Commentary on Romans 8:1–11 by Rudolph Cornely
Note: Rudolph Cornely, S.J. (1829–1906), was a prominent Austrian Jesuit biblical scholar. His commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul is part of the Cursus Scripturae Sacrae, known for its critical rigor, engagement with patristic and modern interpretations, and faithful adherence to Catholic doctrine. This text is excerpted from his commentary on Romans, Chapter 8. Translated by Qwen.
Introduction: The Fourth Fruit of Justification (Romans 8:1–39)
On the Fourth Fruit of Justification or on the Beatitude of Man Reborn in Christ (8:1–39).
How great is the power of the Gospel is already clearly apparent from the three preceding sections, in which the Apostle shows that believers are freed from three most grave harms: for they are exempted from the divine wrath, so that, reconciled with God, they may enjoy peace (Rom 5:1 sqq.); inserted into Christ dying in baptism, they die to sin, so that, snatched from its slavery, they may serve justice (Rom 6:1 sqq.); united intimately with Christ risen, they are vindicated from the slavery of the Law also into liberty, so that they may now bear fruit for God (Rom 7:1 sqq.).
Far more splendidly, however, does the power of the Gospel manifest itself in the fourth fruit of justification, since in those reborn in Christ the Holy Spirit is given, and with Him and through Him the highest goods of grace and glory are conferred, by which they are raised to the summit of supreme dignity and beatitude. For through the Spirit dwelling in them, exempted from the law of sin and death, they are rendered fit to fulfill the justice of the Law and are endowed with true life (Rom 8:1–11); and by the power of divine adoption, of which the Holy Spirit is the seal, they acquire the right to glorious life (Rom 8:12–17), which is confirmed to be entirely certain for the justified by a fourfold argument (Rom 8:18–30).
Therefore, just as Paul in the preceding section (Rom 7:1–25) first demonstrated and explained the negative member of his previous assertion (Rom 6:15 "you are not under the Law"), so now he explains the other positive member ("but you are under grace"). Moreover, having contemplated all the gifts brought to believers through the Gospel, he terminates his entire treatise on the fruits of the Gospel with a magnificent epilogue, in which he declares that for those who are in Christ there is nothing to be feared, but all things are to be hoped for (Rom 8:31–39).
Section 1: The Justified Through the Indwelling Holy Spirit Can Fulfill the Justice of the Law and Are Endowed with True Life (Rom 8:1–11)
Rom 8:5
First, therefore, he indicates the reason why in those alone who follow the Spirit the justification of the Law is fulfilled: "For those who are according to the flesh mind the things of the flesh (phronousin); but those who are according to the spirit mind the things of the spirit (sentiunt)." The latter verb (sentiunt), since it is lacking in the Greek, the translator [Vulgate] added from his own [understanding]; from the prior member, however, he could have better supplied sapiunt (mind). But not even this word fully reaches the force which the Greek phronein has in this place. For phronein, as Cajetan well notes and the rest insinuate in their interpretations, denotes not only an act of the intellect but also an act of the will, and corresponds more to the Latin studere (to strive for something, or according to Cajetan etc. to curare [to care for]), as also in vv. 6-7 the derived noun phronema is better rendered by the Latin studium (striving/setting of the mind) than by the words prudentia and sapientia employed by our translator (cf. v. 27 where our translator renders the words ti to phronema tou pneumatos; "what the Spirit desires").
Moreover, the expressions oi kata sarka ontes (those who are according to the flesh) and oi kata sarka peripatountes (those who walk according to the flesh), although they designate the same persons, are not rightly said to signify the same thing (cf. Thomas, Estius, etc.). For the former extends more broadly and declares the flesh (or spirit) to be the principle of the whole life, both internal and external; the latter, however, regards rather only the external life. But because the external life depends on the internal, the Apostle by right in his argumentation substitutes the former for the latter, so that he might teach that those who walk according to the flesh are directed by the flesh in their whole life and also strive for the things that are of the flesh, i.e., place their whole thought and contention in them, just as those who walk according to the Spirit place their mind and care in all things that are of the Spirit. But what things are of the flesh and what things are of the Spirit, we are taught elsewhere (Gal. 5:15–25), where the Apostle, describing the struggle of flesh and spirit in the justified, enumerates both the works to which the flesh impels and the fruits which the Spirit produces.
Rom 8:6
In order that the force of this argument may become clearer, the Apostle adds for the sake of explanation (the particle gar [for] explains): "For the prudence (read: striving phronema) of the flesh is death; but the prudence (better: striving) of the spirit is life and peace." Modern juniors labor much in connecting this sentence with the preceding, since it seems neither to prove or confirm nor to explain it. Some have progressed so far as to say that nam [for] here is the same as igitur [therefore] (Estius), or to supply something in the preceding sentence which ours might prove ("those who are according to the flesh mind the things of the flesh and therefore will die... for the prudence of the flesh is death" Estius?). Similarly, Thomas thinks that in vv. 5-6 a certain syllogism is proposed, of which the Major is v. 6, the Minor however v. 5 ("whoever follows the prudence of the flesh is led to death; but whoever is according to the flesh follows the prudence of the flesh; therefore whoever is according to the flesh is led to death"); but the premises of the syllogism cannot be connected by the conjunction gar (for). Others think that only the proof of the last member (v. 5) is brought forward ("therefore spiritual men mind the things of the Spirit, because the phronema of the flesh brings eternal death, but the phronema of the Spirit eternal life and peace with God" cf. Beely, etc.).
But it is evident that our words pertain to the whole preceding sentence; indeed even the Apostle in our words seems to attend more to the prior member than to the other, since in vv. 7-8 he makes no mention of spiritual men. More rightly, therefore, with others we shall say that Paul wishes to explain why those who follow the flesh and strive for the things that are of the flesh cannot fulfill the Law, but those led by the Spirit who dwell in the things that are of the Spirit manifest the justice of the Law in their life. For warning that the term to which the flesh leads its followers is plainly opposite to the term of the Spirit, he simultaneously declares that the ways of the flesh and Spirit are opposed to each other. And indeed the works of the flesh, which lead to death (v. 13) and bear fruit for death (Rom 7:5), so that those who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21), are prohibited by the Law; but from the fruits of the Spirit the Law is so far from opposing, that rather by them it is fulfilled (Gal. 5:23); whence those who sow in the spirit, of the spirit shall reap eternal life (Rom 8:13; Rom 2:6; Rom 6:22 etc.; cf. Gal. 6:8) and shall have peace with God (cf. v. 7; Rom 5:1).
Rom 8:7
Moreover, that the striving of the flesh truly leads man to eternal death, the Apostle confirms by two reasons, of which the prior (v. 7) shows how the striving of the flesh relates to God, the other (v. 8) how God relates to the flesh: "Because (better: for gar cf. on Rom 1:19) the wisdom (kai to phronema striving) of the flesh is enemy to God (read: is enmity against God echthra eis Theon cf. VV. LL.); for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can it." True life is from God alone, nor can it be conferred by God on His enemies; but the striving of the flesh is not only enemy to God, but is enmity against God, since the flesh always tends toward those things which are contrary to God and His will. The Apostle himself explains this, adding that the flesh, or rather the striving of the flesh, is not subject to God, i.e., does not obey, indeed cannot even be subject. "No one," says Thomas, "can hate God according to what He is in Himself, since God is the very essence of goodness; but according to this a sinner hates God, that the precept of the divine law is contrary to his will; just as an adulterer hates God, insofar as he hates this precept: thou shalt not commit adultery; and so all sinners, insofar as they are unwilling to be subject to the law of God, are enemies of God; whence conveniently the Apostle proves that the wisdom of the flesh is enemy to God, because it is not subject to the law of God." Similarly St. Augustine (Serm. 155, 10) notes that the wisdom of the flesh is not so said to be enemy against God "as though it could injure Him: by resisting it is enemy, not by killing."
But that the Apostle asserts the striving of the flesh cannot be subject to God, this the Fathers were once compelled to explain at length against the Manichaeans, who by these words strove to prove that the flesh was not from God. Well says St. Augustine (l.c.): "What is neque enim potest [nor indeed can it]? Not man cannot, not the soul cannot, not finally the flesh itself, because it is a creature of God, cannot; but the prudence of the flesh cannot, the vice cannot, not the nature. Just as if you were to say: lameness is not subject to straight walking, nor indeed can it; the foot can but lameness cannot; take away lameness and you will see straight walking; but as long as lameness is, it cannot. So as long as the prudence of the flesh is, it cannot; let the prudence of the flesh not be and man can" (cf. c. Fortun. Manich. disp. 2, 92; de octog. trib. quaest. 66, 6 etc.; Chrysostom, Theodore, etc.).
Rom 8:8
The other reason is taken from the part of God and by the particle de (but) is joined to the prior, which was taken from the part of the flesh, or if you prefer is quasi-opposed to it: "But those who are in the flesh cannot please God." There are not lacking those who, thinking the particle de (but) is put for oun (therefore), consider this sentence to be derived from the precedents as a conclusion (cf. Estius, Reithmayr, etc.), or even saying de is employed for gar wish our sentence to be subjoined to the prior as causal (cf. Toletus, etc.). Both are equally arbitrary; Paul knew the Greek particles best nor does he need our corrections. In the prior argument he had shown that the striving of the flesh leads to death, because it is enmity against God, from whom alone true life is granted; the same now he demonstrates from this, that God holds the striving of the flesh in hatred. Rightly indeed Beely: "It is a litotes," he says, "in that they cannot please God; by denying the contrary it signifies more than it says; for he wishes to say: those who are in the flesh are subject to condemnation," namely to death.
Some think the expression oi en sarki ontes (those who are in the flesh), neighboring indeed to the superior oi kata sarka ontes (those who are according to the flesh), is stronger, because it designates the flesh not so much as a norm according to which they live, but as a thing in which they live, so that their whole life is versed in the flesh and they themselves are wholly given to the flesh. But nothing exists by which we are compelled to admit this stronger signification; for to the sentence that signification plainly agrees which we said above (on 7:5) belongs to the locution.
Rom 8:9
From those who, because they are in the flesh, are subject to the law of death, St. Paul turning himself to the Roman neophytes undertakes to explain the second part of his thesis (v. 2). For he teaches that those whom he says are en pneumati (in the spirit) on account of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which he supposes to be present (v. 9), have obtained through the same Holy Spirit even the true life of the soul (v. 10) and are certainly about to obtain the glorious life of the body (v. 11), and consequently are freed from the law of death. "But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if indeed (ei ge) the Spirit of God dwells in you; but if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not His."
In the same way that those are said to be in carne (in the flesh) in whom the flesh is the principle of moral life, so those are to be said to be in spiritu (in the spirit) to whom the spirit is the principle of life. Although in the superior locutions (to walk according to the spirit, to be according to the spirit, the prudence of the spirit) by the name spiritus the Holy Spirit Himself dwelling in the baptized is more rightly held to be signified (cf. on v. 4), in this diction nevertheless the spirit of man must be understood, namely our soul adorned with sanctifying grace and united with the indwelling Holy Spirit. For this the added sentence persuades, by which the indwelling of the Holy Spirit Himself is indicated to be the reason why anyone is in the spirit; the Spirit of God therefore is expressly distinguished from the spirit in which He dwells.
For lest the faithful trust rashly concerning the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the Apostle adds: "if indeed (ei ge) the Spirit of God dwells in you." By which words indeed he does not call into doubt whether the neophytes have received the Spirit of God—for to all who are justified from faith the Spirit is given, through whom charity is poured forth in their hearts (5:5)—but he hints that it is possible that some from their number by sins committed after baptism together with sanctifying grace and infused charity have also now lost the Spirit. Indeed with Chrysostom the younger Greeks (Theophylact, Oecumenius, Euthymius) and few moderns (Schanz, Olshausen) think the particle ei ge (if indeed) is employed here for eiper (since indeed) and brings a confirmation of the preceding sentence; but these things are less rightly said. For although ei ge several times admits this signification (cf. Rom 3:30; and 2 Thess. 1:6), here not only is nothing present by which we are compelled to recede from its customary hypothetical use (Rom 8:17; se also 1 Cor. 15:15 and 2 Cor. 5:5 etc.), but we are prohibited from receding from it by the following sentence, by which it appears Paul did not wish to assert that even now the Spirit dwells in all and singular Roman faithful (cf. Estius, Mai, etc.).
Indeed so that he might terrify those neophytes who perhaps have already expelled the Spirit from their hearts and indirectly recall them to good fruit, he subjoins: "but if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this one is not His." From the very connection of sentences it is evident that the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ are the same, who is called by this other name because He proceeds no less from the Son than from the Father (cf. Thomas, Toletus, Estius, etc., Reithmayr, Beely, etc.). But that some modern acatholics say, the Spirit is therefore called Christ's, "because Jesus altogether assimilated the Spirit of God to Himself" (Godet: "Jesus has absolutely assimilated the Spirit of God to Himself; he has made it his personal life"), this is plainly absurd. But Paul chose this other name, that by the name itself he might already declare that those who are not in the spirit, because the Spirit of God no longer dwells in them, also no longer pertain to Christ nor are any longer genuine and living members of His mystical body. "Just as that is not a member of the body, which is not vivified by the spirit of the body, so he is not a member of Christ, who does not have the Spirit of Christ" (Thomas).
Rom 8:10
With these things premised, he teaches that the faithful obtain true spiritual life through the indwelling of the Spirit of God, whom above (v. 2) he called the Spirit of life: "But if Christ is in you, the body indeed is dead (nekron) because of sin (di' hamartian), but the spirit lives (read: is life sc. estin; cf. VV. LL.) because of justification (better: because of justice dia dikaiosynen with Tertullian de resurr. carn. 46 etc., St. Augustine expos. n. 50; de octog. trib. quaest. 66, 6 etc.; dia ten dikaiosynen)." Just as in the preceding sentence to the name Spirit of God he substituted the name Spirit of Christ, so now to the person of the Spirit he substitutes the person of Christ, "no longer," says Chrysostom, "calling Christ the Spirit; far be it! but showing that he who has the Spirit of God, is not only Christ's but also has Christ Himself. Nor can Christ not be present when the Spirit is present; for where one person of the Trinity is present, there the whole Trinity is present; for it is indivisible in itself and intimately united." Therefore "we are temples of the living God (2 Cor. 6:16), because in us dwells through the Holy Spirit Christ having with Him in His proper nature also the Father God, from whom He substantially emanated" (St. Cyril of Alex. on 1 Cor. 6:19). In reality therefore it is the same, whether it is said: if Christ is in you, as in this sentence, or as in the following (v. 11): if the Spirit (of God the Father) dwells in you; nor can it be doubted that the Apostle in this sentence no less than in the following appropriates the new life, which the just enjoy and shall enjoy, to the "Spirit of life."
But what effect is attributed to it in our sentence is in controversy. According to the Greeks (cf. Origen, Chrysostom, Theodore, Severus, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Euthymius), with whom some moderns consent (cf. Reithmayr, Agostini, Weinhold, Olshausen, Holsten, Oltramare, etc.), it is treated of two effects, of which the prior pertains to the body, the other to the soul. For in a similar way, as the baptized is said to die to sin, i.e., relatively to sin (Rom 6:2 sqq.), so they wish the body to be called dead here not indeed according to nature but according to malice, so that it is dead relatively to sin. Therefore because of sin is the same to them as "because of (or for) sin to be avoided" (cf. 1 Cor. 7:9 dia tas porneias "because of fornications to be avoided"?). Which interpretation, although it can be adapted to Pauline words, nevertheless on account of the series of speech is less approved by us, because from the following sentence it is sufficiently clear that here it is not treated of the mystical death of the body. Wherefore in this member we think it is not treated of some effect of the Holy Spirit, and that with the Latins (cf. St. Augustine de pecc. mer. et rem. I. 2-6; de octog. trib. quaest. 66, 6 and Retract. I. 26; Primasius, Haymo, Hervé, Lombard, Thomas, etc., Cajetan, Toletus, Salmeron, Estius, Jansenius, etc.) and most moderns (cf. Mai, Beely, Bisping, Médebielle, Lagrange, Dr. Scholz, etc., Godet, Weiss, Gödeke, etc.) we prefer to interpret it of the physical death of the body brought in through sin (Rom 5:12); but the body is called here not thneton (mortal) but nekron (dead) for this reason, "because it now has the necessity of dying, which it did not have before sin" (St. Augustine). Because of sin, by which man is infected by force of his origin, his body is now so subject and obnoxious to death, that it deserves to be called dead.
But if against this interpretation it is objected, that in Greek it is not had dia ten hamartian, therefore it is not a speech concerning death contracted on account of original sin (Agostini), we respond that the name hamartias is also employed above (Rom 6:14) without the article concerning original sin, nor does anything impede that Paul be said to have employed the indeterminate name of sin, although he wished a determinate sin to be understood, in the same way as in the other member indeterminately he said dia dikaiosynen (because of justice), although he understood a determinate justice, which is from the faith of Christ. Nor do others more rightly object, that this member is inserted sufficiently superfluously, if it signifies nothing else than that man is obnoxious to death on account of original sin. For to augment the force of the other member, by which alone the proper and singular benefit of the Holy Spirit is preached, it contributes not a little. "If Christ is in you, your spirit is life because of justice, although your body because of sin is still obnoxious to death"; that the sentence is to be constructed in this way, the particles men... de (indeed... but) insinuate. From which opposition of the two members it also eluces, that in the other the name spiritus is neither rightly understood of the Holy Spirit, which thing even some Latins (St. Hilarion, etc.) think with many Greeks (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Euthymius), nor of the bare rational part of man, as Toletus wishes. Again spirit here signifies "the soul as having been made spiritual" (Theodore), i.e., the soul adorned with sanctifying grace, which through the indwelling Holy Spirit not so much lives, as is life because of the justice by which man is translated from the state of sin into the state of grace.
Rom 8:11
But not only is this spiritual life, which the justified enjoy because of justice, conferred upon them through the Spirit dwelling in them; their bodies also, which are still obnoxious to death, shall be recalled to a new life and that glorious because of the indwelling Spirit (or through Him): "But if the Spirit of Him, who raised Jesus from the dead, dwells in you: He who raised Jesus Christ from the dead, will quicken (zoopoiesei) also your mortal (thneta) bodies because of His Spirit dwelling in you (dia to enoikon autou pneuma en hymin, or: through His Spirit dwelling in you, dia tou enoikountos autou pneumatos en hymin cf. VV. LL.)."
Although Jesus according to His divine nature rose by His own power, nevertheless according to His human nature He is said to have been resuscitated and indeed by the Father, to whom the works of omnipotence are appropriated (cf. on Rom 6:4; Rom 4:24). For the same reason the resurrection of the dead is appropriated to the Father, and on this account Paul signifies the Spirit, whom before he had called the Spirit of God and of Christ (v. 9), now more expressly to be of the Father. But the argument of Paul is from the similar: for just as the Father could not leave the body of His dead Son, which even after death remained united with the divinity, in death on account of the indwelling divinity, so also He will resuscitate the bodies of the faithful to life, which were temples of the Holy Spirit, on account of the Spirit who dwelt in them.
Significantly however the Apostle says your mortal bodies He will quicken, "because in the resurrection," says Thomas, "not only will be taken away from bodies that they are dead, i.e., having the necessity of death (v. 10), but also that they are mortal, i.e., having the power to die, such as was the body of Adam before sin." Rightly also Chrysostom warns that it is not said: He will raise, but He will quicken, so that the glorious resurrection of the faithful might be indicated (cf. on 1 Cor. 15:52); but simultaneously it must be attended to, that the principal force is in this, that bodies are about to receive life indeficient and eternal, such as befits those to have who are intimately united with the Spirit of life!
CONTINUE.
Comments
Post a Comment