A Commentary on Romans with Old Testament Allusions

Chapter 8 8 There is therefore ara – to draw a conclusion now nun- present time, immediate no condemnation katafrima – an adverse verdict for those who are in Christ Jesus. This passage changes the whole scene into one of triumph after Paul has spent the entire chapter 7 dealing with the struggle between the flesh and being obedient to the commands of God whether spoken (as with Adam) or written (beginning with Moses). This struggle has always been present throughout history, It started when there was not a written law in the garden when Satan approached the woman and she struggled trying to decide whether or not what Stan was saying was credible enough to act. It was not, although she heeded those words. In her naivete and inexperience, which Satan took advantage of, she disobeyed God. (Gen 3:6) When a written law was given to mankind at Sinai through the Israelites, this struggle still existed when Moses struggled to obey God in the desert of Meriba. (Numb 20:11-12) He had a choice as to whether he spoke to the rock as God had told him or to strike it. He chose the latter and it cost him greatly-to lead the people into the promised land. Paul’s struggle in Chapter 7 is the exact same struggle man has always had between the flesh, which wants to serve the law of sin and the mind which delights in the law of God and wants to serve Him. (Rom 7:22) The only difference in this common struggle is the context in which he has been placed in before God over the centuries. At times there was no written law except direct commands from God, then at other times when there was a written law. The context and situation changed sometimes dramatically, but the struggle is the same and still goes on today within man as he struggles to be obedient to God in the gospel age. The difference “now” is that we have the Holy Spirit given unto us (Acts 2:38, Romans 5:5) whereas they did not in past dispensations. “Therefore” implies a conclusion is about to be reached at the present time (after the law has served its purpose) and that is the condemnation, guilt that all of mankind was under has now been lifted. Man has been acquitted of the charges that had been leveled against him and that he was constantly accused of before God. (Rev 12:10). The verdict of guilty in the court of heaven, against mankind has been set aside or overturned because God has pardoned those sins and hel Jesus as full payment for them for all time. Yes, we were guilty “as charged” but God granted forgiveness through the death of Jesus and all we must do now is by faith to accept the righteousness that faith in Jesus brings about for salvation and be obedient to the requirements of that faith. (Rom 1:17, 4:13)) The only place where this can happen in is “in Christ” and he described how to accomplish that act in Rom 6:3-4. 2 For the law nomos – a principle of the Spirit of life has set you free eleuthero – to liberate in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. This passage has surprisingly resulted in some difficulty among commentators to interpret. In my view, the reason being is that there are four points of reference that one can “key” on in attempting to bring some clarity to what Paul is referring to. The first point of reference is the word “law”. Whatever Paul is talking about, we know that he is comparing two “laws” with one negating the other. The second point is “the Spirit of Life”. Immediately it is easy to connect this phrase to the Holy Spirit, however some have related it to the Word or the gospel. Thirdly, one can focus on the freedom that he refers to that has come about from the relationship that we “now” have “in Christ” being freed from the condemnation that was a part of our prior situation without Christ, under the Mosaic Law. Lastly, the phrase “law of sin and death” has implications that go beyond the context here. So, which perspective is the correct posture to take when explaining this verse? Let’s explore each in turn. First, take the word law. The challenge is what “law” is Paul talking about-the Mosaic law or law in general as a principle or rule. There is no question that Paul spent a major part of Chapter 7 showing the frustration of attempting to live the Christian life according to the flesh. Clearly, his frustration was with the Mosaic law’s requirements that he just could not get a handle on to the extent that his life reflected the requirements. (Rom 7:14-25) Although it is tempting to think that he is still referring to the Mosaic law, since the reference to this law is in such proximity to those passages, this may not be what he means to convey. Although he attested that the law is holy (7:12), there is no reference to it bringing life, but just the opposite-death. (7:9) Can something good be extracted from something that brought death? Paul said it could because it revealed sin for what it was even though it worked death in him. (7:13) There was good that came out of it, but not a direct reference to it being related to the Spirit of Life. So, for that reason, I lean more to the first reference to law being a general principle or established rule and not the Mosaic law. So, what is this law of the Spirit of Life? It is interesting as we follow the flow of thought of Paul in this letter to note that up until Chapter 8, the Holy Spirit is only explicitly mentioned 2 times (Rom 1:4, 5:5). However, in this chapter alone, it is found 21 times (fifteen in verses 1-17) and a total of 13 times in the rest of the book. So, clearly what Paul is introducing here as the law of the Spirit, is strongly related to the Holy Spirit. Some commentators opine that this is a reference to the gospel, focusing mostly on the word law and using James 1:14 as a supportive text when he refers to the perfect law of liberty. Finding another text that supports the position of this phrase being the gospel, is based on the conclusion that it is the gospel and simply finding another passage that truly is referencing the gospel, does not necessarily mean that the initial premise is correct. The Word of God does not of itself free us from the condemnation that we were under in Chapter 7, the Holy Spirit does! If we are thinking of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God as being one unit, then there is no distinction and confusion can occur. We know they are separate because Paul later writes that the sword of the Spirit is the Word of God. (Eph 6:17). They can act in tandem, but they are not one and the same. After we are baptized into Christ and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, it is at that point that we are freed from the condemnation brought on by our guilt before God from what Adam and Eve did in the garden. Without the Holy Spirit, the Word would be inept and alone in the salvation of man! In other words, our sanctification by the Holy Spirit is the cause and ground of our justification. (2 Th 2:13, 1 Pet 1:2) The Word communicates that message to us, and the Holy Spirit makes possible what is spoken of in the Word as to the life that is free from condemnation. The change in the argument clearly begins a strong narrative about the Holy Spirit that has not occurred before in the epistle. Also, to interpret this phrase as the Holy Spirit does not negate the position that it could be the gospel because the Holy Spirit is the vehicle by which we received the gospel. The two cannot be separated in this respect; one brought about the other. Without the Holy Spirit there would be no gospel or “perfect law of liberty”. (James 1:25) Sometimes having a more literal view of the scripture can be a challenge when a much broader picture of a passage, especially one in which there are many dimensions such as the Holy Spirit is required. Concluding that this phrase is referring to the gospel only, provides a limited point of view that forgoes the broader implications Paul is bringing into his discussion with this mention of the Holy Spirit.