Since sin has been represented as a ruler, its doom must be dethronement. “In the flesh.” By sending His own Son in a body of flesh like that in which sin had set up its throne, and by sending Him because of sin and to save us from sin, God proclaimed in the midst of the empire of sin that that empire will be overthrown. The birth of Christ was an invasion of a province which sin had seduced into revolt and brought under its own sway. When we see the King’s Son enter the revolted province without opposition, and know that He has come because of the revolt, we are sure that the King is both able and determined to overthrow the rule of the usurper. The presence of the King’s Son proclaims the usurper’s coming dethronement.—Beet.

The Son’s pre-existence.—The term “sending,” by itself, would not necessarily imply the pre-existence of Christ; for it may apply to the appearance of a mere man charged with a divine mission. But the notion of pre-existence necessarily follows from the relation of this verb to the expression “His own Son,” especially if we take account of the regimen: “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” It is evident that, in the view of one who speaks thus, the existence of this Son preceded His human existence. The expression “His own Son,” literally “the Son of Himself,” forbids us to give to the title “Son” either the meaning of “eminent man,” or “theocratic king,” or even “Messiah.” It necessarily refers to this Son’s personal relation to God, and indicates that Him whom God sends He takes from His own bosom. Paul marks the contrast between the nature of the envoy (the true Son of God) and the manner of His appearing here below: “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” This expression “sinful flesh” (strictly, “flesh of sin”) has been understood by many, especially most recently by Holsten, as implying the idea that sin is inherent in the flesh—that is to say, in the bodily nature. It would follow therefrom—and this critic accepts the consequence—that Jesus Himself, according to Paul, was not exempt from the natural sin inseparable from the substance of the body. Only Holsten adds that this objective sin never controlled the will of Jesus, nor led Him to a positive transgression. The pre-existing divine Spirit of Christ constantly kept the flesh in obedience. We have already seen (Rom_6:6) that if the body is to the soul a cause of its fall, it is only so because the will itself is no longer in its normal state. If by union with God it were inwardly upright and firm, it would control the body completely; but being itself since the Fall controlled by selfishness, it seeks a means of satisfaction in the body, and the latter takes advantage therefrom to usurp a malignant dominion over it. Thus, and thus only, can Paul connect the notion of sin so closely with that of “body” or “flesh.” Otherwise he would be obliged to make God Himself, as the creator of the body, the author of sin. What proves in our very passage that he is not at all regarding sin as an attribute inseparable from the flesh is the expression he uses in speaking of Jesus: “in the likeness of a flesh of sin.” Had he meant to express the idea ascribed to him by Holsten, why speak of likeness? Why not say simply “in a flesh of sin”—that is to say, sinful like ours. While affirming similarity of substance between the flesh of Jesus and ours, the very thing the apostle wishes here is to set aside the idea of likeness in quality (in respect of sin). This is done clearly by the expression which he has chosen. Thus we understand the connection between the “condemned” of Rom_8:3 and the “no condemnation” (Rom_8:1). In His life He condemned that sin which, by remaining master of ours, would have brought into it condemnation. The relation between Rom_8:3-4 becomes also very simple. The condemnation of sin in Christ’s life is the means appointed by God to effect its destruction in ours.—Godet.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Romans

CHRIST CONDEMNING SIN

Rom 8:3.

In the first verse of this chapter we read that ‘There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.’ The reason of that is, that they are set free from the terrible sequence of cause and effect which constitutes ‘the law of sin and death’; and the reason why they are freed from that awful sequence by the power of Christ is, because He has ‘condemned sin in the flesh.’ The occurrence of the two words ‘condemnation’ {Rom 8:1} and ‘condemned’ {Rom 8:3} should be noted. Sin is personified as dwelling in the flesh, which expression here means, not merely the body, but unregenerate human nature. He has made his fortress there, and rules over it all. The strong man keeps his house and his goods are in peace. He laughs to scorn the attempts of laws and moralities of all sorts to cast him out. His dominion is death to the human nature over which he tyrannises. Condemnation is inevitable to the men over whom he rules. They or he must perish. If he escape they die. If he could be slain they might live. Christ comes, condemns the tyrant, and casts him out. So, he being condemned, we are acquitted; and he being slain there is no death for us. Let us try to elucidate a little further this great metaphor by just pondering the two points prominent in it-Sin tyrannising over human nature and resisting all attempts to overcome it, and Christ’s condemnation and casting out of the tyrant.

I. Sin tyrannising over human nature, and resisting all attempts to overcome it.

Paul is generalising his own experience when he speaks of the condemnation of an intrusive alien force that holds unregenerate human nature in bondage. He is writing a page of his own autobiography, and he is sure that all the rest of us have like pages in ours. Heart answereth unto heart as in a mirror. If each man is a unity, the poison must run through all his veins and affect his whole nature. Will, understanding, heart, must all be affected and each in its own way by the intruder; and if men are a collective whole, each man’s experience is repeated in his brother’s.

The Apostle is equally transcribing his own experience when in the text he sadly admits the futility of all efforts to shake the dominion of sin. He has found in his own case that even the loftiest revelation in the Mosaic law utterly fails in the attempt to condemn sin. This is true not only in regard to the Mosaic law but in regard to the law of conscience, and to moral teachings of any kind. It is obvious that all such laws do condemn sin in the sense that they solemnly declare God’s judgment about it, and His sentence on it; but in the sense of real condemnation, or casting out, and depriving sin of its power, they all are impotent. The law may deter from overt acts or lead to isolated acts of obedience; it may stir up antagonism to sin’s tyranny, but after that it has no more that it can do. It cannot give the purity which it proclaims to be necessary, nor create the obedience which it enjoins. Its thunders roll terrors, and no fruitful rain follows them to soften the barren soil. There always remains an unbridged gulf between the man and the law.

And this is what Paul points to in saying that it ‘was weak through the flesh.’ It is good in itself, but it has to work through the sinful nature. The only powers to which it can appeal are those which are already in rebellion. A discrowned king whose only forces to conquer his rebellious subjects are the rebels themselves, is not likely to regain his crown. Because law brings no new element into our humanity, its appeal to our humanity has little more effect than that of the wind whistling through an archway. It appeals to conscience and reason by a plain declaration of what is right; to will and understanding by an exhibition of authority; to fears and prudence by plainly setting forth consequences. But what is to be done with men who know what is right but have no wish to do it, who believe that they ought but will not, who know the consequences but ‘choose rather the pleasures of sin for a season,’ and shuffle the future out of their minds altogether? This is the essential weakness of all law. The tyrant is not afraid so long as there is no one threatening his reign, but the unarmed herald of a discrowned king. His citadel will not surrender to the blast of the trumpet blown from Sinai.

II. Christ’s condemnation and casting out of the tyrant.

The Apostle points to a triple condemnation.

‘In the likeness of sinful flesh,’ Jesus condemns sin by His own perfect life. That phrase, ‘the likeness of the flesh of sin,’ implies the real humanity of Jesus, and His perfect sinlessness; and suggests the first way in which He condemns sin in the flesh. In His life He repeats the law in a higher fashion. What the one spoke in words the other realised in ‘loveliness of perfect deeds’; and all men own that example is the mightiest preacher of righteousness, and that active goodness draws to itself reverence and sways men to imitate. But that life lived in human nature gives a new hope of the possibilities of that nature even in us. The dream of perfect beauty ‘in the flesh’ has been realised. What the Man Christ Jesus was, He was that we may become. In the very flesh in which the tyrant rules, Jesus shows the possibility and the loveliness of a holy life.

But this, much as it is, is not all. There is another way in which Christ condemns sin in the flesh, and that is by His perfect sacrifice. To this also Paul points in the phrase, ‘the flesh of sin.’ The example of which we have been speaking is much, but it is weak for the very same reason for which law is weak-that it operates only through our nature as it is; and that is not enough. Sin’s hold on man is twofold-one that it has perverted his relation to God, and another that it has corrupted his nature. Hence there is in him a sense of separation from God and a sense of guilt. Both of these not only lead to misery, but positively tend to strengthen the dominion of sin. The leader of the mutineers keeps them true to him by reminding them that the mutiny laws decree death without mercy. Guilt felt may drive to desperation and hopeless continuance in wrong. The cry, ‘I am so bad that it is useless to try to be better,’ is often heard. Guilt stifled leads to hardening of heart, and sometimes to desire and riot. Guilt slurred over by some easy process of absolution may lead to further sin. Similarly separation from God is the root of all evil, and thoughts of Him as hard and an enemy, always lead to sin. So if the power of sin in the past must be cancelled, the sense of guilt must be removed, and the wall of partition between man and God thrown down. What can law answer to such a demand? It is silent; it can only say, ‘What is written is written.’ It has no word to speak that promises ‘the blotting out of the handwriting that is against us’; and through its silence one can hear the mocking laugh of the tyrant that keeps his castle.

But Christ has come ‘for sin’; that is to say His Incarnation and Death had relation to, and had it for their object to remove, human sin. He comes to blot out the evil, to bring God’s pardon. The recognition of His sacrifice supplies the adequate motive to copy His example, and they who see in His death God’s sacrifice for man’s sin, cannot but yield themselves to Him, and find in obedience a delight. Love kindled at His love makes likeness and transmutes the outward law into an inward ‘spirit of life in Christ Jesus.’

Still another way by which God ‘condemns sin in the flesh’ is pointed to by the remaining phrase of our text, ‘sending His own Son.’ In the beginning of this epistle Jesus is spoken of as ‘being declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness’; and we must connect that saying with our text, and so think of Christ’s bestowal of His perfect gift to humanity of the Spirit which sanctifies as being part of His condemnation of sin in the flesh. Into the very region where the tyrant rules, the Son of God communicates a new nature which constitutes a real new power. The Spirit operates on all our faculties, and redeems them from the bondage of corruption. All the springs in the land are poisoned; but a new one, limpid and pure, is opened. By the entrance of the Spirit of holiness into a human spirit, the usurper is driven from the central fortress: and though he may linger in the outworks and keep up a guerilla warfare, that is all that he can do. We never truly apprehend Christ’s gift to man until we recognise that He not merely ‘died for our sins,’ but lives to impart the principle of holiness in the gift of His Spirit. The dominion of that imparted Spirit is gradual and progressive. The Canaanite may still be in the land, but a growing power, working in and through us, is warring against all in us that still owns allegiance to that alien power, and there can be no end to the victorious struggle until the whole body, soul, and spirit, be wholly under the influence of the Spirit that dwelleth in us, and nothing shall hurt or destroy in what shall then be all God’s holy mountain.

Such is, in the most general terms, the statement of what Christ does ‘for us’; and the question comes to be the all-important one for each, Do I let Him do it for me? Remember the alternative. There must either be condemnation for us, or for the sin that dwelleth in us. There is no condemnation for them who are in Christ Jesus, because there is condemnation for the sin that dwells in them. It must he slain, or it will slay us. It must be cast out, or it will cast us out from God. It must be separated from us, or it will separate us from Him. We need not be condemned, but if it be not condemned, then we shall be.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8:3 our sinful nature: See study note on 6:19. • in a body like the bodies we sinners have: Jesus identified with sinful people so that he could be their representative and redeem them. Paul also implies that Jesus’ incarnate nature was not exactly like ours; born of a virgin through the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus did not inherit a sinful nature from Adam. • a sacrifice for our sins: In the Greek Old Testament, this phrase frequently describes a sin offering, and three of the eight New Testament occurrences also have this meaning (Heb 10:6, 8; 13:11). Christ was the sin offering that brought forgiveness and turned away God’s wrath. God condemned sin in Christ, our substitute, so that we could escape condemnation.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 8:3. Τὸ) This word has the force of an adjective [or epithet], to be simply explained thus: God has accomplished the condemnation of sin, which was beyond the power of the law; God condemned sin in the flesh (a thing which the law could not do, namely, condemn sin, while the sinner is saved). Τὸ ἀδύνατον, what was impossible, has an active signification in this passage; and the paraphrase of Luther is according to the meaning of the apostle.—See Wolfii Cur. on this place.—τοῦ νόμου) of the law, not only ceremonial, but also moral; for if the moral law were without this impossible [impossibility of condemning sin, yet saving the sinner], there would have been no need that the Son of God should have been sent. Furthermore, the word impossible, a privation [of something once held], supposes that the thing was previously possessed: formerly the law was able to afford righteousness and life, ch. Rom 7:10. Hence it is that man so willingly follows the traces of that first path even after the fall.—ἑαυτοῦ) ἴδιον, Rom 8:32. His own, over whom sin and death had no power.—πέμψας, sending) This word denotes a sort of separation, as it were, or estrangement of the Son from the Father, that He might be the Mediator.—ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, in the likeness of the flesh of sin [sinful flesh]) The construction is with κατέκρινε, condemned [not as Engl. Vers. His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh]. We, along with our flesh, utterly tainted as it was with sin, ought to have been consigned to death; but God, in the likeness of that flesh (for justice required the likeness), that is, in the flesh of His own Son, which was real and at the same time holy, and (that too) for sin, condemned that sin (which was) in (our) flesh,[86] that we might be made free; ἐν [before ὉΜΟΙΏΜΑΤΙ] is construed with condemned, compare by, ch. Rom 7:4 [Dead by (διὰ) the body of Christ].—ΠΕΡῚ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑς ΤῊΝ ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑΝ, for sin, sin) The substantive is here repeated, as in Luk 11:17, note, when the house is divided, the house falls. But the figure ploce[87] is here added, as is indicated by the use of the article only in the latter place [on the second employment of the word ἉΜΑΡΤΊΑ]. These two terms mutually refer to one another, as do the words the likeness of flesh and flesh, περὶ, for: περὶ ἁμαρτίας is equivalent to a noun, as in Psalms 40 (39):6; Heb 10:6; Heb 10:8. But here, in the epistle to the Romans, I explain it thus: God condemned sin on this account, because it is sin. Sin was condemned as sin. So sin is put twice in the same signification (not in a double signification as happens in an antanaclasis), but the article τὴν adds an epitasis.[88]—ΚΑΤΈΚΡΙΝΕ, condemned) took away, finished, put an end to, destroyed all its strength, deprived sin of its power (compare the word impossible above [What the law was powerless to do, God had power to do, and deprived the law and sin of their power]—sin which was laid on the Son of God. For the execution of the sentence also follows the condemnation of sin. It is the opposite of the expression to justify, Rom 8:1; ch. Rom 5:18, and 2Co 3:9.

[86] God condemned that sin, which was in our flesh, in the likeness of that sinful flesh, [i.e. in His incarnate Son,] and that too, for sin.

[87] See Appendix. The same word repeated, once expressing the simple idea of the word, next expressing an attribute of it.

[88] See Appendix. Epitasis, when to a word, which has been previously used, there is added, on its being used again, some word augmenting its force.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_8:3. An illustration justifying the ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθ. κ.τ.λ., just asserted, by a description of the powerfully effective actual arrangement, which God has made for the accomplishment of what to the law was impossible.

τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου is an absolute nominative, prefixing a judgment on the following κατέκρινε κ.τ.λ. For the impossible thing of the law

God condemned, etc. That is, God condemned sin in the flesh, which was a thing of impossibility on the part of the law. See Krüger, § 57. 10, 12. Comp. also Heb_8:1, and on Luk_21:6; Wis_16:17; Kühner, II. 1, p. 42. It could only be accusative, if we should assume a general verb (like ἐποίησε) out of what follows, which would, however, be an arbitrary course (in opposition to the view of Erasmus, Luther, and others). The prefixing τ. γ. ἀδύν. τ. ν. has rhetorical emphasis, in contrast with the ἐν Χ. Ἰ. in Rom_8:2. Comp. Dissen, ad Pind. Pyth. iv. 152. On the genitive, comp. Epist. ad Diogn. 9 : τὸ ἀδύνατον τῆς ἡμετέρας φύσεως, what our nature could not do. By a harsh hyperbaton Th. Schott takes a sense out of the passage, which it does not bear: because the impotence of the law became still weaker through the flesh. Erroneous is also Hofmanns view: the impotence of the law lay or consisted therein, that it was weak through the flesh. The abstract sense of powerlesness, or incapacity, is not borne by τὸ ἀδύνατον at all; but it indicates that which the subject (here the νόμος) is not in a position for, what is impossible to it. See especially Plat. Hipp. maj. p. 295 E; comp. Rom_9:22; Xen. Hist. i. 4. 6 : ἀπὸ τοῦ τῆς πόλεως δυνατοῦ, i.e. from what the city is in a position to tender. Moreover, since the words taken independently, with Hofmann, would only contain a preparatory thought for what follows, Paul would not have had asyndetically ὁ Θεός, but must have proceeded by a marking of the contrast, consequently with ὁ δὲ Θεός; so that these words, down to κατὰ πνεῦμα in Rom_8:4, would still have been in connection with γάρ. And even apart from this, the supplying of the substantive verb would at most only have been indicated for the reader in the event of the proposition having been a general one with ἐστί understood, and consequently if ἀσθενεῖ, and not ἨΣΘΈΝΕΙ, were read.

ἘΝ ᾯ ἨΣΘ. ΔΙᾺ Τ. ΣΑΡΚ.] because it was weak (unable to condemn sin) through the flesh, as is described in chap. 7. On ἐν ᾧ, comp. 1Co_4:4; Joh_16:30; Winer, p. 362 [E. T. 484]. It is our causal in that; διὰ τ. σαρκ. is the cause bringing about the ἠσθένει: through the reacting influence of the flesh, Rom_7:18 ff.

ὁ Θεὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ κ.τ.λ.] God has, by the fact that He sent His own Son in the likeness (see on Rom_1:23) of sinful flesh, and on account of sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that is, God has deposed sin from its rule in the σάρξ (its previous sphere of power), thereby that He sent His own Son into the world in a phenomenal existence similar to the sinful corporeo-psychical human nature.

The participle ΠΈΜΨΑς is not an act that preceded the κατέκρινε (Hofmann, referring it to the supernatural birth); on the contrary, God has effected the ΚΑΤΆΚΡΙΣΙς in and with the having sent the Son. Respecting this use of the aorist participle, comp. on Act_1:24; Eph_1:5; Rom_4:20.

ἑαυτοῦ] strengthens the relation to ἘΝ ὉΜ. ς. ἉΜ., and so enhances the extraordinary and energetic character of the remedial measure adopted by God. Comp. Rom_8:32. We may add, that in the case of ἙΑΥΤΟῦ, as in that of ΠΈΜΨΑς (comp. Gal_4:4) and ἘΝ ὉΜ. ς. ἉΜ. (comp. Php_2:7), the conception of the pre-existence and metaphysical Sonship of Christ is to be recognised (in opposition to Hofmann); so that the previous ΜΟΡΦῊ ΘΕΟῦ forms the background, although, in that case, the supernatural generation is by no means a necessary presupposition (comp. on Rom_1:3 f.). See generally, Ernesti, Urspr. d. Sünde, I. p. 235 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 317.

ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας] in the likeness of sinful flesh; ἁμαρτ. is the genitive of quality, as in Rom_6:6. He might indeed have come ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ, Php_2:6. But no: God so sent His own Son, that He appeared in a form of existence which resembled the fleshly human nature affected by sin. The ἐν indicates in what material mode of appearance God caused His sent Son to emerge. He came in flesh (1Jn_4:2), and was manifested in flesh (1Ti_3:16). Yet He appeared not in sinful flesh, which is otherwise the bodily phenomenal nature of all men. Moreover, His appearance was neither merely bodily, without the ψυχή (Zeller), which, on the contrary, necessarily belongs to the idea of the σάρξ; nor docetic (Krehl; comp. Baurs Gesch. d. 3. erst. Jahrh. p. 310), which latter error was already advanced by Marcion; but it consisted of the general bodily material of humanity, to which, however, in so far as the latter was of sinful quality, it was not equalized, butbecause without that qualityonly conformed. Comp. Php_2:7; Heb_2:14; Heb_4:15. The contrast presupposed in the specially chosen expression is not the heavenly spirit-nature of Christ (Pfleiderer)to which the mere ἐν σαρκί, or ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπου, as in Php_2:7, would have correspondedbut rather holy unsinfulness.

The following κ. περὶ ἁμαρτ. adds to the How of the sending (ἐν ὁμ. σαρκ. ἁμαρτ.) the Wherefore. The emphasis is accordingly on περί: and for sin, on account of sin,which is to be left in its generality; for the following κατέκρινε κ.τ.λ. brings out something special, which God has done with reference to the ἁμαρτία by the fact that He sent Christ περὶ ἁμαρτίας. We are therefore neither to refer περὶ ἁμαρτ., which affirms by what the sending of the Son was occasioned, exclusively to the expiation (Origen, Calvin, Melancthon, and many others, including Koppe, Böhme, Usteri; comp. Baumgarten-Crusius), in which case θυσίαν (Lev_7:37 al.; Psa_40:6; Heb_10:6; Heb_10:18) was supplied; nor, with Theophylact, Castalio, and others, also Maier and Bisping, exclusively to the destruction and doing away of sin. It contains rather the whole category of the relations in which the sending of Christ was appointed to stand to human sin, which included therefore its expiation as well as the breaking of its power. The latter, however, is thereupon brought into prominence, out of that general category, by κατέκρινε κ.τ.λ. as the element specially coming into view. Hilgenfeld, in his Zeitschr. 1871, p. 186 f., erroneously, as regards both the language and the thought (since Christ was the real atoning sacrifice, Rom_3:25), makes καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτ., which latter he takes in the sense of sin-offering, also to depend on ἐν ὁμοιώματι.

κατέκρινε τ. ἁμ.] This condemnation of sin (the latter conceived as principle and power) is that which was impossible on the part of the law, owing to the hindrance of the flesh. It is erroneous, therefore, to take it as: He exhibited sin as worthy of condemnation (Erasmus, de Dieu, Eckermann), and: He punished sin (Castalio, Pareus, Carpzov, and others, including Koppe, Rückert, Usteri; comp. Olshausen, and Köstlin in the Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. 1856, p. 115). Impossible to the law was only such a condemnation of sin, as should depose the latter from the sway which it had hitherto maintained; consequently: He made sin forfeit its dominion. This de facto judicial condemnation (a sense which, though with different modifications in the analysis of the idea conveyed by κατέκρ., is retained by Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Valla, Beza, Piscator, Estius, Bengel, Reiche, Köllner, Winzer, Fritzsche, Baur, Krehl, de Wette, Maier, Umbreit, Ewald, and others) is designated by κατέκρινε, without our modifying its verbal meaning into interfecit (Grotius, Reiche, Glöckler, and others), in connection with which Fritzsche finds this death of the ἁμαρτία presented as mors imaginaria, contained in the physical death of Christ. Various expositors, and even Philippi, mix up the here foreign idea of atonement (to blot out by atoning); comp. also Tholuck and Hofmann. The expression ΚΑΤΈΚΡΙΝΕ is purposely chosen in reference to κατάκριμα in Rom_8:1, but denotes the actual condemnation, which consisted in the dominion of the ἁμαρτία being done away,its power was lost, and therewith Gods sentence was pronounced upon it, as it were the staff broken over it. Comp. on Joh_16:11; and see Hofmanns Schriftb. II. 1, p. 355, and Th. Schott, p. 286. Yet Hofmann now discovers Gods actual condemnation of sin (the actual declaration that it is contrary to what is on His part rightful, that it should have man like a bond-serf under its control) in the emancipation of those who are under sin by bestowal of the Spirit,a view by which what follows is anticipated, and that which is the divine aim of the κατέκρινε is included in the notion of it.

Observe further the thrice-repeated ἁμαρτία; the last alone, however, which personifies sin as a power, has the article.

ἘΝ Τῇ ΣΑΡΚΊ] belongs to ΚΑΤΈΚΡ., not to ΤῊΥ ἉΜ. (Bengel, Ernesti, Michaelis, Cramer, Rosenmüller, and Hofmann), because it is not said ΤῊΝ ἘΝ Τ. ς., and because this more precise definition, to complete the notion of the object, would be self-evident and unimportant. But God condemned sin in the flesh: for, by the fact that Gods own Son (over whom, withal, sin could have no power) appeared in the flesh, and indeed περὶ ἁμαρτίας, sin has lost its dominion in the substantial human nature (hitherto ruled over by it). The Lords appearance in flesh, namely, was at once, even in itself, for sin the actual loss of its dominion as a principle; and the aim of that appearance, περὶ ἁμαρτίας, which was attained through the death of Christ, brought upon sin that loss with respect to its totality. Thus, by the two facts, God has actually deprived it of its power in the human σάρξ; and this phenomenal nature of man, therefore, has ceased to be its domain. Hofmann, without reason, objects that Τ. ἉΜΑΡΤ. must in that case have stood before κατέκρινε. The main emphasis, in fact, lies on ΚΑΤΈΚΡΙΝΕ Τ. ἉΜΑΡΤ., to which then ἘΝ Τ. ΣΑΡΚΊ is added, with the further emphasis of a reference to the causal connection. Many others take ἘΥ Τ. ΣΑΡΚΊ as meaning the body of Christ; holding that in this body put to death sin has been put to death at the same time (Origen, Beza, Grotius, Reiche, Usteri, Olshausen, Maier, Bisping, and others); or that the punishment of sin has been accomplished on His body (Heumann, Michaelis, Koppe, and Flatt). But against this it may be urged, that plainly ἐυ τ. σαρκί corresponds deliberately to the previous ΔΙᾺ Τ. ΣΑΡΚΌς; there must have been ΑὐΤΟῦ used along with it. Comp. Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 160 f.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 8:3 . He now explains how this was done. It was not done by the law: that is the first point. If τὸ ἀδύνατον is active (= “the inability” of the law) we must suppose that Paul meant to finish the sentence, “was overcome,” or “was removed” by God. If it is passive (= “that which is impossible” for the law), we must suppose he meant to finish it, “was achieved” or “accomplished” by God. There is really no way of deciding whether ἀδύνατον is active or passive, and the anacoluthon makes it impossible to tell what construction Paul had in his mind, i.e. , whether ἀδύνατον is nominative or accusative. For the best examination of the grammar see S. and H. ἐν ᾧ probably refers to ἀδύνατον : the point at which the law was impotent, in which it was weak through the flesh. This is better than to render ἐν ᾧ “in that,” or “because”. For the meaning cf. Rom 7:18 . What the law could not do, God did by sending τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱὸν His own Son . With the coming of so great a Person, uniquely related to God (for this is implied both here and in Rom 8:32 , as contrasted with Rom 8:14 ), a new saving power entered the world. God sent His Son ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας . The connection implies that sending Him thus was in some way related to the end to be secured. But what do the words mean? ὁμοίωμα occurs in Rom 1:23 ; Rom 5:14 ; Rom 6:5 , and also in Phi 2:7 . This last passage, in which Christ is described as ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος , is the one which is most akin to Rom 8:3 , and most easily illustrates it. There must have been a reason why Paul wrote in Philippians ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθ . γενόμενος instead of ἄνθρωπος γενόμενος , and it may well have been the same reason which made him write here ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας instead of ἐν σαρκὶ ἁμαρτὶας . He wishes to indicate not that Christ was not really man, or that His flesh was not really what in us is σάρξ ἁμαρτίας , but that what for ordinary men is their natural condition is for this Person only an assumed condition (Holtzmann, N.T. Theol ., ii., 74). But the emphasis in ὁμοίωμα is on Christ’s likeness to us, not His unlikeness; “flesh of sin” is one idea to the Apostle, and what he means by it is that God sent His Son in that nature which in us is identified with sin. This was the “form” (and “form” rather than “likeness” is what ὁμοίωμα signifies) in which Christ appeared among men. It does not prejudice Christ’s sinlessness, which is a fixed point with the Apostle ab initio ; and if any one says that it involves a contradiction to maintain that Christ was sinless, and that He came in a nature which in us is identified with sin, it may be pointed out that this identification does not belong to the essence of our nature, but to its corruption, and that the uniform teaching of the N.T. is that Christ is one with us short of sin. The likeness and the limitation of it (though the former is the point here urged) are equally essential in the Redeemer. But God sent His Son not only ἐν ὁμ . σ . ἁ . but καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας . These words indicate the aim of the mission. Christ was sent in our nature “in connection with sin”. The R.V. renders “ as an offering for sin”. This is legitimate, for περὶ ἁμαρτίας is used both in the LXX (Lev 4:33 and passim , Psa 40:6 , 2Ch 29:24 ) and in the N.T. (Heb 10:6 ; Heb 10:8 ) in the sense of “sin-offering” (usually answering to Heb. חַטָּאת , but in Isa 53:10 to אָשָׁם ); but it is not formally necessary. But when the question is asked, In what sense did God send His Son “in connection with sin”? there is only one answer possible. He sent Him to expiate sin by His sacrificial death. This is the centre and foundation of Paul’s gospel (Rom 3:25 ff.), and to ignore it here is really to assume that he used the words καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας (which have at least sacrificial associations) either with no meaning in particular, or with a meaning alien to his constant and dearest thoughts. Weiss says it is impossible to think here of expiating sin, because only the removal of the power of sin belongs to the context. But we cannot thus set the end against the means; the Apostle’s doctrine is that the power of sin cannot be broken except by expiating it , and that is the very thing he teaches here. This fixes the meaning and the reference of κατέκρινεν . It is sometimes interpreted as if Christ were the subject: “Christ by His sinless life in our nature condemned sin in that nature,” i.e. , showed that it was not inevitable, and in so doing gave us hope; and this sense of “condemned” is supported by reference to Mat 12:41 f. But the true argument (especially according to the analogy of that passage) would rather be, “Christ by His sinless life in our nature condemned our sinful lives, and left us inexcusable and without hope”. The truth is, we get on to a wrong track if we ignore the force of περὶ ἁμαρτίας , or fail to see that God, not Christ, is the subject of κατέκρινεν . God’s condemnation of sin is expressed in His sending His Son in our nature, and in such a connection with sin that He died for it i.e. , took its condemnation upon Himself. Christ’s death exhibits God’s condemnation of sin in the flesh. ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ is to be construed with κατέκρινεν : the flesh that in which sin had reigned was also that in Which God’s condemnation of sin was executed. But Paul does not mean that by His sinless life in our nature Christ had broken the power of sin at one point for the human race; he means that in the death of His own Son, who had come in our nature to make atonement for sin, God had pronounced the doom of sin, and brought its claims and its authority over man to an end. This is the only interpretation which does not introduce elements quite alien to the Apostle’s mode of thought.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 3, 4. “For—what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh— God sending His own Son in the likeness of a flesh of sin, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness prescribed by the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

The fact and agent of the deliverance had just been mentioned in Rom 8:2; Rom 8:3-4 describe its mode; Rom 8:3 its condition, Rom 8:4 its realization. The for of Rom 8:3 extends its force to the close of Rom 8:4.

Our translation shows to what construction we hold in explaining the words: what the law could not do. We make them, with Meyer, Philippi, and others, a nominative, in apposition to the divine act, to be enunciated immediately afterward: “God condemned sin, a thing which the law was powerless to accomplish.” This construction is to be preferred for its simplicity and clearness to all others: to that of Schott, who, by means of a harsh inversion, thus explains the words: “seeing that (ἐν ῴ) the impotence of the law was weak through the flesh;” that is to say, the weakness of the law was still further increased through the influence of the flesh—the meaning is as forced as the construction;—or to that of Hofmann, who understands the verb ἦν, was, and makes the whole a principal proposition; “The weakness of the law was (consisted) in that it was weak through the flesh.” But such an ellipsis is inadmissible, and the asyndeton between this and the following proposition is without explanation. It would be better to understand, with Luther (comp. the translations of Ostervald and Oltramare), the words ἐποίησε τοῦτο: “What the law could not do, God did by sending”...When Paul was about to write this verb, he is held to have substituted the mention of the act itself thus announced: “What was impossible...God condemned.” But does not that bring us back to Meyer’s construction, which reaches the goal by a shorter course? Comp. Heb 8:1.

The powerlessness of the law to accomplish this work did not come from any intrinsic imperfection, but from the fact that it found resistance in man’s sinful nature: διὰ τῆς σαρκός, by reason of the flesh. The law could certainly condemn sin in writing, by engraving its condemnation on stone; but not by displaying this condemnation in a real human life. And yet this was the necessary condition of the destruction of the sinful tendency in mankind, and in order to the restoration of holiness. The expression: the powerlessness or impossibility of the law, is easily understood, notwithstanding Hofmann’s objection, in the sense of: “What it is impossible for the law to realize.” Meyer quotes the expression of Xenophon: τὸ δύνατον τῆς πόλεως, what the city can make or give.

The words ἐν ᾧ, in this that, evidently open up the explanation of this weakness. The depraved instinct which the law encounters in man, the flesh, prevents it from obtaining the cordial obedience which the law demands from him. The flesh here as so frequently, in the moral sense which rests on the physical: self-complacency. The participle πέμψας, sending, though an aorist, nevertheless expresses an act simultaneous with that of the finite verb condemned (see Meyer): “condemned by sending.” The term sending by itself would not necessarily imply the pre-existence of Christ; for it may apply to the appearance of a mere man charged with a divine mission; comp. Joh 1:6. But the notion of pre-existence necessarily follows from the relation of this verb to the expression: His own Son, especially if we take account of the clause: in the likeness of sinful flesh. It is evident that, in the view of one who speaks thus, the existence of this Son preceded His human existence (comp. the more emphatic term ἐξαπέστειλεν, Gal 4:4).

The expression: His own Son, literally, the Son of Himself, forbids us to give to the title Son, either the meaning of eminent man, or theocratic king, or even Messiah. It necessarily refers to this Son’s personal relation to God, and indicates that Him whom God sends, He takes from His own bosom; comp. Joh 1:18. Paul marks the contrast between the nature of the envoy (the true Son of God) and the manner of His appearing here below: in the likeness of sinful flesh.

This expression: sinful flesh (strictly flesh of sin), has been understood by many, especially most recently by Holsten, as implying the idea that sin is inherent in the flesh, that is to say, in the bodily nature. It would follow therefrom—and this critic accepts the consequence—that Jesus Himself, according to Paul, was not exempt from the natural sin inseparable from the substance of the body. Only Holsten adds that this objective sin never controlled the will of Jesus, nor led Him to a positive transgression (παράβασις): the pre-existing divine Spirit of Christ constantly kept the flesh in obedience. We have already seen, Rom 6:6, that if the body is to the soul a cause of its fall, it is only so because the will itself is no longer in its normal state. If by union with God it were inwardly upright and firm, it would control the body completely; but being itself since the fall controlled by selfishness, it seeks a means of satisfaction in the body, and the latter takes advantage therefrom to usurp a malignant dominion over it. Thus, and thus only, can Paul connect the notion of sin so closely with that of body or flesh. Otherwise he would be obliged to make God Himself, as the creator of the body, the author of sin. What proves in our very passage that he is not at all regarding sin as an attribute inseparable from the flesh, is the expression he uses in speaking of Jesus: in the likeness of a flesh of sin. Had he meant to express the idea ascribed to him by Holsten, why speak of likeness? Why not say simply: in a flesh of sin, that is to say, sinful like ours? While affirming similarity of substance between the flesh of Jesus and ours, the very thing the apostle wishes here is to set aside the idea of likeness in quality (in respect of sin). This is done clearly by the expression which he has chosen. It will be asked, might he not have said more briefly: in the likeness of flesh or of our flesh (ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκός)? But by expressing himself thus, he would have favored the idea that the body of Jesus was a mere appearance. And this is the very consequence which Marcion has sought to draw from our passage. One cannot help admiring the nicety of the phrase formed by the apostle, and the pliability of the language which lent itself so readily to the analysis and expression of such delicate shades.

Wendt, while rightly criticising Holsten’s opinion, escapes it only by another inadmissible explanation. He understands the word flesh in the sense in which it is taken in that frequent expression: all flesh, that is to say, every man, every creature. Paul means here, he thinks, that Jesus appeared on the earth in the likeness of the sinful creature.But should we then require to take the word flesh in the preceding proposition: “The law was weak through the flesh,” in the sense of creature? It seems to us that M. Sabatier is right in saying: “No doubt the word flesh sometimes denotes man taken in his entirety. But even then it never absolutely loses its original signification; the notion of the material organism always remains the fundamental notion.” We have no need of Wendt’s expedient to account for the phrase of the apostle. Here is its meaning, as it seems to us: God, by sending His Son, meant to provide a human life in that same flesh under the influence of which we sin so habitually, such that it might complete this dangerous career without sin (χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας, Heb 4:15); comp. 2Co 5:21: “He who knew no sin”...

What then was the reason why God sent His Son in this form? Jesus, Paul tells us in Philippians, might in virtue of His God-form, of His divine state in the presence of God, have appeared here below as the equal of God. The reason it was not so is explained by the words καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, and for sin. If man had still been in his normal state, the appearance of the Son would also have had a normal character. But there was an extraordinary thing to be destroyed, sin. And hence the necessity for the coming of the Son in a flesh like our sinful flesh. As the expression: for sin, is sometimes taken in the O. T. (LXX. version) as a substantive, in the sense of sacrifice for sin (Psa 40:6, e.g.,), and has passed thence into the N. T. (Heb 10:6-18), some commentators have thought that Paul was here appropriating this Alexandrine form. But there are two reasons opposed to this idea: 1. This very special sense, which might present itself naturally to the mind of the readers of such a book as the Epistle to the Hebrews, filled throughout with allusions to the ceremonies of the Levitical worship, could hardly have been understood, without explanation, by the Christians of Rome, who were for the most part Gentiles. 2. The context does not require the idea of sacrifice, because the matter in question is not guilt to be expiated, but solely the evil tendency to be uprooted. Not that the notion of expiation should be wholly excluded from the contents of so general an expression as for sin. It is undoubtedly contained in it, but it is not here the leading idea. Paul means in a wide sense, that it is the fact of sin, and especially the intention to destroy it (by every means, expiation and sanctification), which have caused the coming of Christ here below, in this form, so unlike His glorious nature.

This coming is only the means of the means; the latter is the decisive act expressed by the words: He condemned sin. To condemn, is to declare evil, and devote to destruction; and we see no occasion to depart from this simple and usual meaning. Most commentators have thought it inapplicable, and have substituted for it the meaning of conquering, overwhelming, destroying, Chrys.: ἐνίκησεν ἁμαρτίαν; Theod.: κατέλυσεν; Beza: abolevit; Calvin: abrogavit regnum; Grot.: interfecit; Beng.: virtute privavit; so also Thol., Fritzs., De Wette, Mey., etc. But Paul has a word consecrated to this idea; it is the term καταργεῖν, to abolish, annul; comp. Rom 6:6; 1Co 15:24, etc. There is in the word κατακρῖνειν, to condemn, the notion of a judicial sentence which is not contained in the sense indicated by these authors. Other commentators have felt this, and have again found here the idea of expiation, developed in chap. 3: God condemned sin in Christ crucified, as its representative, on the cross (Rück., Olsh., Philip., Hofm., Gess); to this idea many add that of the destruction of sin, evidently demanded by the context; so Philippi: “to destroy by expiating;” Gess: “a destruction of the power of sin founded on a judicial sentence,” which is included in “Christ’s expiatory death.” But that powerlessness of the law in consequence of the flesh, of which Paul was speaking, did not consist in not being able to condemn sin; for it did condemn and even punish it; but it was powerless to destroy it, to render man victorious over its power. Besides, would it not be surprising to find Paul, after developing the subject of expiation in its place in chap. 3, returning to it here, in very unlike terms! We are therefore led to a wholly different explanation. Paul has in view neither the destruction of sin by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:4), nor its condemnation on the cross; he is regarding Christ’s holy life as a living condemnation of sin. The flesh in Him was like a door constantly open to the temptations both of pleasure and pain; and yet He constantly refused sin any entrance into His will and action. By this persevering and absolute exclusion He declared it evil and unworthy of existing in humanity. This is what the law, because of the flesh, which naturally sways every human will, could not realize in any man. This meaning, with an important shade of difference, was that to which Menken was led; it is that of Wendt; it was certainly the idea of Theophylact when he said: “He sanctified the flesh, and crowned it by condemning sin in the flesh which He had appropriated, and by showing that the flesh is not sinful in its nature” (see the passage in De Wette). Perhaps Irenaeus even had the same thought when he thus expressed himself: Condemnavit peccatum (in the inner chamber of His heart) et jam quasi condemnatum ejecit extra carnem.

It is evident that if this meaning corresponds exactly to the thought of the apostle, the question whether we should connect the following clause: ἐν τῇ σάρκι, in the flesh, with the substantive τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, sin (“sin which is in the flesh”), or with the verb κατέκρινε, condemned (“He condemned in the flesh”), is decided. Not only, indeed, in the former case would the article τήν be necessary after ἁμαρτίαν; but still more this clause: in the flesh, would be superfluous, when connected with the word sin; now it becomes very significant if it refers to the verb. It might even be said that the whole pith of the thought centres in the clause thus understood. In fact, the law could undoubtedly overwhelm sin with its sentences, and, so to speak, on paper. But Christ accomplished what it could not do, by condemning sin in the flesh, in a real, living, human nature, in a humanity subject to those same conditions of bodily existence under which we all are. Hence the reason why He must appear here below in flesh. For it was in the very fortress where sin had established its seat, that it behooved to be attacked and conquered. We must beware of translating with several: “in His flesh,” as if there were the pronoun αὐτοῦ, of Him. In this case the pronoun could not be wanting; and the thought itself would be misrepresented. For the expression: in His flesh, would only denote the particular historical fact, whereas the latter: in the flesh, while reminding us of the particular fact, expresses the general notion which brings out its necessity. Like the hero spoken of in the fable, He required, if one may venture so to speak, Himself to descend into the infected place which He was commissioned to cleanse.

Thus from the perfectly holy life of Jesus there proceeds a conspicuous condemnation of sin; and it is this moral fact, the greatest of the miracles that distinguished this life, which the Holy Spirit goes on reproducing in the life of every believer, and propagating throughout the entire race. This will be the victory gained over the law of sin (Rom 8:2). Thus we understand the connection between the condemned of Rom 8:3, and the no condemnation, Rom 8:1. In His life He condemned that sin, which by remaining master of ours, would have brought into it condemnation. The relation between Rom 8:3-4 becomes also very simple: The condemnation of sin in Christ’s life is the means appointed by God to effect its destruction in ours.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_8:3

This verse is connected with the preceding by the particle γάρ, for. We are delivered from the law, for the law could not effect our salvation. The words τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου may be rendered either, the impotency of the law, or what is impossible to the law. The choice between these renderings depends on the grammatical structure of the passage. First, τὸ ἀδύνατον may be taken as the accusative, and the preposition διά be supplied, on account of the impotency of the law; 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, 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 impotency of the law, God sent his Son, etc. 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 were 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, ἐν ᾧ, because that (see Heb_2:18) it is weak through the flesh, διὰ τῆς σαρκός, i.e. through our corruption. It is our being depraved that renders the law weak, or impotent to save. God sending (or having sent πέμψας) his own Son, τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱόν. 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 flesh. It was not simply ἐν σαρκί (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 ἐν σαρκὶ ἁμαρτίας (in sinful flesh), for that would imply that his human nature was defiled, contrary to Heb_4:15 and to all Scripture; but it was ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας; (in the likeness of sinful flesh), 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. He was therefore susceptible of pain, and weariness, and sorrow. He could be touched with a sense of our infirmities. He was tempted in all points as we are. He is therefore a merciful and trustworthy High Priest. The object for which God sent his Son, clothed in this feeble, suffering nature of ours, is expressed by καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας (and for sin). This may mean either on account of sin whether for its expiation or its removal, being undetermined; or it may be understood in a sacrificial sense. Christ was sent for the expiation of sin, or as a sacrifice for sin.

1. In favor of this is the usus loquendi, as περὶ ἁμαρτίας is so often used in this sense: see Num_8:8; Psa_40:7; Lev_6:25, Lev_6:30; Heb_10:6, Heb_10:8, Heb_10:18; Heb_13:11. Thus also in Gal_1:4, Christ is said to have given himself περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, for, i.e. as a sacrifice for, our sins.

2. The analogy of Scripture, as it is so abundantly taught in the word of God, is that Christ was sent to make explanation for sin, to wash away sin, to offer himself unto God as a 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 sacrifice for sin.

3. The immediate context demands this interpretation; 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 offenses, 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_2:14-18, did not undertake the redemption of angels, he did not assume their nature, but took part in flesh and blood. That the words κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (he condemned sin), does not mean that he destroyed sin, but that he punished it, visited it with the penalty of the law, is evident:

1. Because κατάκρινω 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, he 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 κατάριμα (condemnation) to us, because God κατέρινε (condemned) 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 contrary to the Scriptures, and to the faith of the Church.

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. Vides ergo, nos penitus excludi ab operum justitia: ideoque ad Christi justitiam nos confugere, quia in nobis nulla esse potest. Quod scitu in primis necessarium est; quia Christi justitia nonquam, vestiemur, nisi prius certo noverimus, propriae justitiae 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 are atoned for by the blood of Christ, in order to our being restored to his image and favor. Justification is not on account of, or on the ground of sanctification, but it is in order to it and therefore the two are 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 condemnation 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 decisive terms the vicarious (stellvertretenden) atoning death of the Savior.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

To abolish sin in our flesh.

Showed that sin hath no right in us.

Of man’s nature which was corrupt through sin, until he sanctified it.

In man not born anew, whose disease the law could not heal it.

He useth no argument here, but expoundeth the mystery of sanctification, which is imputed unto us: for because, that the virtue of the law was not such (and that by reason of the corruption of our nature) that it could make man pure and perfect: and for that it rather kindled the disease of sin, than did put it out and extinguish it, therefore God clothed his Son with flesh like unto our sinful flesh, wherein he utterly abolished our corruption, that being accounted thoroughly pure and without fault in him apprehended and laid hold on by faith, we might be found to have fully that singular perfection which the Law requireth, and therefore that there might be no condemnation in us.

Which is not proper to the Law, but cometh by our fault.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

For what the law could not do, &c.--a difficult and much controverted verse. But it is clearly, we think, the law's inability to free us from the dominion of sin that the apostle has in view; as has partly appeared already (see on Rom 8:2), and will more fully appear presently. The law could irritate our sinful nature into more virulent action, as we have seen in Rom 7:5, but it could not secure its own fulfilment. How that is accomplished comes now to be shown.

in that it was weak through the flesh--that is, having to address itself to us through a corrupt nature, too strong to be influenced by mere commands and threatenings.

God, &c.--The sentence is somewhat imperfect in its structure, which occasions a certain obscurity. The meaning is, that whereas the law was powerless to secure its own fulfilment for the reason given, God took the method now to be described for attaining that end.

sending--"having sent"

his own Son--This and similar expressions plainly imply that Christ was God's "OWN SON" before He was sent--that is, in His own proper Person, and independently of His mission and appearance in the flesh (see on Rom 8:32 and Gal 4:4); and if so, He not only has the very nature of God, even as a son of his father, but is essentially of the Father, though in a sense too mysterious for any language of ours properly to define (see on the first through fourth chapters). And this peculiar relationship is put forward here to enhance the greatness and define the nature of the relief provided, as coming from beyond the precincts of sinful humanity altogether, yea, immediately from the Godhead itself.

in the likeness of sinful flesh--literally, "of the flesh of sin"; a very remarkable and pregnant expression. He was made in the reality of our flesh, but only in the likeness of its sinful condition. He took our nature as it is in us, compassed with infirmities, with nothing to distinguish Him as man from sinful men, save that He was without sin. Nor does this mean that He took our nature with all its properties save one; for sin is no property of humanity at all, but only the disordered state of our souls, as the fallen family of Adam; a disorder affecting, indeed, and overspreading our entire nature, but still purely our own.

and for sin--literally, "and about sin"; that is, "on the business of sin." The expression is purposely a general one, because the design was not to speak of Christ's mission to atone for sin, but in virtue of that atonement to destroy its dominion and extirpate it altogether from believers. We think it wrong, therefore, to render the words (as in the Margin) "by a sacrifice for sin" (suggested by the language of the Septuagint and approved by CALVIN, &c.); for this sense is too definite, and makes the idea of expiation more prominent than it is.

condemned sin--"condemned it to lose its power over men" [BEZA, BENGEL, FRASER, MEYER, THOLUCK, PHILIPPI, ALFORD]. In this glorious sense our Lord says of His approaching death (Joh 12:31), "Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this world be cast out," and again (see on Joh 16:11), "When He (the Spirit) shall come, He shall convince the world of . . . judgment, because the prince of this world is judged," that is, condemned to let go his hold of men, who, through the Cross, shall be emancipated into the liberty and power to be holy.

in the flesh--that is, in human nature, henceforth set free from the grasp of sin.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 3. For what the law could not do] The law could not pardon; the law could not sanctify; the law could not dispense with its own requisitions; it is the rule of righteousness, and therefore must condemn unrighteousness. This is its unalterable nature. Had there been perfect obedience to its dictates, instead of condemning, it would have applauded and rewarded; but as the flesh, the carnal and rebellious principle, had prevailed, and transgression had taken place, it was rendered weak, inefficient to undo this word of the flesh, and bring the sinner into a state of pardon and acceptance with God.

God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh] Did that which the law could not do; i.e. purchased pardon for the sinner, and brought every believer into the favour of God. And this is effected by the incarnation of Christ: He, in whom dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily, took upon him the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, a human body like ours, but not sinful as ours; and for sin, και περι ἁμαρτιας, and as a SACRIFICE FOR SIN, (this is the sense of the word in a multitude of places,) condemned sin in the flesh-condemned that to death and destruction which had condemned us to both.

Condemned sin in the flesh] The design and object of the incarnation and sacrifice of Christ was to condemn sin, to have it executed and destroyed; not to tolerate it as some think, or to render it subservient to the purposes of his grace, as others; but to annihilate its power, guilt, and being in the soul of a believer.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. For what was impossible for the law, etc. Now follows the polishing or the adorning of his proof, that the Lord has by his gratuitous mercy justified us in Christ; the very thing which it was impossible for the law to do. But as this is a very remarkable sentence, let us examine every part of it.

That he treats here of free justification or of the pardon by which God reconciles us to himself, we may infer from the last clause, when he adds, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit For if Paul intended to teach us, that we are prepared by the spirit of regeneration to overcome sin, why was this addition made? But it was very proper for him, after having promised gratuitous remission to the faithful, to confine this doctrine to those who join penitence to faith, and turn not the mercy of God so as to promote the licentiousness of the flesh. And then the state of the case must be noticed; for the Apostle teaches us here how the grace of Christ absolves us from guilt.

Now as to the expression, τὸ ἀδύνατον, the impossibility of the law, it is no doubt to be taken for defect or impotency; as though it had been said, that a remedy had been found by God, by which that which was an impossibility to the law is removed. The particle, ἐν ᾧ, Erasmus has rendered “ea parte qua — in that part in which;” but as I think it to be causal, I prefer rendering it, “eo quod — because:” and though perhaps such a phrase does not occur among good authors in the Greek language, yet as the Apostles everywhere adopt Hebrew modes of expression, this interpretation ought not to be deemed improper. No doubt intelligent readers will allow, that the cause of defect is what is here expressed, as we shall shortly prove again. Now though Erasmus supplies the principal verb, yet the text seems to me to flow better without it. The copulative καὶ, and, has led Erasmus astray, so as to insert the verb prœstitit — hath performed; but I think that it is used for the sake of emphasis; except it may be, that some will approve of the conjecture of a Grecian scholiast, who connects the clause thus with the preceding words, “God sent his own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and on account of sin,” etc. I have however followed what I have thought to be the real meaning of Paul. I come now to the subject itself.

Paul clearly declares that our sins were expiated by the death of Christ, because it was impossible for the law to confer righteousness upon us. It hence follows, that more is required by the law than what we can perform; for if we were capable of fulfilling the law there would have been no need to seek a remedy elsewhere. It is therefore absurd to measure human strength by the precepts of the law; as though God in requiring what is justly due, had regarded what and how much we are able to do.

Because it was weak etc. That no one might think that the law was irreverently charged with weakness, or confine it to ceremonies, Paul has distinctly expressed that this defect was not owing to any fault in the law, but to the corruption of our flesh; for it must be allowed that if any one really satisfies the divine law, he will be deemed just before God. He does not then deny that the law is sufficient to justify us as to doctrine, inasmuch as it contains a perfect rule of righteousness: but as our flesh does not attain that righteousness, the whole power of the law fails and vanishes away. Thus condemned is the error or rather the delirious notion of those who imagine that the power of justifying is only taken away from ceremonies; for Paul, by laying the blame expressly on us, clearly shows that he found no fault with the doctrine of the law.

But further, understand the weakness of the law according to the sense in which the Apostle usually takes the word ασθενεια, weakness, not only as meaning a small imbecility but impotency; for he means that the law has no power whatever to justify. You then see that we are wholly excluded from the righteousness of works, and must therefore flee to Christ for righteousness, for in us there can be none, and to know this is especially necessary; for we shall never be clothed with the righteousness of Christ except we first know assuredly that we have no righteousness of our own. The word flesh is to be taken still in the same sense, as meaning ourselves. The corruption then of our nature renders the law of God in this respect useless to us; for while it shows the way of life, it does not bring us back who are running headlong into death.

God having sent his own Son, etc. He now points out the way in which our heavenly Father has restored righteousness to us by his Son, even by condemning sin in the very flesh of Christ; who by cancelling as it were the handwriting, abolished sin, which held us bound before God; for the condemnation of sin made us free and brought us righteousness, for sin being blotted out we are absolved, so that God counts us as just. But he declares first that Christ was sent, in order to remind us that righteousness by no means dwells in us, for it is to be sought from him, and that men in vain confide in their own merits, who become not just but at the pleasure of another, or who borrow righteousness from that expiation which Christ accomplished in his own flesh. But he says, that he came in the likeness of the flesh of sin; for though the flesh of Christ was polluted by no stains, yet it seemed apparently to be sinful, inasmuch as it sustained the punishment due to our sins, and doubtless death exercised all its power over it as though it was subject to itself. And as it behoved our High-priest to learn by his own experience how to aid the weak, Christ underwent our infirmities, that he might be more inclined to sympathy, and in this respect also there appeared some resemblance of a sinful nature.

Even for sin, etc. I have already said that this is explained by some as the cause or the end for which God sent his own Son, that is, to give satisfaction for sin. Chrysostom and many after him understood it in a still harsher sense, even that sin was condemned for sin, and for this reason, because it assailed Christ unjustly and beyond what was right. I indeed allow that though he was just and innocent, he yet underwent punishment for sinners, and that the price of redemption was thus paid; but I cannot be brought to think that the word sin is put here in any other sense than that of an expiatory sacrifice, which is called אשם, ashem, in Hebrew, and so the Greeks call a sacrifice to which a curse is annexed κάθαρμα, catharma. The same thing is declared by Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:21, when he says, that

“Christ, who knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

But the preposition περὶ peri, is to be taken here in a causative sense, as though he had said, “On account of that sacrifice, or through the burden of sin being laid on Christ, sin was cast down from its power, so that it does not hold us now subject to itself.” For using a metaphor, he says that it was condemned, like those who fail in their cause; for God no longer deals with those as guilty who have obtained absolution through the sacrifice of Christ. If we say that the kingdom of sin, in which it held us, was demolished, the meaning would be the same. And thus what was ours Christ took as his own, that he might transfer his own to us; for he took our curse, and has freely granted us his blessing.

Paul adds here, In the flesh, and for this end, — that by seeing sin conquered and abolished in our very nature, our confidence might be more certain: for it thus follows, that our nature is really become a partaker of his victory; and this is what he presently declares.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(3) How was I freed? Thus. Precisely on that very point where the law of Moses showed its impotence—viz., in the attempt to get rid of sin, which it failed to do because of the counteracting influence of the flesh—precisely on this very point God interposed by sending His Son in a body of flesh similar to that in which sin resides, and as an offering to expiate human sin, and so dethroned and got rid of sin in the flesh which He had assumed. The flesh, the scene of its former triumphs, became now the scene of its defeat and expulsion.

What the law could not do.—Literally, the impossible thing of the Law—i.e., “that which was impossible to the Law.” The construction is what is called a nominativus pendens. The phrase thus inserted at the beginning of the sentence characterises what follows. God did what the Law could not do—viz., condemned sin.

In that it was weak through the flesh.—There was one constant impediment in the way of the success of the Law, that it had to be carried out by human agents, beset by human frailty, a frailty naturally consequent upon that physical organisation with which man is endowed. Temptation and sin have their roots in the physical part of human nature, and they were too strong for the purely moral influence of the Law. The Law was limited in its operations by them, and failed to overcome them.

In the likeness of sinful flesh—i.e., in the flesh, but not in sinful flesh. With a human body which was so far like the physical organisation of the rest of mankind, but yet which was not in Him, as in other men, the seat of sin; at once like and unlike.

And for sin.—This is the phrase which is used constantly in the LXX. (“more than fifty times in the Book of Leviticus alone”—Vaughan) for the “sin-offering.” The essence of the original sin-offering was that it was accepted by an act of grace on the part of God, instead of the personal punishment of the offender. The exact nature of this “instead” appears to be left an open question in Scripture, and its further definition—if it is to be defined—belongs to the sphere of dogmatics rather than of exegesis. It must only be remembered that St. Paul uses, in regard to the sacrifice of Christ, similar language to that which is used in the Old Testament of this particular class of sacrifice, the sin-offering.

Condemned sin.—The meaning of this expression is brought out by the context. It is that which the Law was hindered from doing by the hold which sin had upon the flesh. That hold is made to cease through the participation of the believer in the death of Christ. Sin is, as it were, brought into court, and the cause given against it. It loses all its rights and claims over its victim. It is dispossessed as one who is dispossessed of a property.

In the flesh.—In that same sphere, the flesh, in which sin had hitherto had the mastery, it now stood condemned and worsted; it was unable to exercise its old sway any longer.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. what the law could not do] Lit. the Impossible of the Law. What was this? The answer lies in Rom_8:4. The Law could not procure the “fulfilment” of its own “legal claim;” could not make its subjects “live after the Spirit.” This was beyond its power, as it was never within its scope: it had to prescribe duty, not to supply motive.—Here, obviously, the Law is the Moral Code; just alluded to as inseparably connected with sin and death in its effects (apart from Redemption) on fallen man.

in that it was weak] Better, in which it was weak. It was “weak” (i.e. “powerless,” in fact,) “in its impossibility” (see last note); in the direction, in the matter, of producing holiness of soul.

through the flesh] The construction is instrumental; the flesh was, as it were, the instrument by which sin made the Law powerless to sanctify.—Observe how St Paul here again (as in Rom_7:7, &c.) guards the honour of the Law; laying the whole blame of the failure on the subject with which it deals.—On “the flesh” see below, on Rom_8:4.

God] Not in antithesis to “the Law,” which, equally with grace, is from Him. The antithesis to the Law here is the whole idea of the Gift and Work of His Son.

his own Son] So Rom_8:32; though the Gr. is not precisely identical. In both places the emphasis is on the Divine nearness and dearness between the Giver and the Given One. The best commentary is such passages as Joh_1:1; Joh_1:18; Col_1:13-20; Heb_1:1-4.

in the likeness of sinful flesh] Lit. in the likeness of the flesh of sin; i.e. of the flesh which is, in us, inseparably connected with sin. The Apostle is careful not to say “in sinful flesh;” for “in Him was no sin” as to His whole sacred being. But neither does he say “the likeness of flesh,” which might seem to mean that the flesh was unreal. The Eternal Son took real “flesh,” (Joh_1:14; Rom_9:5; Col_1:22; &c., &c.;) and it was “like” to our “flesh of sin” in that it was liable to all such needs and infirmities as, not sinful in themselves, are to us occasions of sinning. He felt the strain of those conditions which, in us, lead to sin. See Heb_4:15.—This is kept in view here (by the phrase “flesh of sin”) because the victory over sin in its own stronghold is in question.

and for sin] The Gr. preposition is one specially used in sacrificial connexions in LXX. Sin-offerings are frequently there called “for-sins,” (to translate literally). So in the quotation Heb_10:8.—We are prepared for a sacrificial phrase here, not only by the idea of Substitution so often before us in the previous chapters, but by the explicit passage Rom_3:25.

condemned sin] i.e. in act: He did judgment upon it. Perhaps the ideas of disgrace and deposition are both in the phrase: the sacrifice of the Incarnate Son both exposed the malignity of sin and procured the breaking of its power. But the idea of executed penalty is at least the leading one: Christ as the Sin-offering bore “the curse;” (see Gal_3:13;) sin, in His blessed humanity, (representing our “flesh of sin,”) was punished; and this, (as is immediately shewn,) with a view to our deliverance from the power of sin, both by bringing to new light the love and loveliness of God, and by meriting the gift of the Holy Ghost to make the sight effectual. (See ch. Rom_5:1; Rom_5:5.)

in the flesh] i.e. in our flesh as represented by the flesh of Christ; our sinful by His sinless flesh.—Meyer and others take the words as = “in humanity in its material aspect.” But through this passage the idea of the flesh is an idea connected with evil: even the Lord’s flesh is “in the likeness of the flesh of sin;” and St Paul goes on at once to the hopeless antagonism of the flesh and the Spirit. It seems consistent then to refer the word here, in some sense, to the unregenerate state and element in man; to man, in fact, as unregenerate. On man as such the doom of sin behoved to fall: but in his place it was borne by his Representative, who, to do so, behoved to come “in the flesh;” “in the likeness of sinful flesh;” with that about Him, as part of His being, which in us is unregenerate and calls for doom. Thus the idea is of substitutionary penalty; fallen man’s sinfulness was punished, but in the incarnate Manhood of the Son.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For what the law could not do,.... This is not to be understood of "the law of the mind", in opposition to "the law of sin", which indeed is very feeble and impotent; man had a power originally of obeying the divine commands, but through sin he has lost his strength and power; and even a renewed mind cannot perform what it would, which is owing to the flesh, or corrupt nature; it has strong desires after holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God; but these desires cannot be fulfilled by it, and indeed without Christ it can do no good thing: nor is the ceremonial law intended, though this is weak, and there are many things it could not do; it could not expiate and atone for sin; nor remove the guilt of it, nor cleanse from the filth of it: But the moral law is here designed; this, though it can, and does accuse of sin, can convince of it, can curse, condemn, and condemn to death for it; yet it could not condemn sin itself, which is only abolished by Christ; it cannot restrain from sin, nor change a sinful nature, nor sanctify an impure heart; nor free from the guilt of sin, nor comfort a distressed mind under a sense of it, it cannot subject persons, or bring them to before God, or give life, or save from death; the reason is,

in that, or because

it was weak through the flesh. The weakness of the law is total and universal, it has no strength at all; though not original and natural, but accidental; it is owing to the flesh, or the corrupt nature of man: or rather the weakness is in sinful men, and not in the law; and the sense is this, that human nature is so weakened by sin, that it is incapable of fulfilling the law; the weakness of the law is not from itself, but from man: to this agrees what the Jewish writers (u) say,

"there is not a word in the law "weak", or broken; wherefore when thou considerest and observest it, that thou dost not find it strong, as an hammer that breaks the rocks, , "but if weak, it is of thyself".''

To which may be added that usual saying of theirs, , "there is no strength but the law" (w); unless the apostle can be thought to oppose this notion of theirs. Wherefore because of the weakness of the law, or of human nature to fulfil it,

God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. The person sending is God, who gave the law weakened by the flesh, against whom we have sinned: and who is righteous, pure, and holy: which considerations enhance his grace and goodness, in the mission of Christ. This must be understood of God the Father, who is here manifestly distinguished from the Son; and who is God, but not solely, or to the exclusion of the Son and Spirit; and who sent Christ, though not singly, for the "Lord God and his Spirit sent" him, Isa 48:16; though as it is most agreeable for a father to send his son, this is generally ascribed to him; and he being the first person in the Godhead, is the first in order of working, and so in redemption. The person sent is his own Son; not by creation, as angels and men are; nor by adoption, as saints are; nor is he called so, on account of his incarnation, resurrection, or mediatorship, for he was the Son of God antecedent to either of them; but his own proper Son, and not in any metaphorical sense; a Son of the same nature with him, begotten of him, and his Son in that nature in which he is God. The act of sending, does not suppose inequality of nature; for though he that is sent is not greater, yet as great as he that sends; two equals, by agreement, may send each other; a divine person may assume an office, and under that consideration be sent, without supposing inferiority of nature, as in the case of the Holy Spirit; and an inferiority as to office, is allowed in the case of the Son; God sent his Son under the character of a servant, to do work: nor does this act imply change of place; there is indeed a "terminus a quo", from whence he was sent, from heaven, from his Father there; and there is a "terminus ad quem", to which he was sent into this world; but then this coming of his from heaven to earth, was not by local motion, but by assumption of nature; nor was it out of any disrespect to his Son, but out of love to us, that he sent him; nor was he sent against his will; he showed no reluctance at the proposal to him in the council of peace, but the utmost willingness; nor any at his coming into the world: nor at the work itself, which he entered upon, and went through with the greatest eagerness and cheerfulness: nor does it suppose him whilst sent, and here on earth, to be in a state of absence and separation from his Father; he was still in his bosom, yet in heaven, and his Father always with him: but it supposes that he existed before he was sent; that he was a person, and distinct from the Father, or he could not be sent by him; that he had authority from him, considered in his office capacity: in a word, this sending of the Son, designs the manifestation of him in human nature; as appears from the form and manner in which he was sent, "in the likeness of sinful flesh"; which expresses the reality of his incarnation, of his having a true real human nature; for flesh is not to be taken strictly for a part of the body, nor for the whole body only, but for the whole human nature, soul and body; which though it looked like a sinful nature, yet was not sinful: the likeness of it denotes the outward appearance of Christ in it; who was born of a sinful woman; was subject to the infirmities of human nature, which though not sinful, are the effects of sin; was reckoned among transgressors, was traduced as one himself by men, and treated as such by the justice of God; he having all the sins of his people on him, for which he was answerable: "and" hence God, "for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"; not the law, which was weak through the flesh; nor sinners, who broke the law; but sin itself, the transgression of the law, all kind of sin, and all that is in it the act of condemning it, does not design God's disapproving of it, and judging it to be evil; this he could not but do, as being contrary to his nature, an act of hostility against him, a breach of his law, and what brings ruin upon his creatures; and this he would have done, if Christ had never suffered in the flesh; and he has taken other methods, both among his own people and the world, to show his dislike of sin: nor does this act intend the destruction of the power and dominion of sin, in regeneration; this is the work of the Spirit, and is done in our flesh, and not in the flesh of Christ; but it is to be understood of the condemnation and punishment of sin, in the person of Christ: sin was laid on him by the Father, and he voluntarily took it upon himself; justice finding it there, charges him with it, demands satisfaction, and condemns him for it; and hereby sin was expiated, the pardon of it procured, and it was, entirely done away: now this is said to be done "for sin"; some join the phrase with the former part of the text, either with the word "sending", and take the sense to be, that God sent his Son for, or on the account of sin, to take it away, and save his people from it; or "with sinful flesh", which was taken from a sinful person; but it stands best as it does in our version, and may be rendered "of sin"; for God condemned sin of sin in Christ, that is, by the vengeance he took of it, in the strictness of his justice, through the sufferings of his Son, he showed sin to be exceeding sinful indeed; or rather "by sin"; that is, by an offering for sin, so the word is used in Heb 10:6; and answers to in Psa 40:6, by being made which, sin was condemned "in the flesh" of Christ, who was put to death in the flesh, "for" the sins of his people, and bore all the punishment due unto them: from hence we learn the evil of sin, the strictness of justice, and the grace of the Redeemer.

(u) Zohar in Lev. fol. 3. 2. (w) Shirhashirim Rabba, fol. 4. 4. & 9. 4.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Ver. 3. It was weak through the flesh] Which was irritated by the law, and took occasion thereby.

In the likeness of sinful flesh] Christ condescended to our rags, sordes nostras induit, took our passions and infirmities natural, but not sinful. He was in all things like unto us, but in sin: as the brazen serpent was like the fiery serpents, but only it had no sting.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For what the law could not do - The Law of God, the moral law. It could not free from sin and condemnation. This the apostle had fully shown in Rom. 7.

In that - Because.

It was weak - It was feeble and inefficacious. It could not accomplish it.

Through the flesh - In consequence of the strength of sin, and of the evil and corrupt desires of the unrenewed heart. The fault was not in the Law, which was good Rom 7:12, but it was owing to the strength of the natural passions and the sinfulness of the unrenewed heart; see Rom 7:7-11, where this influence is fully explained.

God, sending his own Son - That is, God did, or accomplished, that, by sending his Son, which the Law could not do. The word did, or accomplished, it is necessary to understand here, in order to complete the sense.In the likeness of sinful flesh - That is, he so far resembled sinful flesh that he partook of flesh, or the nature of man, but without any of its sinful propensities or desires. It was not human nature; not, as the Docetae taught, human nature in appearance only; but it was human nature Without any of its corruptions.

And for sin - Margin, “By a sacrifice for sin.” The expression evidently means, by an Offering for sin, or that he was given as a Sacrifice on account of sin. His being given had respect to sin.Condemned sin in the flesh - The flesh is regarded as the source of sin; Note, Rom 7:18. The flesh being the seat and origin of transgression, the atoning sacrifice was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, that thus he might meet sin, as it were, on its own ground, and destroy it. He may be said to have condemned sin in this manner,

(1) Because the fact that he was given for it, and died on its account, was a condemnation of it. If sin had been approved by God he would not have made an atonement to secure its destruction. The depth and intensity of the woes of Christ on its account show the degree of abhorrence with which it is regarded by God.

(2) The word “condemn” may be used in the sense of destroying, overcoming, or subduing; 2Pe 2:6, “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow.” In this sense the sacrifice of Christ has no; only condemned sin as being evil, but has weakened its power and destroyed its influence, and will finally annihilate its existence in all who are saved by that death.

(By the sacrifice of Christ, God indeed showed his abhorrence of sin, and secured its final overthrow. It is not, however, of the sanctifying influence of this sacrifice, that the apostle seems here to speak, but of its justifying power. The sense, therefore, is that God passed a judicial sentence on sin, in the person of Christ, on account of which, that has been effected which the Law could not effect, (justification namely). Sin being condemned in the human nature of Christ, cannot be condemned and punished in the persons of those represented by him. They must be justified.

This view gives consistency to the whole passage, from the first verse to the fourth inclusive. The apostle clearly begins with the subject of justification, when, in the first verse, he affirms, that to them who are in Christ Jesus, there is no condemnation. If the question be put, Why is this? the second verse gives for answer, that believers are delivered from the Law as a covenant of works. (See the foregoing supplementary note). If the question again be put, Whence this deliverance? the third verse points to the sacrifice of Christ, which, the fourth verse assures us, was offered with the very design “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” This clause, according to the principle of interpretation laid down above, does not relate to the believer’s obedience to the righteous requirements of the Law. The apostle has in view a more immediate design of the sacrifice of Christ. The right or demand of the Law δικαίωμα dikaiōma was satisfaction to its injured honor. Its penalty must be borne, as well as its precept obeyed. The sacrifice of Christ answered every claim. And as believers are one with him, the righteousness of the Law has been “fulfilled in them.”

The whole passage is thus consistently explained of justification.)

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in sinful flesh, (because the Son of God could not sin) hath now done; even of sin hath condemned sin in the flesh. That is, in or by his flesh, which was offered on the cross, hath condemned the tyrant sin, as guilty of so many sins, and hath destroyed his tyranny, where the apostle speaks of sin, as it were of a certain person or tyrant. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

In this verse is a further proof of the main proposition in Rom 8:1. There are two things in sin that may endanger us as to condemnation, the power and the guilt of it. As to the freeing us from the former, viz. the power of sin, of that he had spoken in the foregoing verse; as to taking away the guilt of sin, of that he speaks in this verse.

For what the law could not do: by the law here he means the moral law, the righteousness whereof is to be fulfilled in us, Rom 8:4. What is it the law cannot do? There are several answers; but this is principally meant, it cannot justify us before God. It can condemn us, but it cannot exempt us from condemnation: see Act 13:38,39; Ga 3:21; Heb 7:18,19.

In that it was weak through the flesh: by flesh, as before, we must understand the corrupt nature; that is, every man since the fall. This is that which puts a weakness and inability upon the law. The impotency of the law is not from itself, but from the condition of the subject with whom it hath to do. The law is weak to us, because we are weak to it: the sun cannot give light to a blind eye, not from any impotency in itself, but merely from the incapacity of the subject it shines upon.

God sending his own Son: to justify and save fallen man, was impossible for the law to do; therefore God will find out another way, that shall do it effectually. What his own law cannot do, his own Son can; and therefore him he will send.

In the likeness of sinful flesh; i.e. such flesh as sin hath made now to be subject to many infirmities and weaknesses. Flesh in this clause carries quite another sense than it did in the first verse; and in the former part of this verse, than it doth in the following verse; there it is taken morally for the corrupt nature of man, here physically for the human nature of Christ. The word likeness is to be linked, not with flesh, but with sinful flesh; he had true and real flesh, but he had only the appearance and likeness of sinful flesh: see 2Co 5:21; Heb 4:15; 7:26; 1Pe 1:19.

And for sin; either this clause is to be joined to what goes before, and then the sense is, that God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, that he might take away sin. Or else it is joined to what follows, and then there is an ellipsis in it; something is cut off, or left out, which must be understood. The margin of our common Bibles insert the word sacrifice: q.d. By a sacrifice for sin, or by a sin-offering, he condemned sin. &c. This ellipsis is usual in Scripture. Isa 53:10, When thou shalt make his soul sin; that is, (as our translation renders it), an offering for sin.

Eze 45:19, The priest shall take of the blood of the sin; we read it, of the sin-offering. See the like in Hos 4:8; 2Co 5:21; Heb 10:6.

Condemned sin in the flesh; the Syriac reads it, in his flesh. The meaning is, that God severely punished sin, and inflicted the curse and penalty of it, that was due to us, in and upon the person of his own Son; God laid on him the iniquities of us all, and he bore them in his body upon a tree: see Gal 3:13; 1Pe 2:24.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. Law could not do—Namely, make the righteousness required to be fulfilled in us, (Rom_8:4.) Physical law, having to do with dead matter, secures its own fulfilment; moral law, having to do with free agents, cannot necessarily secure the obedience of the wilfully wicked.

Weak… flesh— Unable to secure its own fulfilment on account of the depraved persistence in disobedience.

God—The nominative to condemned.

Likeness of sinful flesh—He was the reality of human flesh, like unfallen Adam; he was only the likeness of sinful flesh, like fallen Adam.

His own—Emphatic, as Alford remarks; his own, therefore sinless; in contrast to sinful and sin twice named.

For—On account of. God sent his Son, both in sinful likeness and on account of sin, in order to bring us to perfect holiness.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For what the Law could not do (this is certainly what is meant by to adunaton tou nomou), in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in likeness of flesh of sin, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. The Law could not deliver from the domination of sin; it was weak for such a purpose (cf. Heb_7:18, Heb_7:19) but this not through any defect in itself but as having to work through our sinful flesh which refused obedience. And it was not the office of law to regenerate; it could only command and threaten. Hence the deliverance came, and could only come, from God himself (and this in accordance with the grand idea of the whole Epistle, expressed by the phrase, "the righteousness of God"); and so he sent his own Son (i.e. his Son essentially in a sense in which none of us can be called sons, himself Divine. The whole drift of the passage, as well as eautou , requires this conception); and he sent him into the very sphere of things that required redemption, that by actual participation in it he might personally redeem it; for he sent him in likeness of our "flesh of sin." It is not said in flesh of sin; for that might imply sin in Christ"s individual humanity: but, on the other hand, "in likeness" (en omoiwmati) does not imply docetism, as though Christ"s humanity were not real; for stress is evidently laid on the fact that it was in our actual human flesh that he "condemned" sin. The phrase appears to mean the same as what is expressed in Heb_2:17 and Heb_4:15: Wfeile kata panta toiv adelfoiv omoiwyhnai , and Pepeiramenon kata pathta cariav . The addition of peri amartiav "adds to the how the wherefore" (Meyer). Both this and the preceding expression are most naturally and intelligibly connected with temqav ; not, as some say, with katekrine. Peri comes suitably after the former verb, as denoting the occasion and purpose of the sending. (cf. prosenegke peri tou kayarismou , Luk_5:14) In Heb_10:8 (quoting from Psa_40:7 in the LXX) we find yusian kai prosfora olokautwmata kai peri amartiav , where the expression signifies offerings for sin; and in Heb_10:18 we have prosfora peri amartiav . The correspondence of phrase here suggests decidedly the idea of the purpose of atonement being intended to be expressed by it, though it does not follow that peri amartiav is used here substantively as it seems to be in Heb_10:8. But in what sense are we to understand condemned (katekrine) sin? We observe first that the verb appears to be suggested by katakrima in ver. 1, the connection being that formerly sin condemned us, but now sin itself has been condemned; that is (as Meyer expresses it), deposed from its rule in the flesh sue dejectum" (Calvin). (Perhaps similarly, Joh_16:11, o arcwn tou kosmou toutou kekritai) One view of the force of katekrine (found in Origen, and taken by Erasmus and others), that it denotes the punishment of sin endured by Christ vicariously on the cross, is not only not obvious, but inconsistent also with to aduneton tou nomou preceding; for what the Law could not do, was not to punish sin, but to deliver from it. Nor is there, further, anything in the language used to confine the condemnation of sin, in whatever sense intended, to the atonement made for it on the cross itself. It was in the whole mission of the Saviour (expressed by pemqav) that sin was "condemned;" and the idea may include his triumph over it in his human life no less than the penalty paid for it on the cross in behalf of man. "In the flesh" (connected with condemned, not with sin) does not mean Christ"s own flesh, but human nature generally. He represented man, having become for our sake the Soul of man; and we share his triumph over sin, made in our very human flesh, when we are baptized into his death, and become thereupon partakers of his resurrection. This idea, ever present to St. Paul"s mind, is expressed in the next verse, where our own appropriation of the condemnation of sin in Christ is declared.

And this because of what God himself did for mankind in his own Son, Christ, who, in our very flesh, and in behalf of mankind, did what man himself was powerless to do triumphed over sin and condemned it.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For what the law - Of Moses. Could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh - Incapable of conquering our evil nature. If it could, God needed not to have sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh - We with our sinful flesh were devoted to death. But God sending his own Son, in the likeness of that flesh, though pure from sin, condemned that sin which was in our flesh; gave sentence, that sin should be destroyed, and the believer wholly delivered from it.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

sin

Sin. (See Scofield "Rom 5:21").

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That is, when mankind could by no means be freed from sin and death, God sent his one and only Son to be a sacrifice for sin, that our liberty might be fully accomplished.

Observe here, 1. The impotency and weakness of the law declared; there is something which the law cannot do, it cannot justify, it cannot save, because it requires that which the fallen creature can never perform, and cannot make reparation for what the fallen creature has done.

Learn hence, That the moral law of God, though an holy and excellent law, and designed by God for holy and excellent ends; yet having now to do with fallen man, is become weak, and altogether unable to justify and save.

Observe, 2. The reason of the law’s impotency and weakness assigned: It is weak through the flesh; that is, through our corrupt and depraved natures. Its weakness doth not arise from itself; but from us; the law properly is not weak to us, but we are weak to that. The law retains it authority of commanding, but we have lost our power of obeying. No mere man, since the fall, was able perfectly to observe the law of God. None ever could keep the law of God perfectly, but the first Adam; none ever could and did keep it perfectly, but the second Adam.

Observe, 3. The way and means which the wisdom of God found out for relieving the law’s impotency, and for the fallen sinner’s recovery: He sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh.

Learn hence, 1. That Jesus Christ was God’s own Son, the Son of himself, his natural Son, co-equal, co-essential, and co-eternal, with the Father, partaking of his Father’s essence by an eternal and ineffiable generation.

2. That Jesus Christ was sent, and sent by God the Father: he was sent, therefore he had a being before his incarnation; for that which was not, could not be sent; he was sent by the Father, therefore he was and is a person, and a person really distinct from the Father; the one sends, and the other is sent.

Both what doth God’s sending Christ imply?

Ans. His appointing and ordaining of him before all time to the work and office of a Mediator: his qualifying and fitting him in time for that great work and office; and his authoritative injunction of him to take upon him our nature, and in that nature to make satisfaction for our sin.

3. That Christ, God’s own Son, was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, not in likeness of flesh: it was real flesh that Christ assumed; but like unto sinful flesh he was dealt with and handled, treated and used, just as guilty men are; accused of gluttony, wine-bibbing, sorcery, blasphemy, and what not; arraigned, condemned, executed for an impostor, deceiver, blasphemer, and breaker of the law.

Thus, though no sinner, yet was he reputed a sinner, and appeared in the likeness of sinful flesh.

4. That the end for which Christ was sent by God, was through the sacrifice of his death to condemn sin, that is, to expiate and take away the guilt of sin, so as that it shall never be charged upon believers to their eternal condemnation. For sin he condemned sin in the flesh. Blessed be God, condemning sin is condemned by a condemned Saviour.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. “For the impotency of the law, in which it was without strength through the flesh.” This is one of the rare instances in which “flesh” evidently means this mortal body. Wesley says we can only think, speak and act through these “organs of clay,” which have been so dilapidated by the Fall as really to become disqualified to serve in the capacity of efficient media through which the perfect law of God is verified in this world. Adam, before he fell, was competent, through the wisdom and power of the indwelling Spirit, perfectly to keep the divine law. From the ostensible fact that the whole race in the Fall signaly forfeited the power to keep the law, God in his condescending mercy, gave humanity a second probation under the mediatorial reign of the Second Adam. Otherwise we must have gone hopeless forever, like the fallen angels. “God sending his own Son in the likeness of the sin of carnality, and concerning sin, condemned sin in carnality.” The antithesis carries us back to Eden. What was the creature instrumental in the abduction of humanity? “He was the most subtle,” i. e., the wisest. This would locate him with the bipeds. The argument is altogether against the conclusion that he was a snake. He was a biped, the next link to man, looking more like him than a gorilla, which walks upright, using his hands like a man. So this creature only lacked the immortal human spirit. His very existence added much to the facility of human temptation, as he could speak; otherwise the surprise would have defeated the temptation. The position of this animal is now vacant in the zoological catalogue, as we see he was taken out of his place by the transformation which followed as a divine retribution. When God called him to account, I know he stood upright like a man till the awful anathema fell, “On thy stomach thou shalt go,” showing that he had not previously moved prostrate in the dust, the implacable odium of the human race. When this anathema fell on him, methinks I see his neck elongated, with horrific projecting jaws, and venomous, forked tongue; his arms, absorbed, disappear; his posterior members consolidated into a great, huge tail. Now falling on the ground, he crawls away, a loathsome, narcotic, hissing serpent, to be hated and slaughtered by the whole human race. Thus, you see, the snake originated out of the transformation resulting from sin. Evil can not emanate from good. Hence God never made a devil, a sinner, nor a snake. The brazen serpent in the wilderness by the divine order resembled the fiery serpents which invaded the camp and slew their multitudes. Why? Because the brazen serpent symbolized Christ, who was to take the form of man in order to save us. John the Baptist and Jesus both called the people a generation of vipers, i. e., “children of rattlesnakes.” Hence we received the diabolical venom through the serpent, thus imbibing the snake nature and becoming a race of snakes. It takes a rogue to catch a rogue. Consequently the commonwealth never makes much headway against a gang of thieves till some of them turn State’s evidence; then they get them quickly. So our blessed Savior took the form of our “sinful flesh” that He might save us from our sins. As symbolized by the brazen serpent, He became a snake that He might find and save us snakes. The wonderful condescension of redeeming love “Condemned sin in the flesh.” The condemnatory sentence must precede the execution of a criminal. As our Savior has perfectly kept the law for the whole human race, thus condemning the sin in carnality, therefore the gospel sword is sent out into all the world to execute the sentence of guilt against the man of sin in every human heart throughout the whole world. Thus, you see, it is our work to slay the man of sin without mercy. Therefore the true gospel has in all ages met the bitterest opposition, because nothing loves to die. Snakes fight awfully for their lives. Christ turned snake as symbolized in the wilderness, i. e., He took the form of us snakes, found them all, and passed sentence of death on them. Hence ours is truly a snake-killing business throughout. The two-edged sword of the gospel is sent into the world to cut off every snake head. Snakes are very scary. Hence you must have the perfect love which casts out fear, if you would make headway killing the snakes. Carnal cowards tinker along and let the snakes live.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh :

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

3. What the law could not do. Because of the resistance it met in human nature. It was not strong enough to overcome the tendency of the flesh, the carnal nature, to evil. God did this by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. When Christ came in human form he took the likeness of sinful flesh. And for sin. As a sacrifice for our sins. See John 1:29. Condemned sin in the flesh. To “condemn” is to sentence and to devote to destruction. Sin is condemned, (1) By the spotless life of Christ. In the flesh he was without sin. (2) By his death for sin our past sins are forgiven. (3) By our vital union with his death and life we rise to walk in a new life, with a new spirit, and hence, not under the power of the flesh. See 6:4.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

For what the law was unable to do because it was weak through the flesh, God did

Here the law is described as a person who could not break the power of sin. AT: "For the law did not have the power to stop us from sinning, because the power of sin within us was too strong. But God did stop us from sinning" (See: Personification)

through the flesh

"because of people's sinful nature"

He ... sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh ... an offering for sin ... he condemned sin

The Son of God forever satisfied God's holy anger against our sin by giving his own body and human life as the eternal sacrifice for sin.

Son

This is an important title for Jesus, the Son of God. (See: Translating Son and Father)

in the likeness of sinful flesh

"who looked like any other sinful human being"

to be an offering for sin

"so that he could die as a sacrifice for our sins"

he condemned sin in the flesh

"God broke the power of sin through the body of his Son"

the requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us

You can translate this in an active form. AT: "we might fulfill what the law requires" (See: Active or Passive)

we who walk not according to the flesh

Walking on a path is a metaphor for how a person lives his life. The flesh is an idiom for sinful human nature. AT: "we who do not obey our sinful desires"

but according to the Spirit

"but who obey the Holy Spirit"

translationWords

law

flesh

God

Son of God

sin

sacrifice

condemn

fulfill

walk

Holy Spirit

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

3. γὰρ explains the method of liberation.

τὸ ἀδύνατον. For abstract ἀδυνασία: cf. τὸ γνήσιον, 2Co 8:8; τὸ δοκίμιον, Jas 1:3; 1Pe 1:7 (?); τὸ χρηστὸν, supra Rom 2:4; cf. Blass, p. 155 = the incapacity, ineffectiveness, lack of power. The construction is pendent; cf. Blass, p. 283.

τοῦ νόμου. Here clearly of the law of GOD as apprehended by man.

ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει = the quality by which it was in a state of weakness, brought to that weakness (by sin) by means of the flesh; cf. Rom 7:14 n. ἠσθένει = constantly proved weak.

ὁ θεὸς. The whole action described is the action of GOD.

τὸν ἑ. υἱὸν. “The emphatic ἑαυτοῦ brings out the community of nature between the Father and the Son, cf. Rom 8:32, Col 1:13,” S. H. Add to ‘nature’ mind and purpose.

πέμψας. In this connexion only here and in Ev. Joh.

ἐν ὁμ. σ. ἁμ. Cf. Php 2:7; Heb 2:17. ὁμ. does not mark unreality but suggests a difference; cf. Rom 5:14, Rom 6:5 n. The difference here is indicated by the addition of ἁμ. The σάρξ, which He assumed never admitted the tyranny of sin, though it included the capacity for temptation and sin. In these words S. Paul touches the very nerve of the Passion, and indicates the supreme act of the divine Love. See Moberly, Atonement and Personality, c. 6.

σ. ἁμαρτίας = human nature as it is under the dominion of sin. This phrase comes most near to describing flesh as in itself sinful; but that misunderstanding has already been fully guarded against.

περὶ ἁμαρτίας. περὶ = in the matter of, to deal with. ὑπὲρ = on behalf of. But the distinction between these prepositions is obscured in the Greek of this time. ὑπὲρ is never used with the sing. (sin as sin) but only with the plural (men’s sins): περὶ with both. It is probable that in περὶ ἁμαρτίας there is a direct allusion to the sin-offering; cf. Leviticus 4 et passim; Heb 10:6 alibi (cf. Heb 10:26); but the reference is also wider.

κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμ. Condemned it, gave a verdict against it in its claim upon man: it was just this effective condemnation which law had been unable to compass.

ἐν τῇ σαρκί. With κατέκρινε = in His flesh; cf. Rom 6:1-10, esp. 6, 7, 10. This parallel shows the reference to be primarily to the Crucifixion (cf. Rom 7:4); but the whole Incarnate Life showed the victorious power over sin which culminated in the Death and Resurrection, and constituted a verdict against sin’s claim to man’s nature. The whole was one act of redemption of the flesh, i.e. of human nature: it is that act in all its bearings which is in question here, in contrast with τὸ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3.] For (explanation of ver. 2, shewing the method of this liberation) that which was not in the power of the law (the construction is a nominativus pendens, as in ref. Heb., in apposition with the following sentence, ὁ θεὸς κ.τ.λ.: so Rückert, Meyer, Fritz., De W., Tholuck: Winer, § 32. 7, makes it an acc. governed by ἐποίησεν understood (stating however in edn. 6, the nom. pendens as an alternative; see also § 63. I. 2. d): Olsh. al., make it an acc. absol. or supply κατά: Camerarius and Beza, διὰ;—but the above seems the simplest.

τὸ ἀδύνατ. τοῦ νόμου may mean either, ‘that part of the law which was impossible,’—‘could not be obeyed,’—as τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ch. 1:19;—or, ‘the inability of the law’ = ἡ ἀδυναμία τ. ν., as τὸ χρηστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, ch. 2:4;—or, ‘that which was unable to be done by the law.’ Of these, the first is out of the question, because νόμος must be the subject of ἐν ᾧ ἠσθ. κ.τ.λ.:—the second would give the first clause the meaning, ‘that wherein the inability of the law shewed itself,’ viz. its powerlessness διὰ τ. σαρκός. The third yields by far the best meaning: see below on διὰ τ. ς.) in that (this clause gives a reason and explanation of the ἀδύνατον, see however the note on ref. Heb.) it was weak (the Apostle keeps in mind his defence of the holiness of the law undertaken in ch. 7, and as Chrys. observes, δοκεῖ μὲν διαβάλλειν τὸν νόμον, εἰ δέ τις ἀκριβῶς προσέχοι, καὶ σφόδρα αὐτὸν ἐπαινεῖ … οὐδὲ γὰρ εἶπε τὸ πονηρὸν τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀδύνατον· καὶ πάλιν ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει, οὐκ, ἐν ᾧ ἐκακούργει, ἐν ᾧ ἐπεβούλενε. Hom. xiv. p. 563) through the flesh (i.e. in having to act through the flesh: not, ‘on account of the flesh,’ i.e. of the hostility, or weakness of the flesh, which would be διὰ τὴν σάρκα. The flesh was the medium through which the law,—being a νόμος ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης, Heb 7:16,—wrought, and οἱ ἐν σαρκί the objects on which. So the gen. here is similar to that in 2Co 2:4, ἔγραψα ὑμῖν διὰ πολλῶν δακρύων, and 1Pe 5:12, διʼ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα, indicating the state in or medium through which, the action is carried on),—God (did) sending His own Son (the stress is on ἑαυτοῦ, and the word is pregnant with meaning:—His own, and therefore like Himself, holy and sinless. This implication should be borne in mind, as the suppressed antithesis to ἁμαρτ., three times repeated afterwards. Another antithesis may be implied—ἑαυτοῦ, and therefore spiritual, not acting merely through the flesh, though in its likeness, but bringing a higher spiritual life into the manhood) in the likeness of the flesh of sin (the flesh whose attribute and character was sin. The gen. is not = ἁμαρτωλοῦ, but implies far more—[not merely the contamination by, but] the belonging to and being possessed by. De Wette observes, ‘The words ἐν ὁμοιώμ. σαρκ. ἁμ. appear almost to border on Docetism; but in reality contain a perfectly true and consistent sentiment. σὰρξ ἁμαρτ. is flesh (human nature, Joh 1:14; 1Jn 4:2; Heb 2:14) possessed with sin: the Apostle could not then have said ἐν σαρκὶ ἁμ. without making Christ partaker of sin: nor could he have said merely ἐν σαρκί, for then the bond between the Manhood of Jesus, and sin, would have been wanting: he says then, ἐν ὁμοιώμ. σαρ. ἁμ.,—meaning by that, He had a nature like sinful human nature, but had not Himself a sinful nature,—compare Heb 4:15: οὐ γὰρ ἔχομεν ἀρχιερέα μὴ δυνάμενον συνπαθῆσαι ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν, πεπειρασμένον δὲ κατὰ πάντα καθʼ ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. The likeness must be referred not only to σάρξ, but also to the epithet τῆς ἁμ.:—it did not however consist in this, that He took our sins (literally) on Himself, and became Himself sinful (as Reiche), which would not amount to likeness of nature,—but in this, that He was able to be tempted, i.e. subjected to sensuous incitements, e.g. of pain, which in other men break out into sin, but in Him did not.’ See Php 2:7, and note.

σάρξ is not = σῶμα, but as in Joh 1:14, the material, of which man is in the body compounded),—and on account of sin (to be joined with πέμψας, not as Chrys. al. Vulg., with κατέκρινεν: least of all as Luther, “und verdammete die Sünde in Fleisch durch Sünde.” The ‘for,’ or ‘on account of,’ sin, is at present indefinite, and not to be restricted to Christ’s death as a sin-offering, which is not just now the subject. ‘On account of sin’ then, = to put away sin, as reff. Heb.), condemned sin in the flesh (not ‘the sin which was in the flesh,’ which would probably (not certainly) have been τὴν ἐν τ. ς., and which is against the context, in which ἁμ. is throughout an absolute principle.

κατέκρινεν is allusive to κατάκριμα ver. 1. Hence it has been taken to mean that God condemned, punished, sin in the flesh by the death of Christ: so , Erasm., Calv., Melancthon, Calov., Olsh., al. But that can hardly be the meaning here, for several reasons. 1. The Apostle is not speaking of the removal of the guilt, but of the practice of sin, and of the real fulfilment of the law in those who are in Christ. It is this which even in ver. 1 is before him, grounding as he does the οὐδὲν κατάκριμα on the δουλεύω νόμῳ θεοῦ—on the new and sanctifying power of the Spirit by Christ, in spite of the continued subjection of the flesh to the law of sin. 2. The context shews that the weakness of the law was, its having no sanctifying power;—it could arouse sin, but it could not condemn and cast it out. This indeed is the burden of ch. 7. The absence of justifying power in the law has already been dealt with. 3. The following verse clearly makes the fulfilling the δικαίωμα of the law no matter of mere imputation, but of περιπατεῖν κατὰ πνεῦμα.

We must then look for the meaning of κατακρίνειν in the effects and accompaniments of condemnation,—victory over, and casting out of sin. See, for example, Joh 12:31, where κρίσις τοῦ κόσμου τούτου is explained by ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐκβληθήσεται ἔξω, and ib. 16:11. As early as Irenæus (Hær. iii. 20. 2, p. 214) this was seen to be the sense: ‘ut condemnaret peccatum, et jam quasi condemnatum projiceret illud extra carnem:’—so Chrys., ἐνίκησεν αὐτήν, τὴν δύναμιν αὐτῆς ἐξέλυσε,—Œcum. 2, πῶς ἐξῆρε; κατακρίνας αὐτὴν—καὶ δείξας ἁλοῦσαν. πῶς οὖν ἑάλω καὶ ἥττηται; ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ. προσιέναι γὰρ βουληθεῖσα κ. μὴ ἰσχύσασα ἑάλω κ. ἥττηται,—and Theophyl. (τὴν σάρκα) ἡγίασε κ. ἐστεφάνωσε, κατακρίνας τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ προσληφθείσῃ καὶ δείξας ὅτι οὐ φύσει ἁμαρτωλὸς ἡ σάρξ. And so, in modern times, Beza, Vitringa, Bengel, the Schmidts, Rosenm., Meyer, De Wette, Tholuck, Locke, Stuart, al., and mainly Grot., Reiche, and Fritz., who however render it ‘interfecit’ or ‘supplicio affecit,’ and understand the occasion to have been the Death of Christ,—though the condemnation of sin is owing to His sinlessness, not to His sacrifice. I have dwelt at length on this question, as being very important to the right apprehension of the whole chapter, in this part of which not the justification, but the sanctification, of Christians is the leading subject. It is a strong confirmation of the above view, that God’s condemnation of sin in the flesh by Christ is stated in ver. 3 as the ground of (ver. 2) my being freed from the law of sin and death: because, viz. Christ’s victory over sin is mine, by my union with Him and participation in His Spirit.

ἐν τῇ σαρκί is not ‘in His flesh,’ or ‘by means of His flesh,’ as Orig., Syr. (Peschito), Beza, Grot., Reiche, Olsh., al., but ‘in the flesh,’ which Christ and ourselves have in common),

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3. τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου. Two questions arise as to these words. (1) What is their construction? The common view, adopted also by Gif. (who compares Eur. Troad. 489), is that they form a sort of nom. absolute in apposition to the sentence. Gif. translates, ‘the impotence (see below) of the Law being this that,’ &c. It seems, however, somewhat better to regard the words in apposition not as nom. but as accus.

A most accomplished scholar, the late Mr. James Riddell, in his ‘Digest of Platonic Idioms’ (The Apology of Plato, Oxford, 1877, p. 122), lays down two propositions about constructions like this: ‘(i) These Noun-Phrases and Neuter-Pronouns are Accusatives. The prevalence of the Neuter Gender makes this difficult to prove; but such instances as are decisive afford an analogy for the rest: Theaet. 153 C ἐπὶ τούτοις τὸν κολοφῶνα, ἀναγκάζω προσβιβάζων κ.τ.λ. Cf. Soph. O. T. 603 καὶ τῶνδʼ ἔλεγχον … πεύθου, and the Adverbs ἀρχήν, ἀκμήν, τὴν πρώτην, &c. (ii) They represent, by Apposition or Substitution, the sentence itself. To say, that they are Cognate Accusatives, or in Apposition with the (unexpressed) Cognate Accus., would be inadequate to the facts. For (1) in most of the instances the sense points out that the Noun-Phrase or Pronoun stands over against the sentence, or portion of a sentence, as a whole; (2) in many of them, not the internal force but merely the rhetorical or logical form of the sentence is in view. It might be said that they are Predicates, while the sentence itself is the Subject.’ [Examples follow, but that from Theaet. given above is as clear as any.] This seems to criticize by anticipation the view of Va., who regards τὸ ἀδύν. as accus. but practically explains it as in apposition to a cognate accus. which is not expressed: ‘The impossible thing of the Law … God [effected; that is He] condemned sin in the flesh.’ It is true that an apt parallel is quoted from 2Co 6:13 τὴν δὲ αὐτὴν ἀντιμισθίαν πλατύνθητε καὶ ὑμεῖς: but this would seem to come under the same rule. The argument that if τὸ ἀδύν. had been accus. it would probably have stood at the end of the sentence, like τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν in Rom 12:1, appears to be refuted by τὸν κολοφῶνα in Theaet. above. Win. Gr. § 32:7, p. 290 E. T. while recognizing the accus. use (§ lix.9, p. 669 E. T.), seems to prefer to take τὸ ἀδύν. as nom. So too Mey. Lips. &c.

(2) Is τὸ ἀδύν. active or passive? Gif., after Fri. (cf. also Win. ut sup.) contends for the former, on the ground that if ἀδύν. were passive it should be followed by τῷ νόμῳ not τοῦ νόμου. Tertullian (De Res. Carn. 46) gives the phrase an active sense and retains the gen., quod invalidum erat legis. But on the other hand if not Origen himself, at least Rufinus the translator of Origen has a passive rendering, and treats τοῦ νόμου as practically equivalent to τῷ νόμῳ: quod impossibile erat legi*. Yet Rufinus himself clearly uses impossibilis in an active sense in his comment; and the Greek of Origen, as given in Cramer’s Catena, p. 125, appears to make τὸ ἀδύν. active: ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ ἀρετὴ ἰδίᾳ φύσει ἰσχυρά, οὕτω καὶ ἡ κακία καὶ τὰ ἀπʼ αὐτῆς ἀσθενῆ καὶ ἀδύνατα … τοῦ τοιούτου νόμου ἡ φύσις ἀδύνατός ἐστι. Similarly Cyr.-Alex. (who finds fault with the structure of the sentence): τὸ ἀδύνατον, τουτέστι τὸ ἀσθενοῦν. Vulg. and Cod. Clarom. are slightly more literal: quod impossibile erat legis. The gen. might mean that there was a spot within the range or domain of Law marked ‘impossible,’ a portion of the field which it could not control. On the whole the passive sense appears to us to be more in accordance with the Biblical use of ἀδύν. and also to give a somewhat easier construction: if τὸ ἀδύν. is active it is not quite a simple case of apposition to the sentence, but must be explained as a sort of nom. absolute (‘The impotence of the Law being this that,’ &c., Gif.), which seems rather strained. But it must be confessed that the balance of ancient authority is strongly in favour of this way of taking the words, and that on a point—the natural interpretation of language—where ancient authority is especially valuable.

An induction from the use of LXX and N. T. would seem to show that ἀδύνατος masc. and fem. was always active (so twice in N. T., twenty-two times [3 vv. 11.] in LXX, Wisd. 17:14 τὴν ἀδύνατον ὄντως νύκτα καὶ ἐξ ἀδυνάτου ᾅδου μυχῶν ἐπελθοῦσαν, being alone somewhat ambiguous and peculiar), while ἀδύν. neut. was always passive (so five times in LXX, seven in N. T.). It is true that the exact phrase τὸ ἀδύνατον does not occur, but in Luk 18:27 we have τὰ ἀδύνατα παρὰ ἀνθρώποις δυνατά ἐστι παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ.

ἐν ᾧ: not ‘because’ (Fri. Win. Mey. Alf.), but ‘in which’ or ‘wherein,’ defining the point in which the impossibility (inability) of the Law consisted. For ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός comp. 7:22, 23. The Law points the way to what is right, but frail humanity is tempted and falls, and so the Law’s good counsels come to nothing.

τὸν ἑαυτοῦ υἱόν. The emphatic ἑαυτοῦ brings out the community of nature between the Father and the Son: cf. τοῦ ἰδίου υἱοῦ ver. 32; τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ Col 1:13.

ἐν ὁμοιώματι σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας: the flesh of Christ is ‘like’ ours inasmuch as it is flesh; ‘like,’ and only ‘like,’ because it is not sinful: ostendit nos quidem habere carnem peccati, Filium vero Dei similitudinem habuisse carnis peccati, non carnem peccati (Orig.-lat.).

Pfleiderer and Holsten contend that even the flesh of Christ was ‘sinful flesh,’ i.e. capable of sinning; but they are decisively refuted by Gif. p. 165. Neither the Greek nor the argument requires that the flesh of Christ shall be regarded as sinful flesh, though it is His Flesh—His Incarnation—which brought Him into contact with Sin.

καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας This phrase is constantly used in the O.T. for the ‘sin-offering’; so ‘more than fifty times in the Book of Leviticus alone’ (Va.); and it is taken in this sense here by Orig.-lat. Quod hostia pro peccato factus est Christus, et oblatus sit pro purgatione peccatorum, omnes Scripturae testantur … Per hanc ergo hostiam carnis suae, quae dicitur pro peccato, damnavit peccatum in carne, &c. The ritual of the sin-offering is fully set forth in Lev_4. The most characteristic feature in it is the sprinkling with blood of the horns of the altar of incense. Its object was to make atonement especially for sins of ignorance. It was no doubt typical of the Sacrifice of Christ. Still we need not suppose the phrase περὶ ἁμαρτ. here specially limited to the sense of ‘sin-offering.’ It includes every sense in which the Incarnation and Death of Christ had relation to, and had it for their object to remove, human sin.

κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί. The key to this difficult clause is supplied by ch. 6:7-10. By the Death of Christ upon the Cross, a death endured in His human nature, He once and for ever broke off all contact with Sin, which could only touch Him through that nature. Henceforth Sin can lay no claim against Him. Neither can it lay any claim against the believer; for the believer also has died with Christ. Henceforth when Sin comes to prosecute its claim, it is cast in its suit and its former victim is acquitted. The one culminating and decisive act by which this state of things was brought about is the Death of Christ, to which all the subsequent immunity of Christians is to be referred.

The parallel passage, 6:6-11, shows that this summary condemnation of Sin takes place in the Death of Christ, and not in His Life; so that κατέκρινε cannot be adequately explained either by the proof which Christ’s Incarnation gave that human nature might be sinless, or by the contrast of His sinlessness with man’s sin. In Mat 12:41, Mat 12:42 (‘the men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it,’&c.) κατακρίνειν has this sense of ‘condemn by contrast,’ but there is a greater fulness of meaning here.

The ancients rather miss the mark in their comments on this passage. Thus Orig.-lat. damnavit peccatum, hoc est, fugavit peccatum et abstulit (comp. T. K. Abbott, ‘effectually condemned so as to expel’): but it does not appear how this was done. The commoner view is based on Chrys., who claims for the incarnate Christ a threefold victory over Sin, as not yielding to it, as overcoming it (in a forensic sense), and convicting it of injustice in handing over to death His own sinless body as if it were sinful. Similarly Euthym.-Zig. and others in part. Cyr.-Alex. explains the victory of Christ over Sin as passing over to the Christian through the indwelling of the Holy Ghost and the Eucharist (διὰ τῆς μυστικῆς εὐλογίας). This is at least right in so far as it lays stress on the identification of the Christian with Christ. But the victory over sin does not rest on the mere fact of sinlessness, but on the absolute severance from sin involved in the Death upon the Cross and the Resurrection.

ἐν τῇ σαρκί goes with κατέκρινε. The Death of Christ has the efficacy which it has because it is the death of His Flesh: by means of death He broke for ever the power of Sin upon Him (6:10; Heb 7:16; Heb 10:10; 1Pe 3:18); but through the mystical union with Him the death of His Flesh means the death of ours (Lips.).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What the law could not do [το αδυνατον του νομου] . Lit., the impossible (thing) of the law. An absolute nominative in apposition with the divine act - condemned sin. God condemned sin which condemnation was an impossible thing on the part of the law. The words stand first in the Greek order for emphasis.

In the likeness of sinful flesh. Lit., of the flesh of sin. The choice of words is especially noteworthy. Paul does not say simply, "He came in flesh" (1Jo 4:2; 1Ti 3:16), for this would not have expressed the bond between Christ 's manhood and sin. Not in the flesh of sin, which would have represented Him as partaking of sin. Not in the likeness of flesh, since He was really and entirely human; but, in the likeness of the flesh of sin : really human, conformed in appearance to the flesh whose characteristic is sin, yet sinless. "Christ appeared in a body which was like that of other men in so far as it consisted of flesh, and was unlike in so far as the flesh was not flesh of sin" (Dickson). 42 For sin [περι αμαρτιας] . The preposition expresses the whole relation of the mission of Christ to sin. The special relation is stated in condemned. For sin - to atone, to destroy, to save and sanctify its victims.

Condemned. Deposed from its dominion, a thing impossible to the law, which could pronounce judgment and inflict penalty, but not dethrone. Christ 's holy character was a condemnation of unholiness. Construe in the flesh with condemned.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.