Romans 8:3Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,” he says, “God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Again he seems to condemn the law. Yet careful attention shows that he praises it greatly, proving that the law is in agreement with Christ and commands the very same thing.

He did not say “the evil of the law,” but “what the law could not do.” Again, he said, “in that it was weak,” not “in that it acted wickedly” or “plotted evil.” He ascribes the weakness itself not to the law, but to the flesh, saying, “in that it was weak through the flesh.”

Having mentioned the Spirit, he now mentions the Father and the Son, teaching the Trinity. He seems to speak against the law, but in truth he does not. He did not say that the law did evil, but, "what was weak in the law," in that it was powerless because of the flesh. How was it weakened? By the flesh, that is, by fleshly-mindedness. After this, what the Apostle has said becomes clear. As we said above, he means that although the law instructed, it could not overcome excessively fleshly-mindedness. Therefore the Father sent His Son "in the likeness of the flesh of sin," that is, with flesh essentially like our sinful flesh, yet sinless. Since he mentioned sin, he added "in the likeness." For Christ did not assume some other flesh, but the very flesh we have.

The Apostle did not simply say "in the likeness of flesh," thereby destroying the blasphemy of impious teaching, for the grace of the Spirit knows all things beforehand. He said "in the likeness of sinful flesh," so that we might know why he used the word likeness.

He used it because our Savior is free from every sin.

The body of Christ could in no way be called "sinful flesh." Rather, it is the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, a body like ours, but not knowing the sickness of fleshly impurity.

For this divine temple was holy from the womb of His Mother. As to the concepts and definitions of nature, no one will hesitate to say that, since it was flesh, it had in itself its own innate movement.

Here Paul clearly teaches that the ordinances of the law were not fulfilled, though they ought to have been, because those to whom the law was given before grace had surrendered themselves to fleshly goods and tried to find blessedness in them. Nor was there fear in them except fear over threats to those goods. When this happened, they easily departed from the ordinances of the law. Therefore the law became weakened, because its ordinances were not fulfilled. The law is not to blame, for weakness came through the flesh, that is, through those people who sought the goods of the flesh and did not love the righteousness of the law, preferring temporal advantages. Therefore our Liberator, the Lord Jesus Christ, assumed mortal flesh and came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

"For what was weak in the law": either he calls Moses weak, since he needed purification for the transgression he committed at the rock (Ex 17:6), or he means the priests and sacrificial rites, since they could not cleanse sins until the one Sacrifice came and put sin to death in His flesh. Or else the law itself was weak, since it could remit sin for no one. Thus the law was powerless, for it could not show mercy and compassion to the guilty. It was like a weak man who cannot do anything stronger than himself. It was enslaved, since it was given through a servant. A servant can in no way free a servant, for both needed the true freedom of the Son.

It was certainly impossible for us to fulfill the commandment of the law, for we were under the power of sin. Therefore God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. The likeness of flesh consists in this: although it is the same flesh as ours, it was not manifested in the womb and born as our flesh is. It was sanctified in the womb, born without sin, and knew no sin. A virginal womb was chosen for the birth of the Lord, so that the Lord's flesh would be distinguished from our flesh by holiness. It is like ours in origin, but not in sinfulness. Therefore Paul says that the flesh of Jesus is of the same substance, but born in another manner, for the Lord's body was not under the power of sin.

"For what was weak in the law, in that it was weak through the flesh." Therefore the law is not evil. On the contrary, it is good, but powerless. It was weak because it gave legislation to those clothed with a mortal nature. For now, in all-holy baptism, we receive the pledge of immortality. "God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh." The Apostle did not say, "in the likeness of flesh," but "in the likeness of the flesh of sin." For the Son of God took upon Himself human nature, but He did not take human sin. Therefore the Apostle did not call what was assumed the likeness of flesh, but the likeness of the flesh of sin. Christ had one and the same nature with us, but He did not have the same inclination of will.

Here Paul bears witness that the law, weakened by the flesh, could not be fulfilled. When he says, "God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin," he thereby shows that the Son existed even before the Incarnation. He also shows that He took on flesh that was to suffer, but took it without sin. Therefore it is said that the Son came in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh. He took His flesh holy and kept it unharmed from every contact with sin.

For this reason our Lord and Savior came in the likeness of the flesh of sin, as the Apostle teaches, and assumed everything except sin. Thus the fullness of righteousness destroyed sin in the flesh, when He received a body without sin from sinful substance. The proof of this is His encounter in the wilderness with the spirit, when He overcame the devil not by divine majesty, but by remembrance of duty, fasting, and a pious answer. Mt 4:1-11; Mk 1:12-13; Lk 4:1-13.

Thus He who appeared in the flesh without blemish received the circumcision of the flesh prescribed by the law. He came in the likeness of the flesh of sin, but not in the flesh of sin itself. He did not despise the means by which sinful flesh is ordinarily cleansed, since not from necessity but for example He Himself received the waters of baptism. He desired that they cleanse the people of the new grace from the defilement of sins. Mt 3:13-17; Mk 1:9-11; Lk 3:21-22; Jn 1:29-34.

"It was weak through the flesh." The law also promised life to those who fulfilled it, but it gave life on the condition of strict and complete fulfillment, which no one weakened by the flesh could attain. Therefore the promises of the law proved fruitless, and the law itself powerless for salvation. But what the law proved too weak to do was accomplished by the appearing of the Son of God in the flesh. "That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us" means that the justification toward which the law strove might be given to us. It also means that we might have power to fulfill all the moral demands of the law and thereby attain justification.

The Apostle showed that the new spirit of life in Christ Jesus has freed us from the law of sin. The force of this statement lies in the words, in Christ Jesus.

It is as in the first verse: there is no condemnation for us, likewise those who are in Christ Jesus. Now he explains that this could not have taken place otherwise than in Christ Jesus.

God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and He condemned sin, or the law of sin. He took away its former authority and power and freed us from it.

It is not subject to doubt, nor does it require special proofs, that we must live in the spirit and walk according to the will of God.

This will is inscribed in conscience and has also been personally declared by Him. But through the fall another law entered into our members and gave another direction to our life and deeds.

The law was given to assist conscience, but it did not correct the matter. The law of sin began to act even more viciously.

The need for a new divine economy is evident, and God was pleased to grant it to us in His Son.

Having become incarnate, He condemned sin, that is, destroyed it in His own flesh. He established the law that we too, cleaving to Him by faith and becoming one with Him in the Mysteries, should become partakers of His power.

This is the power that trampled down sin. By this power we trample it down within ourselves. In this consists freedom from the law of sin.

Thus we receive the possibility of living not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. We can walk in God's will, in faithfulness to the demands of conscience and the law, and be righteous before God.

Our original purpose is thereby fulfilled. Such is the meaning of these verses, in their connection with what precedes and with the subsequent course of the discourse.

But the text itself requires special explanations. "What was weak in the law" has no corresponding verb, which must be supplied by our thought.

It seems that the most fitting supplement is: was fulfilled. What the law was not strong enough to do was fulfilled by a special divine economy of God, namely, by God's sending His Son for this purpose.

The law in itself is holy and indicated the true path toward holiness and righteousness. But in the man to whom it indicated this path, the flesh held sway.

This means self-centered, pleasure-loving passion, and it did not allow him to walk this path. The law only indicated what ought to be done and forbade what ought not be done.

It also forbade this very passionate condition, saying, "Thou shalt not desire." But it did not give strength to overcome the latter. In this consisted its weakness.

It was good and beneficial that it clarified the matter. But since it did not go beyond this, the flesh, or passionate condition, remained in its power within man.

It did not allow him to follow the indications of the law, and the law did not reach its goal. Nor was man's original goal attained by it: to be holy and blameless before God.

This is what is meant by: in which it was weak through the flesh, dia tes sarkos, because of the flesh. Or, because of an extremely carnal mind, as Chrysostom says.

This is passionate and self-loving self-pleasing, this law of sin dwelling in our flesh, in the members of our nature.

"In which," en ho, may also be expressed thus: the weakness of the law, insofar as it was weak through the flesh.

But it is better thus: the weakness of the law, that in which it was weak because of the flesh, was fulfilled by the sending of the Son of God.

Having come, He condemned this very flesh, taking away its power over us. God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Since the law did not lead to holiness and righteousness, and since these constitute man's original purpose, without which man is not man, the boundless goodness of God arranged another wondrous means for man's sanctification and justification.

This means was that the Only-begotten Son of God should become incarnate and, having conquered sin, should give man the possibility not to submit to its authority and to be holy.

The Son of God was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. Having said just before that the law was weak through the flesh, "by flesh he did not mean the substance of the flesh itself."

"He meant the excessively carnal mind, thereby freeing the body from blame," says Chrysostom.

Now by flesh he means the very nature of flesh, without the carnal mind or law of sin that has flowed into it. Among men the flesh was usually sinful.

In the Lord Jesus it had no part in this unnatural addition. In Him it was like the natural flesh of all men, except for unnatural sinfulness.

Therefore it is said: in the likeness of sinful flesh. If he had said only, in the likeness of flesh, it would follow that He came not in our real flesh but in an apparent one.

If he had said, in sinful flesh, he would have made the incarnate Lord Himself a partaker of sin.

But by saying, in the likeness of sinful flesh, he gives us to understand that He came in our real flesh, only without the sin dwelling in it.

Chrysostom says: "If it is said that God sent His Son in the likeness of flesh, do not conclude from this that Christ's flesh was of another kind."

"But since human flesh was called sinful flesh, the word likeness was added. For Christ did not have sinful flesh, but flesh similar to our sinful flesh, yet sinless and by nature the same as ours."

Let us add the words of blessed Theodoret: "The Apostle did not say, in the likeness of flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh."

"For the Son of God took upon Himself human nature, but He did not take human sin. Therefore the Apostle called what was assumed not the likeness of flesh, but the likeness of sinful flesh."

"For Christ, having one and the same nature with us, did not have one and the same inclination of will."

"And for sin He condemned sin in the flesh." The phrase "and for sin" may be referred to "sent" thus: God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, peri hamartias, because of sin.

This is because of sin tyrannizing over men. One may connect this with the thought: for the expiation of sin by the sacrifice of His flesh, as the Russian translation does.

Or else: for the removal of sin by His power, first in His own flesh and then, through living communion, in all believing people.

Or one may not connect it with a specific thought about exactly what the reason was. One may keep in mind generally, because of sin, and see the indication of the reason in "He condemned sin."

This phrase may also be referred to "condemned": He condemned sin for sin. That is, He showed that sin is sinful by revealing flesh without sin.

Because sinfulness was everywhere, people could think that sin is unavoidable, that the flesh is so constituted that one cannot avoid sinning. Consequently, sin would be sinless.

The Lord, by revealing flesh without sin, showed that sin does not come from the nature of flesh, but from an evil will. Therefore sin is sinful, subject to judgment and condemnation.

He "showed the unrighteousness and sinfulness of sin," says blessed Theophylact.

He condemned it, not by a simple condemning sentence, for the law also did this. He condemned it as a ruler seizes a criminal, condemns him, and sends him to hard labor or puts him to death.

He condemned it by conquering it and making us its conquerors, so that we can despise it as a worthless braggart and trample it down.

Our interpreters do not pay attention to the structure of the sentence. They reason more generally about the purpose and power of the sending of the Son of God.

They say that He was sent to conquer sin, to take from it every power, and to make us its conquerors.

Only blessed Theophylact notes incidentally: "The expression 'and for sin' may be understood more simply thus: the Father sent His Son for sin, that is, to overcome sins."

Oecumenius also cites how someone else presents a possible arrangement of the words here: "A twofold arrangement of the words may be accepted here."

"One may separate 'and for sin' from 'condemned,' so that it reads: God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin."

"That is, because of sin, in order to remove it and free us from it. How remove it? By condemning it, not by simple judgment, but by conquering and taking captive."

"One may also join them, so that it reads: and for sin He condemned sin in the flesh. He condemned it as exceedingly sinful, because it made evil from what was good."

"The Apostle spoke of this above, showing that sin is exceedingly sinful. How did He condemn it? In the flesh, that is, by His flesh."

"This is the wonder, that by the flesh once subject to sin He condemned sin. How? By preserving it sinless. Having thus conquered sin by His flesh, He also punished it. For the punishment of sin is its removal."

But whichever combination of words is accepted, it is clear that the Apostle's chief thought here concerns the purpose and meaning of the sending of the Son of God in the flesh.

Namely, it was to conquer, punish, and remove sin, and to make us conquerors and punishers of it.

For the Son of God came to fulfill what was lacking to the law. The law lacked the power to conquer sin in us, or to make us its conquerors.

Therefore in the words defining the purpose of the sending of the Son of God, we must see the fulfillment of precisely what was lacking to the law.

That is, we must see the conquest of sin and the making of us into its conquerors. This very meaning must be seen in the words: He condemned sin in the flesh.

He condemned sin in His own flesh, took its power from it, and made us its conquerors.

In ordinary speech the word condemn is given a similar meaning. When we say, they condemned the criminal, we mean not only the pronouncing of a condemning sentence.

We also mean the taking away of the criminal's possibility of committing crimes, by deprivation of freedom or by death. So it is here also.

Sin has been condemned. It has been bound and deprived of its unbridled freedom to tyrannize over us.

The incarnate Son of God accomplished this in two ways. First, by delivering His sinless flesh to death for the sins of the world, He gave us the possibility of receiving forgiveness for sins we have committed.

Second, by revealing sinless flesh in Himself and instituting the Mysteries for communion with Himself, He gave us the possibility of receiving from Him the power that conquers sin, so that we do not commit further sins.

Both are stored up in Him as a treasury. We become partakers of this treasury by cleaving to the Lord with our whole soul.

The first is indicated here, and the second in the words that follow.

Blessed Theodoret writes: "The Apostle says here that the law could not fulfill its own purpose because of the weakness of those who received the law."

"They had a mortal and passible nature. Therefore the Only-begotten Word of God, having become man, crushed sin by human flesh, fulfilling all righteousness."

"Since He did not receive the disgrace of sin, that is, since He was sinless, and since He suffered the death of sinners like a sinner, He exposed the unrighteousness of sin."

"For sin handed over to death a body not subject to death. But He Himself crushed both sin and death."

"For the Word of God, as not subject to death because He committed no sin, nevertheless received death according to the unjust sentence of sin."

"He became, as it were, 'free among the dead' (Ps 87:6), a ransom for those justly held under the dominion of death."

Here the sin-justifying power of the coming of the Son of God in the flesh is chiefly indicated. Chrysostom depicts more the sin-conquering power of this coming.

He says: "Imagine that a king's son sees a woman of low condition and without protection being beaten in the marketplace. He calls himself her son and thereby frees her from the hands of her offenders."

"The Son of God did the same. Having confessed Himself the Son of Man, He appeared to help the flesh and condemned sin."

If the Father sent the Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, then from this alone one cannot say that His visible flesh was unreal. He was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh so that by Himself He might redeem that same fallen flesh. The issue is a body like sinful flesh, in which, however, there was no sin itself.

For this reason we also implored God for permission not to observe Jewish customs, since we cannot establish laws unsuited to the Gentiles. Yet we gladly explain the prophecies handed down through the Jews as predictions written about us. Acts 15:5-21.