For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
For what the law could not do ... 'Few texts (says Fraser truly) have been more teased with the criticisms of the learned, which do often tend rather to darken than to give light to it, or to the subject of it;' and Fritzsche refers to the exceeding difference that obtains among interpreters, both as to the structure of the verse and the explanation of its meaning. But this is hardly to be wondered at, considering the very unusual structure of the clause, and the equally unusual language of the entire statement. Let us examine it, clause by clause. What, then, was it that "the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh?" 'It could not justify the breakers of it,' say those who think that Justification is the subject of these verses, (as Hodge, etc.) But it cannot be said with propriety that the reason why the law could not justify the guilty was that it was "weak through the flesh," or by reason of our corruption. It is clearly, we think, the law's inability to free us from the dominion of sin that the apostle has in view; as has partly appeared already (see the note at Romans 8:2), and will more fully appear presently. The law could irritate our sinful nature into more virulent action, as we have seen in Romans 7:5; but it could not secure its own fulfillment. How that is accomplished comes now to be shown.
In that it was weak through the flesh - not 'because of the flesh' х dia (G1223) teen (G3588) sarka (G4561)], as the English reader would suppose, but 'through the medium of the flesh' х dia (G1223) tees (G3588) sarkos (G4561)]; i:e., having to address itself to us through a corrupt nature, too strong to be influenced by mere commands and threatenings.
God ... The sentence is somewhat imperfect in its structure, which occasions a certain obscurity. It has been proposed to fill it up thus: 'What the law could not do ... God [did by] sending,' etc. But it is as well to leave it without any supplement, understanding it to mean, that whereas the law was powerless to secure its own fulfillment-for the reason given-God took the method now to be described for attaining that end.
Sending ('having sent') his own Son, х ton (G3588) heautou (G1438) huion (G5207)]. This and similar expressions most plainly imply (as Meyer properly notices) that Christ was Gods "OWN SON" before He was sent-that is, in His own proper Person, and independently of His mission and appearance in the flesh (see the notes at Romans 8:32; Galatians 4:4); and if so, He not only has the very nature of God, even as a son has his father's nature, but is essentially OF the Father, though in a sense too mysterious for any language of ours properly to define (see the note at Romans 1:4). But why is this special relationship put forward here? To enhance the greatness and define the nature of the relief provided as coming from beyond the precincts of sinful humanity altogether, yea, immediately from the Godhead itself.
In the likeness of sinful flesh, х en (G1722) homoioomati (G3667) sarkos (G4561) hamartias (G266)] - literally, 'in the likeness of the flesh of sin.' a very remarkable and pregnant expression. 'It is not in the likeness of flesh'-for truly He "was made flesh" (John 11:14) - but 'in the likeness of the flesh of sin;' in other words, He was made in the reality of our flesh but only in the likeness of its sinful condition. (See the excellent observations of DeWette.) [Similitudo-says Tertullian, quoted by Meyer-ad titulum peccati pertinebit non ad substantioe mendacium; referring to the Docetic heresy of our Lord's having assumed only an apparent Humanity.] He took our nature, not as Adam received it from his Maker's hand, but as it is in us-compassed with infirmities-with nothing to distinguish Him as man from sinful men, except that He was without sin. Nor does this mean that Christ took every property of Humanity except sin; for sin is no property of Humanity at all, but only the disordered state of our own souls, as the fallen family of Adam-a disorder affecting and overspreading our whole nature, indeed, but still purely our own.
And for sin х kai (G2532) peri (G4012) hamartias (G266)] - literally, 'and about sin.' Had this been a quite unusual expression, it might have meant simply, 'on the business of sin' (de peccato), as the Vulgate renders it [though not the Codex Amiatinus, which has propter peccatum]; and this at one time we took to be the thing intended. But since this very phrase is profusely employed in, the Septuagint to denote the Levitical 'offerings for sin' (nearly sixty times in the one book of Leviticus), and since in that sense it is twice used in the Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 10:6; Hebrews 10:8) - in a quotation from Psalms 40:1-17 [= chªTaa'aah (H2401)] - we cannot reasonably doubt that this (which is the marginal reading of our own version) was the sense intended by the apostle, and that it would be so understood by all his readers who were familiar with the Greek of the Old Testament. The meaning, then, in this view of it, is that God accomplished what the law could not, by the mission of His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh; yet not by His mere Incarnation, but by sending Him in the character of a sin offering (compare, for the language, 2 Corinthians 5:21 - "He hath made Him to be sin for us"). Still, the question returns, What was it that God did by the mission of His Son as a sin offering in our nature, "when the law could not do it." The apostle's answer is,
He condemned sin in the flesh - not in order to the pardon of it (as Calvin, Hodge, etc.) for justification, as we have seen, is not the thing here intended, but 'inflicted on it judicial vengeance in the flesh of Christ,' and so condemned it to lose its hold over men-at once to let go its iron grasp, and ultimately to be driven clean away from the domain of human nature in the redeemed. (So Beza, Fraser, Meyer, Tholuck, Alford, Philippi.) In this glorious sense our Lord says of His approaching death (John 12:31). "Now is the judgment of this world; now shall the prince of this, world be cast out;" and again (John 16:11), "When He (the Spirit) shall come, He shall convince the world of ... judgment, because the prince of this world is judged" - i:e., condemned to let go his hold of men, who, through the Cross shall be emancipated into the liberty and power to be holy. (See Commentary on that verse.)
We may add to these expository remarks, that Luther-who seldom goes far wrong-has entirely missed the sense of the expression, "and for sin." Connecting it, not with the 'sending' of Christ, but with His 'condemning sin' when sent, he translates thus: He 'condemned sin in the flesh through sin,' which, if it be sense at all, yields only a bad sense. And Bengel, unlike himself, distorts the proper order of the words even more (thus: 'condemned sin' in Christ's flesh 'for sin' in ours).