Murray and the “Deliverdict”

John Murray recognizes that Paul announces a ?deliverdict?Ein Romans 8:1-4. He is considering the force of ?therefore?Ein 8:1, asking what earlier portion of Romans this points to: ?If the apostle is thinking merely of freedom from the guilt of sin and from the condemnation which guilt entails, then we should have to find the basis of the inference in that part of the epistle which deals particularly with that subject (3:21-5:21). But if there is included in freedom from condemnation not only deliverance from the guilt of sin but also from its power, then the ?therefore?Ecould be related quite properly to what immediately precedes (6:1-7:25) as well as to the more remote context. It is this latter alternative which the evidence would appear to demand. The word ?condemnation?Ehere can scarcely be interpreted apart from the immediately succeeding context in which it appears and so we must look for the specific complexion given to the word by this context to which it is so closely related. In this context, as well be shown later, the apostle is not dealing with justification and the expiatory aspect of Christ?s work but with sanctification and with what God has done in Christ to deliver us from the power of sin. Hence what is thrust into the foreground in the terms ?no condemnation?Eis not only freedom from the guilty but also freedom from the enslaving power of sin?E(Romans at 8:1). The only modification I would make is to endorse Moo?s suggestion that introducing the distinction of justification and sanctification at this point may unnecessarily complicate things; Moo suggests that 8:2 is about the ?realm transfer?Efrom Adam to Christ, from flesh to Spirit, rather than about ?sanctification.?E

Murray expands on this point in his commends on 8:3. He points out that the cross not only delivers from the guilt of sin but from its power, and also notes that this deliverance is spoken of as a judgment carried out against sin or Satan. Citing John 12:31, he comments, ?Here the victory over the world and Satan is represented as a judgment executed, and judicial language is used to express it. The victor over the powers of darkness is, according to Paul, a work wrought by the cross of Christ (Col. 2:15). The word ?condemn?Eis used in the New Testament in the sense of consigning to destruction as well as of pronouncing the sentence of condemnation (cf. I Cor. 11:32; II Pet 2:6). That is to say, condemnation may be viewed as not only the sentence but the putting of the sentence into execution. This would be an eminently appropriate use of the term when the action of God is contemplated because his pronouncement of judgment is efficient to the end of putting into execution the judgment pronounced. Since then judicial language is applied to the destruction of the power of the world and of the prince of darkness and since the term ?condemnation?Eis used here respecting the work of Christ, there is a warrant for the conclusion that the condemning of sin in the flesh refers to the judicial judgment which was executed upon the power of sin in the cross of Christ. God executed this judgment and overthrew the power of sin; he not only declared sin to be what it was but pronounced and executed judgment upon it. Furthermore, it is this constitutive meaning of condemnation that provides the proper contrast to what the law could not do. In the barely declarative sense the law could condemn sin; this is one of its chief functions. But the law cannot execute judgment upon sin so as to destroy its power . . . . To execute judgment upon sin to the destruction of its power the law is impotent.?E

He notes that, conversely, justification language is used in some places to describe not only the verdict of ?not guilty?Eor ?righteous,?Ebut also to describe deliverance from sin. Pointing to Romans 6:7, he argues that ?the forensic term ?justify?Eis used with reference to the judgment executed upon the power of sin in the death of Christ. The result is that all who have died with Christ are the beneficiaries of this judgment executed and are therefore quit of sin?s dominion. This is the force of the expression ?justified from sin.?E IN like manner the forensic term ?condemn?Ecan be used in this instance to express the judicial judgment executed upon the power of sin in the flesh of Christ?E(Romans at 8:3).

In fact, Murray does not have to reach back to 6:7 to find an instance of justification language used in this sense. NT Wright argues in his commentary on Romans 8:3-4 (p. 577), the word DIKAIOMA does not refer to ?moral commands to be obeyed?Ebut ?decree or verdict.?E He supports this claim with two arguments: When the word is used to describe moral requirements, it is used in the plural (Rom 2:26; Lk 1:6; Heb 9:1, 10; Rev 15:4; 19:8); and, second, ?in the passage to which the present one points back, where DIKAIOMA is contrasted with KATAKRIMA [?condemnation?], the DIKAIOMA is unquestionably God?s righteous decree or verdict, not the required behavior of God?s people . . . . It is highly likely, therefore, that TO DIKAIOMA TOU NOMOU here refers to the verdict that the law announces rather than the behavior which it requires.?E This is not a verdict of condemnation, but a verdict of ?justification unto life?Ethat the law promises but cannot deliver; what is fulfilled is the law?s promise of ?do this and you will live.?E Wright is onto something quite profound here, but confuses his point by drawing too sharp a distinction between the judicial force of DIKAIOMA and the ?moral requirements?Eof the law. Surely, Paul means that the promise of the law is fulfilled in us precisely because the Spirit enables us to do what the Law demanded, to please God, something we cannot do in the flesh. If we take the DIKAIOMA as a ?deliverdict,?Ethen things clear up a bit: The Law cannot give the life it promises because the law cannot deliver from the power of sin; what the Law cannot do, God does through the Living Torah, Jesus, and the Spirit, so that the (eschatological) verdict of ?righteous?Ethat the law promises to those who keep it (cf 2:13) may be passed on us; but Paul here speaks of the whole reality of deliverance-from-sin-and-reception-of-the-Spirit in terms of ?justification.?E