Exegesis of Romans 8:1-11: Understanding the New Cosmic Reality in Christ

Introduction of Romans 8:1-11

Since the time of the Apostles, obedience has been a focus of the Christian faith. However, from the Pelagian heresy to secular behaviorism, and from the early antinomian controversies to the relativism of modern liberal theology, the debate regarding the origin and nature of obedience continues to rage. More recently, with the influence of positive thinking, prosperity theology, and cognitive therapies upon the Christian faith, the question remains as to how cognition relates to behavior. Until a biblical understanding of the relationship between thinking and doing pervades the Christian faith, the risk of faulty theology remains a possibility, which can lead to irreparable spiritual and emotional damage to believers. In his letter to the Romans, Paul addresses the relationship between the believer’s mind and the believer’s behavior. Romans 8:1-11 asserts that the Spirit-empowered mind appropriates the believer’s new cosmic reality into a cognitive and behavioral righteousness that culminates in a future eschatological resurrection. The research begins by providing a historical and literary context to Paul’s letter. Next, an exegetical analysis of Romans 8:1-11 ensues, which focuses on a believer’s new cosmic reality in Christ followed by an exploration of the connection between the believer’s mind and the new reality. Finally, a brief analysis of the eschatological destination of the believer within the new cosmic realm concludes the research.

Historical and Cultural Context

The historical-cultural background provides the foundation for any interpretive pursuit of the letter to the Romans. A significant consensus exists around the basic features of authorship, date, and provenance. Romans begins with the claim that Paul wrote the letter, likely with the assistance of his amanuensis, Tertius (Rom 16:22). James Dunn suggests a date from AD 55-60 while Paul was in Corinth preparing for a journey back to Jerusalem (Rom 15:25).[1] Paul is a seasoned missionary and apostle having ministered from Jerusalem to as far west as Illyricum, and now he has decided to forge new territory (Rom 15:19-20). After Paul’s journey to Jerusalem, he plans to visit Rome before traveling to his ultimate destination, Spain (Rom 15:23-24).

More importantly, for exegetical purposes of Romans 8:1-11, is the identification of Paul’s audience. The Christians in Rome likely originated from the converted Jews who visited Jerusalem during Pentecost (Acts 2:10). The Jewish converts then began preaching the message they heard from Peter upon returning to their hometown, and according to Douglas Moo, probably added a significant number of Gentile converts.[2] However, the mix of Gentile and Jewish Christians in Rome took a significant turn under Emperor Claudius. The Roman historian, Suetonius, reports that “since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.”[3] Dunn explains that most scholars agree that “Chrestus” refers to Christ and that the expulsion of the Jews likely occurred around AD 49, which left only Gentile Christians in Rome.[4] According to Moo, upon Claudius’s death in AD 54, Jews started returning to Rome, but found themselves in the minority.[5]

The events in Rome led to a significant increase in social tensions between Gentiles and Jews, which provide the backdrop of much of Paul’s letter. Specifically, the Gentile and Jewish relationship grounds the analysis and highlights the primary issues of Romans 8:1-11. Gordon Fee explains that in these few verses, Paul emphasizes that both the Jew and Gentile “form one people of God” in a new cosmic reality or eschatological epoch where the Torah has terminated with Christ, but righteousness has continued.[6] It is within the overarching concerns of the historical-cultural context that the literary context takes shape.

Literary Context

Although a detailed analysis of grammar, semantics, syntax, and immediate context ensues in the body of the paper, a brief investigation of structure, the broader context, genre, and canonical context provides a framework for the exegetical activity. First, regarding the structure of Romans, Moo suggests six major divisions: (1) the opening (1:1-17), (2) justification by faith (1:18–4:25), (3) the hope of salvation (5:1–8:39), (4) the problem of Israel (9:1–11:36), (5) Christian conduct (12:1-15:13), and (6) the closing (15:14–16:27).[7] Accordingly, the passage under investigation fits within the third division, the hope of salvation, that assures eternal life. 

Second, regarding the surrounding context, Romans 8:1-8 provides a hopeful response to the bondage of law in Romans 7:7-25 since Christ accomplishes what the Law could not. Romans 8:9-11 responds to the bondage of death and sin in Romans 6:1-23, as the Spirit of life liberates the believer from sin and resurrects the believer from the dead. Although Moo acknowledges that most commentators structurally break the verse after verse 11, his preference is to break the passage after verse 13 due to the application and exhortation in the final two verses.[8] Alternatively, Fee provides the break after verse 17, asserting that verses 14-17 is an elaboration of verses 11-12.[9] The current research focuses on the mind’s relationship to the new cosmic reality in verses 1-4 that culminates in an eschatological future in verses 9-11 and thus breaks the passage after verse 11 with the majority. 

Third, regarding genre, Romans is a letter with the requisite opening (Rom 1:1-15) and closing (Rom 15:14–16:27). Although Romans was written for a specific community for a specific purpose, it does not fit the typical occasional letter. In fact, Dunn states, “the distinctiveness of the letter far outweighs the significance of its conformity with current literary or rhetorical custom.”[10] Although written in the form of a letter, Richard Longenecker is likely correct in suggesting that the body of Paul’s letter aligns with a treatise or tractate that expounds on a series of general theological arguments from a mature apostle.[11]

Fourth, regarding canonical context, an inaugurated eschatological reality of new life links Romans 5–8 with the rest of the canon. Specifically, the flesh and Spirit dichotomy in Romans 8:1-11 reflects the thematic element of two realms, the old and the new. Moo explains that in Paul’s letter, he is asserting that believers are “transferred” from one realm to another realm.[12] A transfer from a realm of being in Adam to a realm of being in Christ. A transfer from the power of death, law, and sin to the power of life, grace, and righteousness. A transfer that is already present, but not yet complete. 

New Cosmic Reality: Romans 8:1-4

Romans 8:1: Condemnation

From the start, Paul emphatically transfers believers into a new cosmic reality by harmonizing the forensic and participatory nature of salvation when stating, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1).[13] The “now” provides the impetus for two important observations regarding the transfer. First, Paul’s language highlights the before and after nature of the arguments from the two previous chapters. Specifically, Paul explains that his readers were slaves to sin, but now have been set free (Rom 6:20-22), and that they were living in the flesh, but now they have been released from the law (Rom 7:5-6). Accordingly, the immediate context supports the temporal function of the adverb “now” in the first verse. Second, the temporal nature of “now” represents a transference of the individual in Christ to a new realm where no condemnation exists. Furthermore, Constantine Campbell places the language “in Christ Jesus” into a locative subcategory that describes the new creation status that believers are found, which depicts “realm transference” (see also Rom 6:11; 1 Cor 15:18; 2 Cor 5:17; Gal 3:28; Eph 3:6; 1 Thess 4:16).[14]

Paul also harmonizes the forensic and participatory nature of salvation in his dense summary statement of the gospel. First, Moo explains that the language of condemnation has a forensic or judicial flavor that designates an estrangement or separation from God.[15] An estrangement reflective of the angst of the wretched man who asks, “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Rom 7:24). An estrangement resolved only through the condemnation invoked on the body of Christ on the cross, which encourages the emphatic response: “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ” (Rom 7:25). Second, the realm transference in Christ Jesus accentuates the participatory nature of Paul’s statement. Not only does Christ participate in humanity through the incarnation, but believers are delivered from condemnation by being incorporated into the body of Christ on the cross. Accordingly, Susan Eastman asserts that “even the ‘forensic’ or ‘juridical’ language relies on the participatory notions of human existence in relationship to the realm dominated by sin and death.”[16] In other words, the eradication of condemnation relies on the harmonized relationship of the forensic and participatory nature of salvation because, as M. L. Loane states, Christ “was for us in the place of condemnation [forensically]; we are in him where all condemnation has spent its force [participatorily]” (cf. 2 Cor 5:21).[17] Within a few words, Paul has not only affirmed the believer’s new cosmic reality and harmonized the forensic and participatory nature of salvation, but he has also provided the framework for an expanded forthcoming discussion of the old realm of the flesh and the new realm of the Spirit.

Romans 8:2: Law

Paul swiftly moves toward explaining the reason why there is no condemnation in Christ by utilizing the causal conjunction γὰρ. The reason is because (γὰρ) “the law of the Spirit has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:2). The difficulty begins when attempting to define the meaning of “law” (νόμος) in the phrase “the law of the Spirit” due to its broad semantic range. Furthermore, the risk of the one-meaning fallacy is inherent in the various uses of νόμος in the passage.[18] The word, νόμος, could mean the Mosaic law. Moo explains that if the Mosaic law is in view, then Paul is asserting that the Torah has a dual role: (1) in the flesh it is a list of demands that become an instrument of sin (Rom 7:5), but (2) in the Spirit it points to a promise that calls for faith and becomes an instrument of righteousness (Rom 7:10).[19] Alternatively, William Arndt, Frederick Danker, and Walter Bauer (BDAG) suggest that νόμος can also mean a governing power, principle, or norm, a statutory legal system, or a collection of holy writings.[20] The context of the sentence provides the impetus for the meaning. The law of sin and death in the final phrase coherently aligns with the idea of a principle or power, and it appears Paul is juxtaposing the power of the Spirit and the power of sin and death. Accordingly, Fee concludes that Paul’s dual use of the law is a rhetorical device, a wordplay, to highlight that the law or power of the Spirit is the “divine antidote” to the law or power of sin and death.[21] Paul’s usage of the law continues the theme of realm transference from the previous verse as the law of sin and death reflect the powers of the old age, while the law of the Spirit reflect the new age, a new cosmic reality in Christ.

Two additional interpretive issues need addressed before moving on. First, an introduction to the concept of Spirit is necessary, as it will pervade the remainder of the research. The phrase the Spirit of life first and foremost pertains to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity, a God who is a living God as opposed to all other inanimate gods so often worshipped by humans (1 Thess 1:9-10). God is not only living, but also the source of life, a life that overcomes the power of sin and death. Paul’s language reflects Ezekiel’s reference to breath on the dry bones, “And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live” (Ezek 37:15; emphasis added). Importantly, Fee connects the life-giving Spirit with the believer’s position in Christ by explaining that although “Christ’s death provides life for believers,” it is the Spirit that is the “source of that life through the believer’s experience of freedom in Christ – for both Jew and Gentile.”[22] A further exploration of the connection between a believer’s status in Christ and the Spirit of life is forthcoming, but, for now, it is noteworthy that the believer’s position in Christ requires the Spirit of life to empower believer’s experience of the new cosmic reality. 

The remaining interpretive issue pertains to the sense of liberation within the phrase, “the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:2; emphasis added). Some believe that Paul’s freedom refers to justification, a freedom from the penalty of sin, and others believe that sanctification is in view, a freedom from the power of sin. However, the freedom is not restricted to sin, but also encompasses a freedom from death, thus cannot be limited to the penalty or the power of sin. Accordingly, Moo concludes that the liberation that Paul refers to is a cosmic realm transfer, a freedom from the old age to the new.[23] The specific methodology of the realm transfer into the new cosmic reality is also in sight. In Romans 7, Paul twice refers to the real problem, it is the “sin that dwells within me” (Rom 7:17, 20). Leander Keck explains that the problem is now solved because “the Spirit now resides where sin had resided.”[24] In other words, the realm transfer occurs through the replacement of indwelling sin with the indwelling Spirit, which frees the believer from both the power of sin and death. Keck elaborates on the realm transfer inaugurated by Christ by stating, Paul “assumes that divine Spirit is a more powerful field of force than flesh, sin, or law because he regards the gift of the Spirit as an eschatological event.” An eschatological event that creates an ontological shift, a new creation, that is both now and not yet (2 Cor 5:17). According to Fee, the ontological shift “does not mean sinlessness,” but it “does mean deliverance from its tyrannical hold.”[25] The power of sin is broken by the twofold response taken up in the following verses: (1) the work of Christ that is the impetus for the ontological shift and (2) the Spirit of life that fosters the appropriation of the ontological shift in believers. It is the work of Christ that Paul turns to next.

Romans 8:3-4: Fulfilled

Paul’s next two verses may be the most exegetically challenging within the passage under investigation. A syntactical debate revolves around the initial phrase in Romans 8:3, τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον τοῦ νόμου ἐν ᾧ ἠσθένει διὰ τῆς σαρκός. Some scholars suggest the phrase is a nominative absolute in apposition to the remainder of the sentence, which assumes the main verb is absent, others suggest the phrase is an anacolouthon, which requires supplying a missing verb regarding what God has done.[26] However, Dirk Venter more appropriately asserts that ἀδύνατον is an accusative of respect as follows: “For, with reference to the incapability of the law in which it was weak through the flesh, God – by sending his own son in likeness to sinful flesh, and concerning sin – condemned sin in the flesh.”[27] The accusative of respect followed by the two dependent clauses clearly delineates the main clause, “God condemned sin,” and simultaneously, highlights the two problems related to sin: the incapability of the law and the weakness of the flesh, both of which need addressed. 

First, regarding the law, the context of Romans 7:7-25 and the immediate context serves to suggest that νόμος in Romans 8:3 refers to the Torah, the law that is unable to produce the freedom found only in Christ. Furthermore, sin had another ally, the flesh, which was unable to resist sinful passions because nothing good dwells in the flesh (Rom 7:5, 18). A. T. Robinson succinctly summarizes the partnership by stating, “The law was impotent because it could only be as strong as the flesh … and the flesh was hopelessly under the power of sin.”[28] Importantly, Venter notes that the flesh, σάρξ, not only denotes existence in a particular epoch, but also a particular sphere of existence, and, as Paul is about to demonstrate, Christ’s work “makes it possible for those freed by him to also enter into a new sphere of existence.”[29] In other words, Christ’s work not only transfers the believer into a new cosmic reality or epoch, but also into a newly created sphere of existence or being, a new ontological reality. 

The remainder of the verse focuses completely on Christ’s work: “God – by sending his own son in likeness to sinful flesh, and concerning sin – condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3b). Three significant exegetical issues are at stake: participation, substitution, and incarnation. First, the concern regarding the phrase “in likeness to sinful flesh” pertains to Christ’s sinlessness. Ernst Käsemann points out that Paul’s use of ὁμοίωμα is planned ambivalence.[30] In other words, Paul communicates that Christ takes on humanity’s condemnation with full participation, but not in the sense that Christ sinned. Second, the phrase, “concerning sin,” could mean a sin offering or a more general form of atonement. Since the LXX renders “sin offering” from the Hebrew as περὶ ἁμαρτίας, Dunn supports the sacrificial language with its requirement of death because the only remedy for the weakness of the flesh is the death of flesh in the form of a substitute.[31] Third, the Adamic Christology is now evident. According to Venter, what Adam began in the old epoch has paved the way for a new epoch, as humanity participated in the sin of the old Adam, believers now participate in the righteousness of the new Adam through Christ’s incarnational participation “in the flesh” (Rom 8:3b).[32] In sum, Paul’s description of Christ’s work of sin’s condemnation is, as believer’s realize it, participatory, substitutionary, and incarnational, which effectuates the believer’s transfer into a new cosmic reality and a new ontological existence. 

Paul now turns to the purpose that God condemned sin through Christ’s work, “In order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us” (Rom 8:4a). The key difficulties pertain to the meaning of “the righteous requirement of the law” and the phrase, “fulfilled in us.” First, Moo provides three options for the meaning of righteous requirement: (1) an ordinance that decrees punishment (Rom 1:32), (2) the free gift of righteousness (Rom 5:16), or (3) the behavior the law requires.[33] The vast majority of time, the Greek verb πληρόω, to fulfill, is translated in the LXX with a form of the Hebrew lemma מָלֵא, which is often used to mean completely or “filled to the top” (cf. Josh 3:15).[34] The exhaustive nature of the Jewish perspective alongside the immediate behavioral context of the verse that refers to those “who walk … according to the Spirit” (Rom 8:4b) suggests that the third option is most viable. However, the nature of the law and the behavior required by the law need examined.

Like the previous verse, the law referred to in Romans 8:4 is the Torah. Paul states later in Romans 13:8, “Owe no one anything, except love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (emphasis added). In sum, the behavior required by the law is love. Venter explains that although believers in Christ are no longer under the demands of the Torah, believers will fulfill the intention of the law of love, as if they were still under it, due to the realm transfer from in Adam to in Christ.[35] Three observations are necessary to confirm the assertion. 

First, regarding righteousness, in reference to Romans 8:3-4 John Calvin states, “The only fulfillment he [Paul] alludes to is that which we obtain through imputation. … To declare that by him alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, the obedience of Christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own?”[36] Certainly, a forensic declaration of righteousness originates via Christ’s work by grace through faith. However, Käsemann notes that Christ’s work extends “anthropologically to the proclamation of a change in existence.”[37] In other words, the “as if” language, according to Peter Dubbelman, curtails the reality of the “ontological transformation of the ‘inner being.’”[38] In short, the righteous requirement fulfilled in believers moves beyond a forensic declaration and into a new ontological reality that walks according to the new Spirit realm, rather than the old fleshly realm.

Second, the aorist passive subjunctive, πληρωθῇ, highlights the divine initiative. God remains the subject who acts by sending His Son and fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law in believers. Moo asserts that the fulfillment occurs through the believer’s union with Christ.[39] Furthermore, as Venter explains, although the fulfillment of the law is God’s action and not the believer’s effort, “our own moral involvement is also implied as is clear in the σάρξ-πνεῦμα [flesh-spirit] antithesis in Romans 8:4-13.”[40] The relationship between God’s fulfillment of the righteous requirement (love) and the believer’s moral involvement (loving) is significantly expanded in verses 5-7. However, for now, the key issue is that God fulfills the requirement of the law through the believer’s new ontological reality in Christ, and simultaneously, believers are intimately involved in walking in the new realm of the Spirit. 

Third, the nominative singular, δικαίωμα, suggests that the requirement, not the requirements, of the law is fulfilled. The idea of keeping the multiple commandments of the Torah is no longer in view, instead the law is fulfilled through love, the single requirement of the law. In sum, the believer’s participation in the new cosmic reality in Christ sets the stage for God to fulfill the requirement of the law of love. Next, Paul addresses the relationship between God’s initiative and the believer’s responsibility in fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law. 

New Cognitive Reality: Romans 8:5-8

Romans 8:5: Mind and Spirit

Paul now shifts his emphasis toward cognition, not in attempt to provide new information, but instead, to elaborate on the previous verse that focuses on the believer’s walk in the Spirit: “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” (Romans 8:5). Three specific exegetical issues need addressed prior to synthesizing Paul’s cognitive focus with his behavioral reference in verse 4. First, Moo provides an important reminder that the contrast between flesh and Spirit is a distinction between two realms, the old and the new.[41] In other words, Paul is addressing the incompatibility of the two cosmic realities. Furthermore, Verena Schafroth highlights that existing in the new cosmic reality means that “believers are now given the choice where beforehand it was impossible not to sin.”[42] In sum, the Spirit realm makes the righteous requirement of the law, love, possible. 

Second, the verb “to set one’s mind,” φρονέω, has a broad semantic range. BDAG suggests that φρονέω can mean to think, judge, hold an opinion, give careful consideration, be intent, or develop an attitude based on thoughts.[43] The context of the verse, which pulls from the behavioral aspects of verse 4, suggests the meaning of φρονέω expands beyond the narrow focus of cognition. Moo suggests that, whether in the verb or noun form, the meaning of φρονέω encompasses “all the faculties of the soul – reason, understanding, and affection.”[44] Accordingly, scholars suggest the idea of “mindset,” which involves the entire belief system of the believer. 

Third, Paul’s language is descriptive, rather than imperatival, as evidenced by the indicative mood of φρονοῦσιν. Fee recognizes that, although commentators often assert that flesh and Spirit are two rival forces warring against each other, the “assertion lacks any basis in the text.”[45] The lack of imperatives highlight the active nature of the Spirit, and reinforce the passive nature of God fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law in verse 4.

Paul’s synthesis between cognition and behavior now needs addressed. The link between cognition and behavior is rooted in both Greek and Roman philosophy as well as Jewish sources. Craig Keener notes that the Stoics believed that cognitive distortions resulted in unhealthy emotions, but correct thinking led to virtuous action.[46] The philosophy of the Stoics mirrors much of modern psychology’s emphasis on cognitive behavioral therapy, where thoughts and beliefs determine emotions and actions. Furthermore, Keener explains that both Stoics and Jewish sources divided humanity into two “ideal types,” the foolish and the wise, just as Paul divides humanity into two types.[47] The question is whether Paul’s perspective is distinct from Greek and Jewish thought. 

Paul’s synthesis of cognition and behavior is distinct from Greek and Jewish sources in three ways. First, as opposed to dividing humanity into the foolish and wise, Paul divided humanity into being in the flesh, in Adam, or being in the Spirit, in Christ. In other words, Paul rejected an anthropological initiative that focused on whether an individual was foolish or wise, and instead, he asserted an eschatological initiative that focused on whether the individual had been transferred into a new cosmic reality. 

Second, like Greek and Jewish thought, Fee explains that Paul does not start with behavior, but with the underlying beliefs and thoughts that lead to emotional and behavioral change.[48] However, the difference between Greek and Jewish thought pertains to the source behind the mind shift. Keener underscores the distinction by stating that Paul is not just referring to a “frame of mind that accords with God’s but one that is inspired or activated by God.”[49] In sum, without God’s divine initiative, it is not possible to embrace the new cosmic reality cognitively. 

Third, and most importantly, the divine initiative is the key to synthesizing cognition and behavior in the new cosmic realm. Keener again provides clarification, “Although Christ’s death and resurrection have been completed, God’s Spirit applies this reality to believers in the present,” thus “the one who trusts in Christ’s work for being put right forensically should also trust in Christ’s work for being put right behaviorally.”[50] God fulfills the righteous requirement of the law, the law of love, as the believer’s mind appropriates the ontological shift within a new cosmic reality empowered by the Spirit. Thus, Dubbleman states, “This new creation life inextricably and inexplicably links a Christian’s being and doing, belief and obedience.”[51] Paul now turns to the results of the flesh and Spirit mindset.

Romans 8:6: Life and Peace

Although some suggest that Paul begins again with an explanatory “for,” others suggest a continuative, but the orientation toward results leans towards the former: “For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace” (Rom 8:6). The “mind” in this verse comes from the same Greek root as φρονέω above, thus is not limited to cognition, but engages a broad spectrum of the soul, a mindset. Furthermore, the flesh and Spirit continue to represent different cosmic realms, the old age and the new age, respectively. Thus, the exegetical analysis will primarily focus on the meaning of “death” and the meaning of “life and peace.” 

First, regarding death, the result of sin is death (Rom 5:12), which is in the flesh (Rom 8:3). Moo notes that the death referred to by Paul is death in the broadest sense, and includes eschatological condemnation that occurs with individuals who exist in the flesh, and thus set their minds on the flesh.[52] As noted above, the Spirit of life is the Spirit of God, who is the source and sustainer of all life. Accordingly, Fee, in agreement with Moo, asserts that life is the eschatological life inaugurated by Christ whose reconciling work precipitated the believer’s peace with God.[53] In other words, Paul’s focus here is on the objective work of Christ through whom life and peace with God exist within the new cosmic realm of the Spirit. However, the question remains as to whether peace may have a subjective component. 

During the Second Temple period, both Greek philosophers and Jewish thinkers spoke of an internal tranquility as peace, which may support a nuanced meaning of Paul’s text. For example, under the influence of Aristotle, orthodox Stoicism believed that virtue is a state of mind that need not be unnecessarily activated.[54] Furthermore, the Jewish philosopher, Philo, notes that the wise man is undisturbed by the storms of life, and instead, enjoys peace during the storms.[55] Keener also suggests that Paul may be pulling from Old Testament passages where the mind that puts faith and trust in God experiences peace (see Isa 26:2-12; Ps 78:22).[56] In addition to the individual subjective experience of peace is the possibility of experiencing communal peace. Considering the context of Paul’s letter, it is not unreasonable that Paul may have had in mind a peace that extends to the entire community, both Jews and Gentiles. Regardless, the subjective nature of peace may include both reconciliation with God and internal tranquility, as the two concepts are not incompatible. The point is that the Spirit-empowered mind that appropriates the new cosmic reality into cognitive and behavioral righteousness experiences both life and peace, a peace that may include both an objective and subjective component. Next, Paul concludes his analysis of cognition by explaining why the fleshly mind leads to death. 

Romans 8:7-8: Flesh and Hostility

Paul uses the next two verses to explain why the mind of the flesh leads to death, and to contrast the life of the Spirit in Romans 8:9-11: “For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom 8:7-8). Again, the mind set on the flesh pertains to those who exist in the flesh, the old realm in Adam. As noted, the righteous requirement of the law is love, which is impossible for those existing in the realm of the flesh to extend, thus pleasing God is also impossible. Some may resist the notion that unbelievers have no capacity to love. However, as Moo states, “All people, by nature derived from Adam, are incurably ‘bent’ toward their own good rather than the good of others or of God.”[57] 

Although Paul’s logic regarding unbelievers may appear extreme, it is completely coherent. Individuals in the realm of the flesh attempt to define and enhance their ontological reality via anthropological initiatives. The potential initiatives are varied: riches, power, pleasure, and success to name a few. As long as the individual exists in the realm of the flesh, even the most “loving” act pursues the impossible agenda of enhancing the unbeliever’s sinful ontology that exists in the Adamic realm. Alternatively, the ontological reality of those in the realm of the Spirit relies on divine initiatives. Unlike those in the flesh, a believer who exists in the new ontological reality in Christ lacks nothing. Accordingly, the believer who appropriates the new reality extends a divinely initiated love with no need for reciprocation, which pleases God. Paul now optimistically turns from those in the flesh to those in the Spirit.

New Eschatological Reality: Romans 8:9-11

Romans 8:9: Indwelling

Paul moves in a new direction by providing a transition between Romans 8:5-8 and 8:10-11 that specifically addresses the Christians in Rome: “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom 8:9). Besides the affirmation to the Roman Christians that they exist in the Spirit realm, two other issues are worth noting. First, and the least difficult, is Paul’s conditional language that appears to question whether the Spirit dwells in the Roman Christians, “If in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you” (Rom 8:9a). However, the context seems to suggest that the conditional conjunction εἴπερ means “since” rather than “if” due to the previous emphatic negation of the “in flesh” reality of Paul’s audience.[58] 

The second issue pertains to the language of flesh and Spirit. As mentioned, “in the flesh” represents the old realm and dwelling “in the Spirit” represents the new realm, a realm transfer that initiates a new ontological reality. However, the question remains as to how the believer can ontologically exist in the new realm, yet simultaneously behave as if remaining in the old. Dunn attempts to resolve the issue by claiming that the believer experiences an orientation shift, not an ontological transformation, and thus the flesh is still a factor.[59] Alternatively, Anders Nygren attempts to resolve the problem by suggesting that the believer continues under the influence of both the flesh, via the outer man, and the Spirit, via the inner man.[60] However, the context of the verse seems to assert that believers are “in the Spirit” and unbelievers are “in the flesh.” Ontological transformation can occur without perfectly consistent behavior. For example, a Caucasian man does not stop being Caucasian even if he behaves as a rabid dog. According to Fee, the reason Christians behave as if they continue to exist in the old realm is not due to the absence of a new ontological reality, but because the believer has not engaged in an “experiential appropriation” of the new reality.[61] As the Spirit empowers the believer to appropriate the new reality into a cognitive and behavioral righteousness, he becomes who he is. Paul now turns toward bridging a present eschatological reality with a future eschatological reality.

Romans 8:10: Righteousness

Numerous difficulties face the interpreter in Paul’s tightly packed verse: “But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness” (Romans 8:10). An important exegetical observation will be followed by addressing three lexical difficulties: the meaning of body, spirit, and righteousness. Regarding the observation, Paul’s language has made a Christological shift. Paul seems to reference the Spirit, the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ interchangeably, which, according to Moo, reveals a “practical trinitarianism.”[62] Accordingly, the realm of the Spirit, realm of Christ, and realm of God can all be considered part of the new cosmic reality without further ado. 

The first difficulty is the meaning of “the body is dead because of sin” (Rom 8:10b). The question is whether the body is a physical body. A body being dead to sin could mean that the body is not affected by the power of sin (Rom 6:11). However, the preposition plus the accusative διὰ ἁμαρτίαν appears causal, thus indicating reason. Accordingly, Jan Lambrecht concludes, “The body of the Christian is not yet dead, but because of sin it is going to die” (Rom 5:12).[63] Further, the context of the following verse referring to the mortality of the body also supports Lambrecht’s conclusion.

The second difficulty is whether the word πνεῦμα in the phrase “Spirit is life” is meant in an anthropological sense or a reference to the Holy Spirit. The direct contrast between the μὲν/δὲ clauses, the body is dead, but the spirit is life, supports an anthropological view whereby Paul juxtaposes the human spirit with the physical body. However, Moo appropriately points out that the word πνεῦμα in Romans 8 consistently refers to the Holy Spirit, and the literary context of the following verse, which explains how the Holy Spirit provides life, solidifies the meaning of πνεῦμα as the Third Person of the Trinity.[64] It is difficult to miss the overtones of inaugurated eschatology in the language of body, a body that is now physically dying but not yet resurrected, and in the language of the Spirit, a Spirit that is now actively transforming the believer but not yet completely. 

The third difficulty pertains to the meaning of the phrase “because of righteousness.” The nature of the causal construction provides the resolution to the dilemma. According to Daniel Wallace, διὰ with the use of the accusative, as in διὰ δικαιοσύνην, can mean “because of,” “on account of,” or “for the sake of.”[65] Paul could mean the Spirit is life “because of”’ the gift of righteousness through the work of Christ, or the Spirit is life “for the sake of” righteous behavior. Although both renderings fit the context of the passage, Fee is likely correct in asserting that the Spirit is life because of the gift of righteousness due to the immediate context of the now and not yet eschatological existence.[66] In sum, although the believer’s physical bodies are destined to a physical death, the Spirit gives life to individuals dwelling in the new cosmic reality both “now and forever because of the righteousness that Christ has effected for you.”[67] Paul now moves decisively toward a final “not yet.” 

Romans 8:11: Resurrection

Paul finishes his short exploration of the Spirit by transporting the believer from a new present cosmic reality to a future eschatological resurrection: “If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom 8:11). Two important topics need addressed. First, the relationship between Christ’s resurrection and the believer’s resurrection needs cultivated. Dunn highlights Paul’s emphatic repetition of raising Jesus from the dead and its intimate relationship with the resurrection of the believer.[68] In other words, the same God that raised Christ from the dead also raises believers who are in Christ from the dead. Furthermore, Paul’s words are a reminder of the participatory language of death and resurrection in Romans 6:5, “For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” The new cosmic reality connects the believer’s ontological existence with Christ’s existence through a double death and resurrection. Further, the references to the body and mortality in verses 10-11 suggest that the type of resurrection pertains to the physical body. Accordingly, Fee concludes, “The body, which is destined for death because of sin, is also destined to be raised to life because of Christ’s resurrection.”[69] 

The second topic is the controversy surrounding the role of the Spirit in resurrection. The question at hand is whether the Spirit is the means of resurrection. On the one hand, Moo asserts that God raised Jesus from the dead, but the Spirit “is the instrument by whom God raises the body.”[70] On the other hand, Fee emphatically denies that “God raised Christ by means of the Spirit.”[71] Considering the unity of the Godhead, the argument seems somewhat unnecessary.[72] In sum, if the indwelling Spirit places the believer into a new cosmic reality in Christ, then if Christ dies, then the believer dies, and if Christ raises, then the believer raises. The ultimate culmination of Christ’s death and resurrection is the believer’s future bodily death and resurrection.

Application

Every human has one basic need: personal worth. Humanity will stop at nothing to obtain it. Larry Crabb asserts that two inputs are necessary for personal worth, “significance (purpose, importance, adequacy for a job, meaningfulness, impact) and security (love – unconditional and consistently expressed; permanent acceptance).”[73] The problem is that the world’s currency for the inputs of significance and security is counterfeit. For example, a businessman may attempt to find personal worth in his performance at work, but inevitably the performance will wane, or worse, the man will become a workaholic in a futile attempt to prove his significance. A young woman may try to find security in a husband, but the very attempt in “getting” the man to fulfill her need of security creates the codependence that will likely destroy the relationship. Furthermore, until the basic need of personal worth is met, the individual has no capacity to love because all efforts in potential selflessness ultimately revolve around selfishly fulfilling the unmet need. For example, even the most “loving” gesture, when wrapped up in finding significance in the act or finding security in the approval of others, not only fails at meeting the basic human need but also fails at loving others because the focus remains on the self. 

The problem of humanity’s unmet need of significance and security cannot be met by changing thoughts, changing behaviors, changing jobs, or changing relationships. The only solution is an ontological change, a new being that no longer needs to find significance and security because it already exists in the new cosmic realm. No amount of performance can cause the believer to be more significant. No amount of money or relational prowess can increase the believer’s security. However, the believer has the opportunity to allow the Spirit to empower the appropriation of the new cosmic reality into a cognitive and behavioral righteousness. The believer’s behavior then meets the righteous requirement of the law that extends love with no required reciprocation to meet the need of personal worth. In the new cosmic realm, obedience is powered by God’s divine initiative, and love is powered by Love. 

Conclusion

In less than a dozen verses, the Apostle Paul explains the believer’s new cosmic reality in Christ, the relationship between the believer’s cognition and the new reality, and the ultimate eschatological destination of the believer who exists in the new cosmic realm. Without question, Romans 8:1-11 contends that a Spirit-empowered mind that appropriates the believer’s new cosmic reality leads to a cognitive and behavioral righteousness that ultimately culminates in the believer’s bodily resurrection. A proper understanding of the connection between a believer’s mind and the new cosmic reality in Christ not only frees the believer from the tyranny of the counterfeit currency of the world, but the realm transfer lands the believer in a new ontological reality that provides the significance and security necessary to meet the primary need of personal worth. Finally, since the primary need is satisfied, the believer now has the capacity to extend unconditional and unreciprocated love to God and others through a divine, rather than human, initiative. Further research regarding the relationship between cognition and the new cosmic realm in Second Temple literature, the Old Testament, and other books of the New Testament may be beneficial in illuminating Paul’s concepts in his short, but quite robust, passage in Romans.

Bibliography

• Arndt, William, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000.
• Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Henry Beveridge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
• Campbell, Constantine R. Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
• Crabb, Larry. Effective Biblical Counseling: A Model for Helping Caring Christians Become Capable Counselors. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013.
• Dubbelman, Peter. “God’s New Creation in Romans 8:4.” Southeastern Theological Review 9, no. 1 (Spring 2018): 47–76.
• Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. Vol. 38A in Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 1988.
• Eastman, Susan G. “Oneself in Another: Participation and the Spirit in Romans 8.” In “In Christ” in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, edited by Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2014.
• Engberg-Pedersen, Troels. Paul and the Stoics. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000.
• Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
• Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994.
• Jewett, Robert. Romans: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.
• Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. London: SCM, 1980.
• Keck, Leander E. “The Law of ‘The Law of Sin and Death’ (Romans 8:1-4): Reflections on the Spirit and Ethics in Paul.” In The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, edited by James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel, 41–57. New York: KTAV, 1980.
• Keener, Craig S. The Mind of the Spirit: Paul’s Approach to Transformed Thinking. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016.
• Lambrecht, Jan. “Style and Content: A Note on Romans 8:10.” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 86, no. 1 (January 2010): 171–76.
• Loane, M. L. The Hope of Glory: An Exposition of the Eighth Chapter in the Epistle to the Romans. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1968.
• Longenecker, Richard N. The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2016.
• Moo, Douglas. Romans. The NIV Application Commentary ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.
• ________. “Romans.” In Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Romans to Philemon, edited by Clinton E. Arnold. Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.
• ________. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996.
• Nygen, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949.
• Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. 2nd ed. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006.
• Philo. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume. Translated by C. D. Yonge. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011.
• Robinson, John A. T. Wrestling with Romans. London: SCM, 1979.
• Schafroth, Verena. “Romans 8: The Chapter of the Spirit.” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 30, no. 1 (2010): 80–90.
• Snijders, L. A., and Heinz-Josef Fabry. “מָלֵא.” In Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, translated by Douglas W. Stott. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997.
• Venter, Dirk J. “Romans 8:3-4 and God’s Resolution of the Threefold Problems of Sin, the Incapability of the Law and the Weakness of the Flesh.” In Die Skriflig 48, no. 1 (2014): 1–7.
• ________. “The Requirement of the Law Fulfilled in Romans 8:4.” In Die Skriflig 48, no. 1 (2014): 1–7.
• Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Reference

[1] James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, vol. 38A of Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1988), xliii–xliv.

[2] Douglas Moo, Romans, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 18.

[3] Suetonius, The Life of Claudius 25.4.

[4] Dunn, Romans 1-8, xlviii-xlix.

[5] Douglas Moo, “Romans,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Romans to Philemon, ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 3:8.

[6] Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994), 515–16.

[7] Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996), 33–35.

[8] Moo, The Epistle, 472.

[9] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 518.

[10] Dunn, Romans 1-8, lix.

[11] Richard N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans: A Commentary on the Greek Text, ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2016), 3–4.

[12] Moo, The Epistle, 352.

[13] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).

[14] Constantine R. Campbell, Paul and Union with Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 115–20. The preposition ἐν, in the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ, has a broad semantic range. The locative subcategory denotes being in a certain place or location. Other senses include a state or condition, telical, associative, instrumental, agency, circumstantial, recognition, purpose, time, kind, and substance. Campbell, Paul and Union, 69.

[15] Moo, The Epistle, 472–73.

[16] Susan G. Eastman, “Oneself in Another: Participation and the Spirit in Romans 8,” in “In Christ” in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation, ed. Michael J. Thate, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Constantine R. Campbell (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2014), 110.

[17] M. L. Loane, The Hope of Glory: An Exposition of the Eighth Chapter in the Epistle to the Romans (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1968), 15.

[18] See Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006), 90–91.

[19] Moo, Romans, 473–74.

[20] William Arndt, Frederick W. Danker, and Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 2000), 677–78.

[21] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 522–23.

[22] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 526.

[23] Moo, The Epistle, 476–77.

[24] Leander E. Keck, “The Law of ‘The Law of Sin and Death’ (Romans 8:1-4): Reflections on the Spirit and Ethics in Paul,” in The Divine Helmsman: Studies on God’s Control of Human Events, Presented to Lou H. Silberman, ed. James L. Crenshaw and Samuel Sandmel (New York: KTAV, 1980), 50.

[25] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 526.

[26] For an analysis asserting the nominative absolute, see Robert Jewett, Romans: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 482. For an analysis asserting an anacolouthon, see Moo, The Epistle, 477–78n37.

[27] Dirk J. Venter, “Romans 8:3-4 and God’s Resolution of the Threefold Problems of Sin, the Incapability of the Law and the Weakness of the Flesh,” In Die Skriflig 48, no. 1 (2014): 3; emphasis added.

[28] John A. T. Robinson, Wrestling with Romans (London: SCM, 1979), 94.

[29] Venter, “Romans 8:3-4” 4.

[30] Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (London: SCM, 1980), 217.

[31] Dunn, Romans 1-8, 422.

[32] Venter, “Romans 8:3-4,” 6.

[33] Moo, The Epistle, 481.

[34] L. A. Snijders and Heinz-Josef Fabry, “מָלֵא,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren, trans. Douglas W. Stott (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1997), 298.

[35] Dirk J. Venter, “The Requirement of the Law Fulfilled in Romans 8:4,” In Die Skriflig 48, no. 1 (2014): 3.

[36] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 491; emphasis added.

[37] Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 29.

[38] Dubbelman, “God’s New Creation in Romans 8:4,” Southeastern Theological Review 9, no. 1 (Spring 2018): 48.

[39] Moo, The Epistle, 484.

[40] Venter, “The Requirement,” 2.

[41] Moo, The Epistle, 486.

[42] Verena Schafroth, “Romans 8: The Chapter of the Spirit,” Journal of the European Pentecostal Theological Association 30, no. 1 (2010): 84.

[43] Arndt, Danker, and Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon, 1065–66.

[44] Moo, The Epistle, 487.

[45] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 539 note 194.

[46] Craig S. Keener, The Mind of the Spirit: Paul’s Approach to Transformed Thinking (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2016), 120–23.

[47] Ibid., 122–26.

[48] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 541.

[49] Keener, The Mind, 127.

[50] Ibid., 133–34.

[51] Dubbelman, “God’s New Creation,” 69–70.

[52] Moo, The Epistle, 487.

[53] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 541–42. See also Moo, The Epistle, 488.

[54] Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2000), 51.

[55] Philo, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume, trans. C. D. Yonge (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011), 404.

[56] Keener, The Mind, 138–39.

[57] Moo, The Epistle, 489.

[58] See also Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 369.

[59] Dunn, Romans 1-8, 428.

[60] Anders Nygen, Commentary on Romans (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1949), 322.

[61] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 854.

[62] Moo, The Epistle, 491.

[63] Jan Lambrecht, “Style and Content: A Note on Romans 8:10,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 86, no. 1 (January 2010): 173.

[64] Moo, The Epistle, 492.

[65] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 369.

[66] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 552.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Dunn, Romans 1-8, 432–33.

[69] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 552.

[70] Moo, The Epistle, 493.

[71] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 553.

[72] The point is moot due to the trinitarian inseparability axiom, which asserts that the Son and Spirit are other than God, but “regarded as inseparably one with him in his eternal being.” Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 302.

[73] Larry Crabb, Effective Biblical Counseling: A Model for Helping Caring Christians Become Capable Counselors (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 62–63.