The Pulpit Commentary — Romans — Section 209

l-y,l, from it.s old unweloome thrsldom. In Blly redeem it; fur he sent him in likeneea virtue of this new law, introduoed int.o my of our "flesh of Bin." It is not BD,id in flesh bein~. I e.m now free to give my entire qf Bin; for th&.t migU imply ain in Ohrist'e &llegie.noe to the law of God. No,w,s, be it individual humanity: but, on the othor c,bteer¥ed, is here &gain need in " een!!ll differ- hand, "in likeness" (iv d,.o,rl,p.0..-1) does not ent from its urnll.l one, and we t.hUB have e. imply dooetism, as though Ohrlst'a humanity !'till further 110,w,s, in addition to those de- were not real; for stress is evidently lo.id on fined in the note e.fter oh. vii. 25. The the fact that it was in our actual humRn designation of this new law is in marked fiesh that he " condemned " Bin. The opposition to that in which the 1-y@ we.s phnu!o appeo.re to mean the same 88 what before said to be held; we have l.ife in is expressed in Heh. ii. 17 s.ud iv. 15: opposition to d«itA, and the Spirit in "oppo- ~0<f>f1Af 1t111•4 r41rr11 ..-o,s ol3,A<f>o,s dp.010,6ijv111, sition to the jluh., e.s well e.s freedom in a.nd nnr,1pll/4&0II OTO. 71'41/TII 1ta.8' dp.o10T7/TG opposition to eaptiflity. The Spi,n't is, in xo,pls a.µ,zp-rl11s. The addition of ,npl a.p.ap.- fact. the Dinne Spirit. taldng possession of .-lus " adds to the how the wherefore" whe.t is spinru.al (now at length brought into new) in the inu,ard man., ma.king him (Meyer). Both this and the preceding pression &re most no.turally and· intelligibly ex- pa.rt&ker in the Dinue life, and able to conneoted with .,.,,.,i,as; not, as some aay, ser.e God fre,ely. The expressions used with 1ea..-b:pw•. n,pl comes suitably after bring out strikingly one essential distinc- the former verb, as denoting the occasion tion between Law e.nd Gospel, viz. that and purpose of the sending (of. 1rpoulv,11ee the principle of the former is to control ,..,pi .-oii ,ca6ap,u,.oii a-011, Luke v. 14), In and discipline conduct by requirements and Heh. x. 8 (quoting from Ps. xl. 7 in the threats; but of the la.tter to introduce int.o LXX.) we find 611ula.v ,ea;} rpou<f>op/w ,,.a;l ma.n's inner being & new principle of life, dA01ea11.-,/,p.a.-a ,ea;} 1r,pl l,.p.,.p-rlas, where the whence right conduct may spontaneously expression signifies offerings for sin; and j.n fiow. Coercion is the principle of the one; Heh. L 18 we he.ve rpotr<f>opo. ,..,pi a.p.a.p.-[!1,S, inspiration of the other. .An illustration 'rhe correspondence of phrase here suggests ma¥ be fonnd in the treatment of disease-- decidedly the idea of the purpose of atone- on the one hand by attempted repression of ment being intended to be expressed by it, specific ailment.s, e.nd on the other by im- though it does not follow that 1r•pl a.,.ap.-las parting a new vitality to the eyst.em, which is used here substantively as it seems to ·be may of itself dispel disease. It is shown in Heb. x. 8. Bnt in what sense are we· to nert how this new et.ate of freedom hBS understand condemned (1tatrl1tp111e) sin? We been brought about. Fizst, by what God obsene first that the verb appears to be in Christ has done for us apart from our- suggested by 1t11.-d.Jcp1µ.,,. in ver. 1, the con- selves ; the Sllbjective condition in ourselves nection being that formerly sin condemned being introduced at the end of ver. 4, -ro,s us, but now sin itself has been condemned; p.'I). etc. that is (as Meyer expresses it), deposed from Ver. 3.-Far what the Law could not do its rnle in the flesh-" jure suo dejeotum" (this is certainly what is meant by .-b &3~- (Calvin). (Perhaps similarly, John xvi 11, .....-011 -roii rlipm,), in that it 'Wll,I weak through 6 lfpxwv .-oii ,c/,up.011 .-ovro11 1el1ep,.-a1.) One the fllllh, God sending hia own Son in like- view of the force of 1ea.-l1ep111• (found in nea of 1leah of Bin, and for Bin, condemned Origen, and taken by Erasmus and others), llin in the fleah. The Law oould not deliver that it denote& the punishment of sin endured from the domination of sin; it w1111 weak by Christ vicariously on the cross, is not only for such a purpose ( cf. Heh. vii 18, 19) ; not obvious, but inconsilltent also with Hi but this not through any defect in itself, U611a-ro11 .-oii 110µ,011 preceding; for what the but as having to work through onr sinful Law could not do, we.s not t.o punish sin, but flesh which refused obedience. .And it was to deliver from it. Nor is there, further, not the office of law to regenerate; it could anything in the language used to con1¥1e only command and threaten. Hence the the condemnation of sin, in whatever sense deliverance came, and could only come, from intended, to the atonement me.de for it on G-od h.im.Belf (and this in accordance with the cross itself. It was in the whole mis- the gno.nd idea of the whole Epistle, ex- Bion of the Saviour (expressed by rlµ,,yti.,) p r ~ by the phrase, "the right.eoumeu that sin was " oondemned ; " and the idea of God "J; and 110 he eent hi, OIOI& Son (i.e. may include his triumph over it in his his Son MBentially-in a ,ellltl in which human life no leas than the penalty paid none of 1111 can be callts l aona, h.i.maelf for it on the cro11 in behalf of man. "In tho Divine. Tht> whole drift of the puaage, fle11h " ( connected with aondemned, not with u wtill 1181...,,.,.oii, n,quires tha conception); ,m) does not mean Ohrist's own flesh. but i,,nd 1e eent him i.ut.o the vt>ry sphere of burne.n nature generally. He reprosented thir,g11 that required rt>demption, that by man, Laving become for our sako the Bon M-1.w.l p&rticip&tioD in it Lt> might p!::lllOD- of u,an ; and we share hi• w!-qmph over sin, <lII, vm. 1-89.] THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. 207