More on Romans 8

INTRODUCTION
In chapter 8, Paul brings to a climax his discussion of the law, its cooption by sin, and the resulting death. He has shown the law to be weak and helpless in dealing with the condition of sin and death, and now announces that God has done what the law could not do. The Triune God has acted to fulfill His righteousness: God the Father has sent His Son in the likeness of flesh, so that He might condemn Sin in flesh; the result is that those who receive the Spirit fulfill the requirement of the Law. To reverse the sentence of condemnation that came through Adam (5:12-21), God has ?condemned?Esin. Torah could not achieve liberation, but God has acted to that the Torah can be fulfilled in us.

Let me highlight a few additional features of verses 1-4 before moving on a bit in the passage. First, what ?condemnation?Eis Paul talking about in verse 1? On the one hand, it?s clear from Romans 5:15-16 and 8:12-13 that the condemnation is a judgment of death. In 5:15-16, Paul uses two parallel statements to describe the effects of Adam?s transgression: ?by the transgression of the one the many died?E(v. 15), and ?the judgment from one [transgression] to condemnation?E(v. 16). The implication is that ?condemnation?Emeans ?death penalty.?E Because of Adam?s transgression, all human beings were condemned to death. In 8:12-13, Paul reiterates that life in the flesh leads to death, and in context this is the condemnation that no longer applies to those who are in Christ.

So, Paul is talking about condemnation to death. But that still leaves the question of which death he is talking about? Is he talking about the Death?s reign over Adamic humanity (5:17)? In that case, ?no condemnation?Ewould mean that those who are in Christ are liberated from the reign of death in order to live under a different regime. Or, is he talking about the simple fact of physical death? In that case, ?no condemnation?Ewould mean that those who are in Christ will ultimately be raised from the dead. Or, is he talking about eternal death? In that case, ?no condemnation?Ewould mean that those who are in Christ will stand in the final judgment, and will enter into eschatological life. All of these make contextual sense. As Romans 8 develops, Paul points to the liberation of the whole creation from its bondage to decay (v. 21), and specifically of the resurrection of the sons of God. Thus, the reversal of the sentence of physical death and the hope for a favorable verdict in the final judgment are within Paul?s purview.

But that is not all Paul has in mind. He also means that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ now. That is clear from at least three factors: a) He uses the word ?now?Ein verse 1. The freedom from condemnation is not merely a hope for a final verdict in the future; those who are in Christ Jesus are now under a judgment of ?no condemnation,?Ea judgment of ?justification.?E b) Verses 2-4 also speak of a present liberation from the law of sin and death. Paul is not talking simply about eschatological liberation from sin and death. The result of Christ?s work is that the requirement of the law is fulfilled in those who ?walk?Eby the Spirit, and ?walk?Erefers to the course of a life. Father, Son, and Spirit have worked together to produce an obedient people in the present, in history, not merely a forgiven people at the final judgment. God has acted not only to bring a people to their final destination, but to enable them to take the right path in reaching that destination. c) Chapter 7 describes (among other things) the existential dilemma of a faithful Jew under the law, agreeing with the law of God in the mind but unable to keep the law. Only a present deliverance from death answers the dilemma described in that chapter.

In short, Paul has both present and future aspects of justification/no condemnation in view here. Those who are in Christ Jesus are not condemned now, and that means that they are now liberated from the law of sin and death (8:2). And, in the future, those who have walked by the Spirit and killed the flesh will be justified at the final judgment. Across the board, in every aspect, God has acted to reverse the sentence of condemnation and to justify His people.

Second, what are we to make of the connection of the judicial language of ?no condemnation?Eand the emphasis throughout chapter 8 on the gift of the Spirit? The Spirit plays very little role in many accounts of justification, which is usually seen as an event between the Father and the Son. Pentecostal scholar Frank Macchia describes a typical evangelical position (in an article in Pneuma 22:1 [2000], pp. 3-21): ?God, as an impartial judge, is about to exact punitive justice against humanity, when Jesus, our advocate, offers his own meritorious righteousness on our behalf. Since his righteousness has satisfied God?s righteous requirements, it is enough to change our verdict from condemned to acquitted?E(p. 4).

There are at least two problems with this construal of justification. First, as Robert Jenson has intimated, this is a binitarian rather than a Trinitarian account of justification, and as such it violates the axiom of Trinitarian theology that all of God does all that God does, or, as Jenson puts it (following the Cappadocians), ?every act of God . . . is ?initiated by the Father, effected by the Son and perfected by the Spirit.?? That the Cappadocians were reflecting a Pauline idea is suggested by the Trinitarian structure of Romans 8:1-4: There is no condemnation because of the work of the Triune God. ?No condemnation?E(or justification) arises not merely from a combined act of Father and Son, but from the united activity of Father, Son, and Spirit. Second, this way of accounting for justification has a hard time integrating Paul?s emphasis on the resurrection of Jesus into the doctrine of justification. Paul explicitly links justification to the resurrection (not the cross) in Romans 4, and Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15 that a cross without a resurrection does not bring forgiveness: ?If Christ is not raised, you are still in your sins.?E It is common for evangelical commentators and theologians to assign the resurrection a role in sanctification but not in justification. Macchia again: ?the resurrection was thus reserved for the basis of our subjective faith response to a justification ?objectively?Ewon in the cross. It is then sanctification that has its basis in the resurrection. The cross justifies by satisfying God?s justice while the resurrection sanctifies with new life. The end result is that the Spirit has nothing directly to do with the origin of justification?E(p. 9). At times, this is quite explicit. Macchia quotes from Everett Harrison?s commentary on Romans (Expositor?s Bible Commentary): ?It may be helpful to recognize that justification, considered objectively from the standpoint of God?s provision, was indeed accomplished in the death of Christ and therefore did not require the resurrection to complete it.?E

Paul, I think, would beg, strenuously, to differ. At this key moment in his letter, he announces that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ, that those who are in Christ are justified. And immediately grounds that verdict of justification in the work of the Spirit: ?For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death?E(v. 2). Nor is this a unique passage in Paul. He makes a similar link in Galatians 3, where he describes the promise to Abraham as, interchangeably, justification and the gift of the Spirit. Abraham is reckoned righteous before God by faith (vv. 6-7), and this is a blessing that God intended to extend to the Gentiles (v. 8). Those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham (v. 9), and the blessing is clearly the blessing of justification, of being accounted righteous by God. Yet, Paul can also describe the promise to Abraham as the ?promise of the Spirit through faith.?E This same equation is implicit

in the progression of Paul?s argument from chapter 2 to chapter 3. Paul describes his rebuke of Peter, which focuses on the issue of justification through faith and not through the works of Torah (2:16), and the chapter ends with Paul still condemning the notion that righteousness comes through Torah (2:21). But as soon as we move into chapter 3, the terms have changed. The prepositional phrases are the same; there is the same contrast of ?by faith?Eand ?by works of Torah?E(3:2; cf. 2:16), but Paul no longer describes the gift received through faith as ?justification.?E Instead, he asks whether the Galatians received the Spirit through faith or through the works of the law. This is not a new topic; it?s a way of talking about the same topic. ?Justification by faith and not by the works of Torah?Eand ?receiving the Spirit by the hearing with faith and not by the works of Torah?Eare two aspects of the same reality. Otherwise, chapter 3 is simply a diversion, and not on topic at all.

How can we put these things together? How is the Spirit involved in justification? This can be answered by recognizing the Spirit?s role in the resurrection of Jesus. Among other passages, Romans 8:11 shows that the Spirit is the Father?s agent in raising the Son (as He was the agent in the incarnation of the Son). God the Father will give life to our dead bodies through the Spirit, and we are assured that this will occur because God raised His Son. The implication is that God the Father raised the Son through the Spirit and in the same way will raise us up by the same life-giving Spirit. As Paul says in 1 Timothy 3:16, Jesus was ?justified in the Spirit?Eby His resurrection from the dead. For Paul, then, justification is not merely a verdict passed by the Father because of the intervention of the Son. It is certainly that, but the Spirit is integral to the act of justification. Justification for us as for Jesus is an enacted declaration, a judgment by the Father passed through the Spirit?s raising of Jesus from the dead. Brendan Byrne puts it this way: ?God vindicated the personal righteousness of Jesus ?Ehis ?obedience unto death?E?E- by raising him from the dead. His resurrection was, then, the outward, bodily shape of his ?justification?Eby God.?E We have no personal righteousness, but because we are ?in Christ Jesus?EGod enacts the same judgment on us that He enacted on the Son through the Spirit. Our justification takes the form of a deliverance from the ?law of sin and death?Ethrough the Spirit of Jesus.

ONTOLOGICAL CHANGE?
I can only begin to address verses 5-11 here. Let me worm my way into it by raising a question discussed by Thomas Schreiner in his commentary on Romans, namely, is the change from ?according to flesh?Eto ?according to Spirit?Ean ontological change, a change in the being and identity of a sinner, or is it merely a change in behavior. Schreiner refers to Charles Cranfield as a commentator who argues the latter: ?Cranfield . . . mistakenly blunts the ontological character of the text by saying that those who ?are?Eof the flesh are equated with those who ?walk?Eaccording to the flesh, and thereby puts the emphasis on behavior rather than being.?E For Schreiner, this is the opposite of Paul?s own argument: ?What Paul communicates in verses 5-11 is that those who ?walk?Eby the flesh or the Spirit do so because they ?are?Eof the flesh or the Spirit. In other words, his argument is that behavior stems from the being or nature of a person.?E

I largely agree with Schreiner here, but with some qualifications. He seems to claim that there is some ontological change of nature that ?underlies?Ethe change in walk, mindset, telos. That is, a change of nature produces change in behavior, in the orientation of life and thought, in the final end to which the person moves. I would rather say that the change in walk, mindset, and telos simply is the ontological change. To say a sinner?s being is changed is simply to say that he walks differently, thinks differently, is headed to a different ultimate end. These are not merely manifestations of a more fundamental change; these are the fundamental changes.

Apart from this, Paul?s description of those who are in the flesh implies a couple of fairly radical things about human nature. First, the ?ontological?Echange that Paul describes is a change that has to do with the invasion and indwelling of a new reality, something ?other?Ethan the person who is changed. In fact, the ontological reality of the sinner also has to do with the indwelling of a principle that is not identical with the sinner himself; that is one of Paul?s main points in chapter 7: ?no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which indwells me?E(v. 17). That is, our ?nature?Eis not something that pertains to us alone, but is determined by what indwells us, by our relation to something alien, whether Sin or the Spirit. To put this differently, the change in nature has to do with a change from one realm to another, from one regime to another, from the regime of Sin and Death to the regime of the Spirit and grace and righteousness. Again, our being is not simply OUR being, but is determined by what realm we are in, what ?aeon?Ewe live in, whether in the present age of death or the future age of the Spirit.

Second, Paul obviously does not believe in an unchanging human nature, at least not without qualification. It is true that human beings are made in the image of God, and that this does not change. We don?t become beasts or gods. But God can change our being, so that we become human in a radically different way.

Third, referring back to our earlier discussion, we should not that this whole chapter began with the announcement that there is ?no condemnation.?E That announcement is being unpacked with a series of clauses beginning with ?for?E(Greek, gar): There is no condemnation because the Spirit has set us free; because God did what the Law could not do; because those who are according to Spirit set their minds on the Spirit; for the mind set on Spirit is life and peace. The ontological change is part of Paul?s unpacking of the ?no condemnation.?E God?s favorable judgment, His declaration that there is no condemnation, takes the form of resurrection in Christ, as I?ve argued above. Now, Paul makes clear that God?s judgment against Sin that liberates us from the domination of Sin and Death, is a change in our being. Justification makes us different people.