Lamentations 3:37-58

The following comments are repeated here with some editing from March 22, 2008 (Holy Saturday, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from April 15, 2006 (Holy Saturday, Year Two).

The Old Testament lesson continues in Lamentations, chapter 3 (3:37-58). After the hopeful passage on the LORD’s steadfast love (Lam. 3:22a, 32b), his mercies that “never come to an end,” but are new every morning” (vv. 22b, 23a), which came in the midst of yesterday’s lamenting, today’s reading returns to the shadows of God’s judgment. Daniel Grossberg calls verses 34-39 “a restatement of standard biblical retribution theology: All is according to the divine will; suffering is the divine punishment for sin, to be accepted willingly” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Lam. 3:34-39). The acrostic pattern continues with three verses for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet.

37.       Who (ym9, mî) can command and have it done, / if the Lord has not ordained it?

38.       Is it not from the mouth (yP9m9, mippî ) of the Most High / that good and bad come?

39.       Why (hm!, māh) should any who draw breath complain / about the punishment of their sins?

For “any who draw breath” (NRSV, lit. “a living man [’ādām chāy], a man [or ‘someone’ gever]), the NJPS translation has “a living man . . . Each one.” According to Grossberg, “With ‘gever,’ ‘man’ in v. 1 it defines the poetic unit spoken by the individual (vv. 1-39)” (ibid., on v. 39). Werner E. Lemke, revised by Kathleen O’Connor, interprets, “Since nothing happens apart from God’s will, divine chastisement should be accepted willingly” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lam. 3:39).

40.       Let us test (hW!P4H4n1, nachp^eśāh) and examine our ways, / and return to the LORD.

There is exhortation here to learn from the present anguish. “Let us,” says Grossberg, is “an appeal for introspection and repentance in the first-person plural” (op. cit., on v. 40). With this, Grossberg notes the transition from an individual voice to that of the community (plural).

41.       Let us lift up (xW0!n9, niśśā’) our hearts as well as our hands / to God in heaven.

For “our hearts as well as our hands” (NRSV), the NJPS has “our hearts with [’el] our hands” and a text note, “Lit. ‘to’; emendation yields ‘rather than’ [‘al, cf. BHS apparatus]; cf. Joel 2:13" (note a). Grossberg says, “Our hearts with (or ‘rather than’) our hands stresses sincerity, not mere outward gesture (cf. Joel 2:13)” (ibid., on v. 41).

42.       We (UnH4n1, nachnû) have transgressed and rebelled, / and you have not forgiven.

Note the pronoun “We,” placed first for emphasis as it duplicates the first person plural verb ending. Grossberg sees here “confession of sin in first-person plural using multiple terms for sin,” and adds, “The Yom Kippur Confession of Sin (‘viduy’) exhibits the same form and is preceded by recitation of the Thirteen Attributes of God” (on v. 42, with ref. to his note on 3:22-23. as noted yesterday). F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp calls this confession “the turning-point in the poem,” but notes that “the penitence is short-lived” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on v. 42). He refers to the conjunction “and,” which introduces the second half-line of verse 42 (NRSV and NJPS, but not in the Heb.): “And, better ‘but,’ given the following statement’s promised adversative sense. The speaker, having come to the brink of being consoled (cf. vv. 25-39, is finally crushed by the LORD’s continued absence and silence and the persistence of suffering” (ibid.).

43.       You have wrapped yourself (ht!Kos1, sakkōthāh) with anger and pursued us, / killing without pity;

44.       You have wrapped yourself (j`l! . . . ht!Kos1, sakkōthāh . . . lāk) with a cloud / so that no prayer can pass through.

“On the hiddenness or absence of God,” say Lemke and O’Connor, “see Isa. 45:15” (op. cit., on vv. 43-44).

45.       You have made us filth (yH9s4, s^echî) and rubbish / among the peoples.

Grossberg refers briefly here to “more charges of divine abandonment” (op. cit., on vv. 43-45).

46.       All our enemies / have opened (UcP!. pātsû) their mouths against us;

(Note the reversed order of the half-lines in the English translation. NJPS has “. . . loudly rail against us.”) After further complaint, the communal lament form (cf. vv. 46, 48) turns to individual lament form.

47.       panic (dH1P1, pachad) and pitfall have come upon us, / devastation and destruction.

48.       My eyes flow with rivers of tears (My9m1-yg2l4P1. palgê-mayim [lit. canals of water. NJPS “streams of water”]) / because of the destruction of my people.

We note that the speaker speaks of his people’s suffering, not merely of his own, including “the fate of all the young women in my city (v. 51, below).

49.       My eyes (yn9yf2, ‘ênî ) will flow without ceasing, / without respite,

(As noted yesterday, the ‘ayin stanza precedes the pe stanza here, and in 2:16-17 and 4:46-51, but not in 1:16-17.)

50.       until (df2, ‘ēd) the LORD from heaven / looks down and sees.

51.       My eyes (yn9yf2, ‘ênî ) cause me grief / at the fate of all the young women in my city.

Note the three uses of “my eyes,” vv. 48, 49, 51, which call attention to the poet’s wanting “the LORD from heaven” to look down and see, v. 50.

52.       Those who were my enemies without cause / have hunted me (yn9Udc! DOc, tsōd tsādûnî [NJPS “snared me”] like a bird;

Again, note the reversed order of the half-lines in the English translation.

53.       they flung (Utm4c!, tsām^etû, lit. “silenced”) me alive into [NJPS “ended my life in] a pit / and hurled stones on me;

54.       water closed (Upc!, tsāfû, lit. “flooded, rose up”) over my head; / I said, ‘I am lost.’

Grossberg says the words, “waters flowed over my head” (v. 54 NJPS) are a “metaphor for desperation (cf. Jonah 2:6-7; 2 Sam. 22:5-6; Ps. 18:5-6,” and the words, “I am lost! [mean] dead, cut off from God (Isa. 53:8; Ps. 88:6)” (ibid., on v. 54).

We come again to what appears to be a change of tone. Dobbs-Allsopp and Grossberg offer essentially the same comment. “Many of the verbs translated as past tense throughout the remainder of the poem are to be understood as expressing a wish or request (cf. 1:21c; 4:22b)” (Dobbs-Allsopp, op. cit., on vv. 55-56). “Many verbs translated as imperatives in vv. 56-66 are in the past tense. This change in tense, found in several psalms as well (e.g. Ps. 6, 10) may reflect a wish, or a newfound confidence in the worshipper, perhaps after hearing an oracle that God has heard the prayer” (Grossberg, op. cit., on v. 56). This difference, past tense or imperative appears in the translations of verse 56a, “you heard my plea” (NRSV, below), “Hear my plea” (NJPS), where the Hebrew has the perfect (past) tense, T!f4m!5w!, šāmā‘tā. The initial verbs of verses 57-61 are all in the Hebrew perfect (past) tense, and translated as past tense verbs in the NRSV and NJPS, which, as suggested, reflects anticipation.

55.       I called (yt9xr!q!, qārā’tî) on your name, O LORD, / from the depths of the pit;

56.       you heard my plea (yl9Oq, qôlî ‘Do not close your ear / to my cry for help, but give me relief!’

57.       You came near (t0!b4r1q!, qārabtā) when I called on you; / you said, "Do not fear!"

58.       You have taken up (NJPS, “championed”) my cause (byr9 [BHS, MT yb2yr9] . . . T!b4r1), O Lord, / you have redeemed my life.

We may note that an element of trust emerges in these later verses.

Hebrews 4:1-16

The Rest that Awaits the People of God

4:1 Therefore, while the promise of entering his rest is still open, let us take care that none of you should seem to have failed to reach it. 2 For indeed the good news came to us just as to them; but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said,

"As in my anger I swore,

'They shall not enter my rest,' "

though his works were finished at the foundation of the world. 4 For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, "And God rested on the seventh day from all his works." 5 And again in this place it says, "They shall not enter my rest." 6 Since therefore it remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, 7 again he sets a certain day-"today"-saying through David much later, in the words already quoted,

"Today, if you hear his voice,

do not harden your hearts."

8 For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later about another day. 9 So then, a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; 10 for those who enter God's rest also cease from their labors as God did from his. 11 Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs.

God’s Penetrating Wisdom

12 Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account. (Hebrews 4:1-13 NRSV)

Jesus the Great High Priest

14 Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Hebrews 4:14-16, NRSV)

Relevant comments for Hebrews 4:1-16 are repeated here from January 16 and 18, 2010 ( Saturday in the week of the First Sunday after the Epiphany, and Monday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when the readings were Hebrews 4:1-13 and 4:14-5:6. Earlier sources are indicated there.

Chapter four of Hebrews continues to interpret the quotation of Psalm 95:7-11 in Hebrews 3:7-11. According to the biblical narrative, with the exceptions of Joshua and Caleb, the generation of Israelites that left Egypt under Moses’ leadership, failed to enter Canaan with Joshua. The Psalm quotation concludes with God’s oath. “As in my anger I swore, / ‘They will not enter my rest’ ” (Heb. 3:11; cf. Ps. 95:11). Hebrews understands the Psalm as a promise of “rest” not attained by the ancient Israelites but remaining for the future.

Apparently, according to Hebrews, entering the “rest” was not completed by the conquest and settling of the promised land. If we look ahead in Hebrews, the rest is to be associated with the following.

But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel. (Hebrews 12:22-24 NRSV; cf. F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, NICNT, rev. ed., 1990, on Heb. 12:22-24).

So the writer to the Hebrews begins today’s reading with a promise: “Therefore, while the promise of entering his [i.e., God’s] rest is still open, let us take care that none of you should seem to have failed to reach it” (Heb. 4:1). The readers (and we) are warned to be sure to enter God’s rest, for the promise to the Israelites is matched by the promise to us. “For indeed,” says the writer, “the good news came to us just as to them” (v. 2a), and receiving and benefitting from this promise depends for us, as for them, upon faith: “but the message they heard did not benefit them, because they were not united by faith with those who listened” (v. 2b). According to Bruce,

The promise of entering the “rest” of God remains open. The meaning of that “rest” was not exhausted by the earthly Canaan which was entered by the Israelites . . . the spiritual counterpart of the earthly Canaan is the goal of the people of God today. . . . The good news which was proclaimed to them, summarized in such Old Testament passages as Ex. 19:3-6; 23:20-33, told them how the God of their fathers, who had delivered them from Egypt, would bring them safely to the promised land and give them possession of it, and would make them “a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation” to himself, if only they would obey his voice and keep his covenant. (ibid., on 4:1)

The readers are reassured: “For we who have believed enter that rest,” says the writer (v. 3a), and he illustrates the promise with the contrary concept, “just as God has said, ‘As in my anger I swore, / “They shall not enter my rest”,’ though his works were finished at the foundation of the world” (v. 3b, citing Ps. 95:11). The “rest” is defined in relation to God’s resting on the seventh day of creation. “For in one place it speaks about the seventh day as follows, ‘And God rested on the seventh day from all his works’ ” (Heb. 4:4, citing Gen. 2:2). According to Harold W. Attridge, “Ps. 95:11, already cited in 3:11, supports the claim that God’s promise remains open. That God’s works were finished at creation implies that ‘rest’ was available long before the Israelites approached Canaan” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Heb. 4:3). Attridge continues: “Gen. 2:2, with its note that God rested, confirms that ‘rest’ was a reality already present at the creation of the world. The verbal connection between Ps. 95 and Gen. 2 is not apparent in the Hebrew but works in the Greek, where forms of the same word for ‘rest’ are used in both verses” (ibid., on v. 4). The failure of the first Israelite generation to enter the rest is blamed on disobedience. “And again in this place it says, ‘They shall not enter my rest’ ” (v. 5, citing Ps. 95:11). Psalm 95:11 has an oath formula. “They shall not enter my rest,” is literally, “if they enter my rest” (yt9&HAUnm4-lx, NUx*boy4-Mx9, ’im-y ^evō’ûn ’el-m ^enûchātî; LXX [94:11] Eij eijseleuvsontai eijV th;n katavpausivn mou, Ei eiseleusontai eis tēn katapausin mou). The full formula is apparent, for example, in the following: “If (-Mxi, ’im; LXX eij, ei) I have raised my hand against the orphan, / because I saw I had supporters at the gate; / then (inferred in Heb.; LXX a[ra, ara) let my shoulder blade fall from my shoulder, / and let my arm be broken from its socket” (Job. 31:21-22). The “if” clause states a condition that would bring the curse, the “then” clause, upon the speaker. Repeatedly in Job 31, Job’s “If I have” amounts to “I have never” (Job 31:5, 7, 9, 13, etc.). Sometimes, the “then” clause is only implied, and the “if” clause stands alone. Gesenius says, “According to the usual view, phrases expressing an oath depend on the suppression of an imprecation upon oneself, e.g., the Lord do so unto me, if I do it equivalent to I certainly will not do it; then naturally xlo-Mx9 [’im-lō’] properly if I do it not equivalent to I certainly will do it” (E. Kautzsch, ed., and A. E. Cowley, trans., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2^nd English ed., 1910, reprinted 1985, sec. 149 b). In other words, in the Hebrews text, at least, according to Harold W. Attridge, “the Hebrew formula consists of the protasis [‘if’ or condition clause] of a conditional sentence (Nvxby Mx [’m yb’wn], ‘if they enter’) where the apodosis [‘then’ or consequence clause] is suppressed. The LXX simply translates the conditional without regard to its function . . . ‘if they enter’)” (The Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia, 1989, p. 116, n. 36, on Heb. 3:11). Hence, the emphatic translation, “They shall not enter my rest” (Heb. 4:4, 5).

The writer draws a conclusion, first stating the basis: “Since therefore it [i.e., the ‘rest’] remains open for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience” (Heb. 4:6). “It remains open,” says Attridge, “summarizes the argument of vv. 1-5. The remark that the Israelites failed to enter summarizes 3:12-29” (HarperCollins Study Bible, on v. 6). But the author continues to interpret the Psalm.

“Today, if you hear his voice,

do not harden your hearts.” (Heb. 4:7, citing Ps. 95:7-8 LXX)

Noting that the Psalm addresses a later generation of Israelites already living in Canaan, the writer concludes that Joshua [ =  =Ihsou:V, Iesous, cf. Acts 7:45] had not “given them rest” (Heb. 4:8), but “a sabbath rest still remains for the people of God; for those who enter God’s rest also cease from their labors as God did from his” (v. 9). What is this rest? Bruce answers:

It is evidently an experience which they [the readers of Hebrews] do not enjoy in their present mortal life, although it belongs to them as a heritage, and by faith they may live in the good of it here and now. . . . [There are] further references to the eternal homeland which is the heritage of believers, the saints’ everlasting rest–the “better country, that is, a heavenly one” which they desire, the “city” which God has prepared for them, the well-founded city of which he is both architect and builder (11:10, 16). Of this city of God men and women of faith are citizens already, although the full exercise of their civic privileges in it is reserved for the future. (ibid., on 4:9-10)

These words are from the second edition of Bruce’s commentary, published in 1990, twenty-five years after the first edition, and shortly before his death that year. Bruce himself is now surely in “the full exercise” of his “privileges” in the “city of God.”

And so, we have noted Hebrews’ argument for the true rest of God, which had not been achieved by the Israelites under Joshua’s leadership. Hebrews continues with exhortation to attain that rest: “Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs” (v. 11). The readers are urged to do better than the ancient Hebrews who, through disobedience, failed to enter that rest. Both the promise and the threat of God’s word (lovgoV, logos) to the Israelites remain as a word to the readers. “Indeed,” says the writer, “the word (lovgoV, logos) of God is living; and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (v. 12). According to Bruce,

For God’s word–that word which fell on disobedient ears in the wilderness and which has been sounded out again in these days of fulfilment–is not like the word of man; it is living, effective, and self-fulfilling; it diagnoses the condition of the human heart, saying, “Thou ailest here, and here”; it brings blessing to those who receive it in faith and pronounces judgment on those who disregard it. (ibid., on v. 12).

The readers are reminded that, “Before him [i.e., before God], no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account (lovgoV, logos)” (v. 13), that is to whom will be our “word.” According to Bruce, the Greek word lovgoV (logos) is used here “in a different sense from that in which it is used at the beginning of v. 12. . . . the idiom is classical” (ibid., p. 114, n. 58, on v. 13).

Now we return to the topic of Jesus’ priesthood, first raised in Hebrews 2:17-18. It will be a central topic throughout much of the book. If the language has seemed threatening, even severe, it now turns more hopeful. “Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens,” says the writer to the Hebrews, “Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession” (Heb. 4:14). We will hear more about the heavenly sanctuary (cf. 8:1-2; 9:11-12, 24). When the writer says “our great high priest . . . has passed through the heavens,” Cynthia Briggs Kittredge explains: “Jesus has passed through the series of heavens above the earth and entered into the highest where God dwells. His entry is the basis for the confidence and hope of Christians” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Heb. 4:14). Bruce has a different understanding.

‘The heavens’ through which Jesus passed are the heavenly regions in general; we need not try to enumerate the successive ‘heavens’ involved and determine whether he is envisaged as passing through three or seven of them. The plural ‘heavens,’ as regularly in the New Testament and Septuagint, reflects the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament, which is always plural. What is emphasized here is his transcendence; he is ‘exalted high above the heavens,’ as we are told later in the epistle (7:26), or, as it is put in Eph. 4:10, he ‘ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. (op. cit., p. 115, on v. 14)

Qualification for this priesthood is emphasized. “For we do note have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses,” says the writer to the Hebrews, “but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15). Because we have such sympathetic high priest, we are encouraged: “Let us therefore approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (v. 16). This summary and transition prepares for comparisons of Jesus as our High Priest with the priesthoods of Aaron (chap. 5) and Melchizedek (chap. 7) which follow. The affirmation that he is able “to sympathize” anticipates the reference to Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (5:7) and suffering, “though he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered” (5:8).

Romans 8:1-11

The Meaning for Us of Good Friday and of Easter

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law-indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.

The following comments are repeated here from March 7, 2010 (the Third Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were based on those of April 11, 2009 (Holy Saturday, Year One), when the reading was Romans 8:1-11, from March 22, 2008 (Holy Saturday, Year Two), and earlier comments as noted there.

Wilbur T. Dayton calls Romans chapter eight “the great peak of doctrine and experience toward which the epistle has been building.” He says,

This is the normal Christian life under the full blessing of the Gospel of Christ. This includes both justifying and sanctifying grace and a walk in the Spirit. . . . It is the full bloom of spiritual health–the fulfillment of all the capacities of human personality in the grace of God. It is not the destruction of any part of human nature, however troublesome it may have proved to be in its depraved condition. Rather, it is the purification, adaptation, and direction of all to the achievement of a moral idealism and a spiritual reality. (“Romans,” The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, V, 1965, p. 52)

Dayton says that “three ideas form a clue to the treatment: the human, the carnal, and the spiritual.” He sees “the human delivered” in Romans 8:1-3, “the carnal displaced” in verses 4-6, and “the spiritual enthroned in verses 9-11 (ibid., pp. 52-54).

Notwithstanding all the ravages of the Fall [i.e. humanities fall due to the sin of Adam] and of sin, the human is valuable and worth saving. . . . One must never lose sight of genuine human values in the conflict between a sovereign God and the realm of evil. Man is not a mere thing, tossed about by other powers. He is a person, made in the image of God–for dominion. The rescue of the human from the carnal and its fulfillment in the spiritual are in marked contrast to the misery of chapter 7. (ibid., p. 52)

For the Christian believer, the work of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit provide the remedy for the power of sin and the sinner's helplessness in wanting to do the good but finding himself/herself unable to do it. “There is therefore (a[ra, ara) now no condemnation (katavkrima, katakrima) for those who are in Christ Jesus,” says Paul (Rom. 8:1). The word a[ra (ara), translated “therefore,” is defined as a “marker of an inference made on the basis of what precedes–(a) in declarative statement, and with colloquial flavor so, then, consequently, you see (B-D-F sec. 451, 2)” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. a[ra, ara). While the shorter word krivma (krima) can refer to a “judicial verdict . . . mostly in an unfavorable sense,” it can also refer to a “legal action taken against someone, dispute, lawsuit,” the “content of a deliberative process, decision, decree,” or the “action or function of a judge, judging, judgment” (BDAG, s.v. krivma, krima). But the compound word used here for “condemnation” (katavkrima, katakrima) refers specifically to condemnation:

In this [i.e. the definition of katavkrima, katakrima] and the cognates that follow the use of the term ‘condemnation’ does not denote merely a pronouncement of guilt . . . but the adjudication of punishment.) Judicial pronouncement upon a guilty person, condemnation, punishment, penalty . . . [and with ref. to Rom. 8:1] “no death-sentence for those who are in Christ Jesus. (BDAG, s.v. katavkrima, katakrima)

John Wesley begins his notes on Romans, chapter eight, as follows: “There is therefore now no condemnation - Either for things present or past. Now he comes to deliverance and liberty. The apostle here resumes the thread of his discourse, which was interrupted, Rom 7:7” (http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/romans.htm#Chapter+VIII , accessed again April 2, 2010). This treats Romans 7:7-25 as a parenthetical section, so to speak, an excursus on the question, Is the law sin? and its ramifications. The discussion was important, of course, but the implication of Wesley’s term “interrupted” is that Romans 7:6 and 8:1, in a sense, belong together: “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (7:6); consequently, “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (8:1).

Paul continues: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you (se, se, 2^nd person sing. pronoun) free from the law of sin and of death” (v. 2 NRSV). Some may remember a different pronoun in the older translation of this verse: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me (me, me, 1^st person sing. pronoun) free from the law of sin and death” (v. 2 AV/KJV). A few early witnesses to the text have the 1^st person plural pronoun us (hJma:V, hēmas), and the early Christian theologian Origen omits the pronoun in citing the verse. In these circumstances Kurt Aland and the Committee for the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (3^rd ed., 1975) indicate uncertainty with the letter “D,” which “shows a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text” (p. xiii). As in chapter 7, where Paul says “I” as a “generic” description of someone still “under law,” the pronoun here, whether first person or second, and whether singular or plural, represents anyone whom “the law of the Spirit of life has set . . . free from the law of sin and of death” (8:2). Paul explains: “For God has done what the law (novmoV, nomos), weakened by the flesh (to; savrx, to sarx), could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh (kata; savrka, kata sarka) but according to the Spirit (kata; pneu:ma, kata pneuma)” (vv. 3-4). The preposition katav (kata), translated “according to” sets up the contrast between “flesh” (savrx , sarx) and Spirit (or ‘spirit’ [cf. NRSV text notes on vv. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9a, 10; but not on ‘Spirit’ in vv. 9b, c, 11a, b, 13, 14] pneu:ma, pneuma) through 8:3-16, with one or both terms appearing in every verse. Two definitions given for pneu:ma, pneuma (‘Spirit’ or ‘spirit’) are

(5) God’s being as controlling influence, with focus on association with humans, Spirit, spirit as that which differentiates God from everything that is not God, as the divine power that produces all divine existence, as the divine element in which all divine life is carried on, as the bearer of every application of the divine will. All those who belong to God possess or receive this spirit and hence have a share in God’s life. This spirit also serves to distinguish Christians from all unbelievers (cp. PGM 4, 1121ff, where the spirit is greeted as one who enters devotees and, in accordance with God’s will, separates them from themselves, i.e. from the purely human part of their nature); for this latter aspect s. esp. 6 below.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(6) the Spirit of God as exhibited in the character or activity of God’s people or selected agents, Spirit, spirit . . . (b) Unless frustrated by humans in their natural condition, the Spirit of God produces a spiritual type of conduct Gal. 5:16, 25 and produces the karpo;V tou: pneuvmatoV [karpos tou pneumatos, ‘fruit of the spirit’] vs. 22. (BDAG, s.v. pneu:ma, pneuma)

The preposition “according to” (katav (kata) is a “marker of norm of similarity or homogeneity, according to, in accordance with, in conformity with, according to” (BDAG, s.v. katav (kata), and it emphasizes the contrast between walking, that is, living, in conformity with the flesh, and walking, that is, living, in conformity with the Spirit. Although “flesh” (savrx , sarx) does not always have the negative implications that it has here–note, for example, its use in reference to the incarnation of Christ, “And the Word became flesh (savrx , sarx) and lived among us” (Jn. 1:14a)–it has been defined in Paul’s usage here as follows:

“The physical body as functioning entity, body, physical body . . . (c) as instrument of various actions or expressions.–a. In Paul’s thought esp., all parts of the body constitute a totality known as savrx [sarx] or flesh, which is dominated by sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live in the savrx [sarx] Ro 7:18 ” (BDAG, s.v. savrx, sarx).

But Dayton, as noted above, clearly distinguishes between “any part of human nature, however troublesome it may have proved to be in its depraved condition,” and the flesh as such.

There had indeed to be a death under the condemnation of God. Sin is no light matter. But upon what is the condemnation now passed? It is not upon humanity. It is not upon any single capacity or natural appetite of human nature. It is not even upon “flesh.” It is upon the sin that inhabited the flesh. It was this sin that law exposed but could not destroy. Law was frustrated by the weakness of the human and the consequent lack of effective human cooperation. But what neither the law nor the human could accomplish, God did. “He, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” [cited from ASV, the American Standard Version of 1901]. (op. cit., pp. 52-53)

“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on (fronou:sivn, phronousin) the things of the flesh,” says Paul, “but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit” (v. 5). The verb translated “set their minds on” is defined as “to give careful consideration to something, set one’s mind on, be intent on,” and the phrase, “fronei:n tav tinoV, phronein [infinitive] ta tinos, is defined as to “take someone’s side, espouse someone’s cause” (BDAG, s.v. fronevw, phroneō). As noted above, the word “Spirit,” capitalized and representing the Holy Spirit, might be understood as “spirit” (cf. NRSV text not a). But according to definitions given above, either way, it means living under God’s controlling influence, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. According to Wesley,

They that are after the flesh - Who remain under the guidance of corrupt nature. Mind the things of the flesh - Have their thoughts and affections fixed on such things as gratify corrupt nature; namely, on things visible and temporal; on things of the earth, on pleasure, (of sense or imagination,) praise, or riches. But they who are after the Spirit - Who are under his guidance. Mind the things of the Spirit - Think of, relish, love things invisible, eternal; the things which the Spirit hath revealed, which he works in us, moves us to, and promises to give us. (op. cit., on v. 5)

“To set the mind on the flesh is death,” says Paul, “but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace” (v. 6). On this verse, Wesley says, following the older, AV/KJV, translation:

For to be carnally minded - That is, to mind the things of the flesh. Is death - The sure mark of spiritual death, and the way to death everlasting. But to be spiritually minded - That is, to mind the things of the Spirit. Is life - A sure mark of spiritual life, and the way to life everlasting. And attended with peace - The peace of God, which is the foretaste of life everlasting; and peace with God, opposite to the enmity mentioned in the next verse. (ibid., on v. 6)

Paul now concludes the negative side of this comparison. “For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh (to; frovnhma th:V sarkovV, to phronēma tēs sarkos) is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law–indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (vv. 7-8). The noun frovnhma (phronēma), related–the result, as one might say–to the verb fronevw (phroneō), is defined as “the faculty of fixing one’s mind on something, way of thinking, mind(-set), in our lit. (only Rom. 8) with focus on strong intention aim, aspiration, striving” (BDAG, s.v. frovnhma, phronēma).

So far, the comparison has defined living according to the flesh by the contrast with living according to the Spirit. But now Paul turns to the positive side. “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since (ei[per, eiper) the Spirit of God dwells in you” (v. 9a). The conjunction ei[per (eiper) is a compound of eij (ei, “if,” sometimes “since”) and per (per), the latter an “enclitic particle, with intensive and extensive force (B-D-F sec. 107),” found in the New Testament only in compounds with other particles. The conjunction ei[per (eiper) means “if indeed, if after all, since” (BDAG, s.v. ei[per, eiper ; eij, ei; and per, per). Paul assumes that his readers are in fact “in the Spirit,” not “in the flesh,” that is, the flesh that had been under the power of sin. But he reminds them of the alternative. “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (v. 9b). Of this statement, Wesley says, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ - Dwelling and governing in him. He is none of his - He is not a member of Christ; not a Christian; not in a state of salvation. A plain, express declaration, which admits of no exception. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!” (op. cit., on v. 9). C. K. Barrett translates the phrase, “the Spirit of Christ” (pneu:ma Cristou:, pneuma Christou) as “the Spirit that comes from Christ,” thinking, perhaps, of something like the “genitive of origin and relationship” (cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk [BDF], A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1961, sec. 162). Barrett adds, “It is idle to seek a distinction between ‘Spirit of God’ and ‘Spirit of Christ.’ Each is a correct description of what Paul means. The Spirit is the Spirit of God; and it is only through Christ that the Spirit is known and received” (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries, 1957, on Rom. 8:9).

Barrett says that “a more serious question is raised in the next verse,” that is, verse 10. Paul continues by saying, “But if (eij, ei) Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness” (v. 10). Neil Elliott says, “Paul shifts from speaking of being ‘in Christ’ (v. 1) or in the Spirit to having the Spirit or Christ dwell within oneself (6:22; 7:4)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Rom. 8:9-10). Three consecutive verses in this passage use conditional particles, ei[per (eiper, v. 9) or eij (ei, vv. 10, 11, cf. vv. 13, 17). The first, ei[per (eiper), as discussed above is translated “since” (NRSV, International Standard Version, cf. “if so be that” AV/KJV, “if indeed” NKJV, NASB, TNIV). But the instances of eij (ei) that follow are usually translated as “if,” with a notable exception: “Since Christ lives within you, even though your body will die because of sin, your spirit is alive because you have been made right with God” (8:10 New Living Bible, 1997). William D. Mounce says of Greek “first-class conditional sentences,” in which class each of these (vv. 9-11) would fall, that they are

called ‘conditions of fact.’ These sentences are saying that if something is true, and let’s assume for the sake of the argument that it is true, then such and such will occur.” But he adds, “Sometimes the apodosis [i.e., the result, often introduced by ‘then’] is clearly true, and you can translate ‘Since such and such, then such and such.’ At other times the protasis [i.e., the ‘if’ clause] is not so obvious and you cannot use ‘since.’ (Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 2^nd ed., 2003, p. 341)

Cullen I. K. Story makes a distinction here between “a true condition” and “a possible condition,” both introduced by eij (ei, “if”) (Greek to Me, 1979, p. 202). Clearly, whether to translate with “if” or “since” is a matter of the translator’s judgment within the context, and both are represented in modern versions in each of these instances. But the point is Paul’s description of the reality for one who has come to faith in Christ and lives according to the Spirit. Wesley puts it this way: “Now if Christ be in you - Where the Spirit of Christ is, there is Christ. The body indeed is dead - Devoted to death. Because of sin - Heretofore committed. But the Spirit is life - Already truly alive. Because of righteousness - Now attained. From Rom 8:13, St. Paul, having finished what he had begun, Rom 6:1, describes purely the state of believers” (op. cit., on v. 10).

Today’s reading ends with verse 10, but we may note that the third conditional sentence here offers the promise of the Christian’s hope for resurrection. “If (eij, ei) the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you. Among other benefits of grace noted here, Dayton adds the following, with reference especially to verse 11:

The most urgent and wonderful aspect of redemption relates to the spiritual. But that is not all. The Spirit’s work in the body of Christ brought resurrection from the dead. The same is guaranteed to us by the Spirit dwelling in us. Grace must eventually meet physical as well as spiritual needs. (op. cit., p. 54)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net