Romans 8:4 — discussing justification or sanctification?

[clawrence9008]

When Paul writes in Romans 8:3-4 that Christ was sent in human form as a sin offering to condemn sin in the flesh “in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,” is he referring to Christ’s legal righteousness which is imputed to believers (justification), or does he refer to the evangelical obedience that believers can now perform seeing as they are no longer under the dominion of the law as a covenant of works (sanctification)? I could see either option:

1) Justification — this verse seems almost analogous to 2 Cor. 5:21, which obviously speaks of justification, and Paul uses legal language here (“condemned,” “righteous requirement,” etc.). See also Rom. 8:1.
2) Sanctification — the context of chs. 6 and 7 is that of sanctification, and the following verses in Romans 8 also seem to discuss sanctification. Calvin makes the argument that it does not refer to something done in us because we can never perfectly fulfill the law, which is definitely fair, but Paul also speaks of believers fulfilling the law through love later in Rom. 13:8, 10.

Any thoughts? It seems like commentators are divided on the interpretation of this passage.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I think the idea here is, "...so that we might be regarded as and treated like ideal law-abiders." It strikes me as neither one of the essential 'options' but a different sort of use, almost a blend of the two very distinct concepts. This proposal leans toward Christ's righteousness, while letting room for the fact we are now living and laboring "in the Spirit." There in a new consistency from us, not of us or by us but in us, who do not produce righteousness yet manifest the work of God in righteousness.

 

[clawrence9008]

I think the idea here is, "...so that we might be regarded as and treated like ideal law-abiders." It strikes me as neither one of the essential 'options' but a different sort of use, almost a blend of the two very distinct concepts. This proposal leans toward Christ's righteousness, while letting room for the fact we are now living and laboring "in the Spirit." There in a new consistency from us, not of us or by us but in us, who do not produce righteousness yet manifest the work of God in righteousness.

Do you mean that this verse is not really framed as an “either/or,” but more like a summary of the Christian’s new life in the Spirit? Are there any other passages in Scripture that have this similar viewpoint, just for my comparison?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do you mean that this verse is not really framed as an “either/or,” but more like a summary of the Christian’s new life in the Spirit? Are there any other passages in Scripture that have this similar viewpoint, just for my comparison?

When I'm studying the Bible, trying to come to terms with its meaning, I especially want to take on the author in context. You correctly note that this portion comes to us situated well into that stretch where the salvific benefit of sanctification is the primary subject. Romans 8 is where Paul moves on from the positional grounding of sanctification in ch.6 and the ongoing contest--often frustrating--of the new (living) man with the old (dead) flesh and its habits in ch.7, into the joy of life in the Spirit. It stands to reason that whatever Rom.8:3-4 means, it must be connected in a serious way to the business of the believer's walk in freedom (vv1-2) which is directed in a Spiritual way of life and peace (vv5-6).

The law's righteousness takes one kind of demonstration in those who are condemned; but another kind of demonstration in those who are first pardoned (on the grounds of an alien righteousness) and then used as a kind of canvas for glorious depiction; or better, as a clay pot to be beautified and put to service for God in his house. The righteousness of the law is first and principally Christ's, which he has stored up in us; then as oil in a lamp, we kindle and give off the glow which is the glory of God in us (not our glory or honor). We do these works, prepared beforehand that we should walk in them; but if in any way they fulfill the duty or requirement of the law, it is as they are God's work done by such instruments as we may be in his hand. They are acceptable and accepted not as they are in themselves, but as if Christ did them to perfection and as his Spirit brings forth the flower and the fruit he designs and causes.

I don't know what sort of comparable passage you might find to meet your need. I believe what I've stated above is the Pauline or the NT apostolic doctrine concerning sanctification. Justification and sanctification are the two-fold benefit or blessing of salvation; they go together, though at times they need to be distinguished and their particular graces highlighted. Yet, in the end God's grace is one and whole; here is a place where it becomes hard to decide if Paul means to throw emphasis one direction or the other--so, maybe the ambiguity is essential to the lesson at this place (and maybe this makes this place somewhat unique, so far as the wording goes). The first emphasis is finally inseparable from the second.

 

[Charles Johnson]

The whole context seems to be talking about sanctification — "those who walk according to the spirit."
Moreover, justification isn't "in us" — it's in Christ. But this "righteous requirement" is fulfilled "in us" (v. 4).
So in my opinion it's talking about sanctification.

As far as Reformed commentators go, there is a difference of opinion.
Calvin thinks it's just talking about justification.
Matthew Henry thinks it's talking about justification and sanctification.
He says, "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. Both in our justification and in our sanctification, the righteousness of the law if fulfilled. A righteousness of satisfaction for the breach of the law is fulfilled by the imputation of Christ's complete and perfect righteousness, which answers the utmost demands of the law, as the mercy-seat was as long and as broad as the ark. A righteousness of obedience to the commands of the law is fulfilled in us, when by the Spirit the law of love is written upon the heart, and that love is the fulfilling of the law, ch. 13:10. Though the righteousness of the law is not fulfilled by us, yet, blessed be God, it is fulfilled in us; there is that to be found upon and in all true believers which answers the intention of the law. Us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. This is the description of all those that are interested in this privilege-they act from spiritual and not from carnal principles; as for others, the righteousness of the law will be fulfilled upon them in their ruin."

 

[Polanus1561]

Union with Christ

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Let me add this, as I hope to be consistent with myself on earlier occasions of discussing this passage:

The "righteous requirement of the law" is preceded by hina, in order that," indicating close connection to the preceding, which is clearly in reference to Christ and his work. To me, the critical element for understanding the whole thought is not defining righteousness in terms of justification (objectively applied to us) or sanctification (subjectively expressed by us); but rather the en hemin, in us. Christ was condemned in our flesh, v3, on account of our sin done in that flesh (and none of his, as there was none). The righteous requirement of the law was thus fulfilled both in terms of penalty and in duties.

The subjunctive verb "might be fulfilled," does not commit to a past, present, or future condition; but to the proposition, to the introduction of a cause, to possibility or the realization of it. There is therefore now no condemnation (v1) in us, but rather a righteousness with respect to the law in us. V4 has brought us back round to the opening thought. Seen thus, that righteous requirement points decisively toward justification (as I wrote above, leaning toward the righteousness of Christ).

But "in us" is immediately qualified by defining "us" as those who walk according to the Spirit, and do not walk according to the flesh. The fulfillment of righteousness with respect to the law is done with us in one vital sense per justification, and also in another complementary sense--not life-giving, but still lively. Christ does works in us. Christ is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, 1Cor.1:30. The Spirit bears fruit from us. We live unto God, Gal.2:19. True works done in the light have been done in God, Jn.3:21. There is a demonstration by God of his righteousness which is exercised through his saints. By their union with Christ and from the indwelling Spirit come forth works which God is pleased to accept as if done by his Beloved.

Separate those works from Christ and his Spirit, and they are nothing and less than nothing. Even now, they do not make a saint who does them righteous. But in the flow of Paul's thought, I cannot see that he is stopping his train of thought respecting the fulfillment of the law's righteousness in us with justification; but Christ is not done with us and with his work upon us and from us.​

 

[Dkshotwell]

Let me add this, as I hope to be consistent with myself on earlier occasions of discussing this passage:

The "righteous requirement of the law" is preceded by hina, in order that," indicating close connection to the preceding, which is clearly in reference to Christ and his work. To me, the critical element for understanding the whole thought is not defining righteousness in terms of justification (objectively applied to us) or sanctification (subjectively expressed by us); but rather the en hemin, in us. Christ was condemned in our flesh, v3, on account of our sin done in that flesh (and none of his, as there was none). The righteous requirement of the law was thus fulfilled both in terms of penalty and in duties.​

​

The subjunctive verb "might be fulfilled," does not commit to a past, present, or future condition; but to the proposition, to the introduction of a cause, to possibility or the realization of it. There is therefore now no condemnation (v1) in us, but rather a righteousness with respect to the law in us. V4 has brought us back round to the opening thought. Seen thus, that righteous requirement points decisively toward justification (as I wrote above, leaning toward the righteousness of Christ).​

​

But "in us" is immediately qualified by defining "us" as those who walk according to the Spirit, and do not walk according to the flesh. The fulfillment of righteousness with respect to the law is done with us in one vital sense per justification, and also in another complementary sense--not life-giving, but still lively. Christ does works in us. Christ is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, 1Cor.1:30. The Spirit bears fruit from us. We live unto God, Gal.2:19. True works done in the light have been done in God, Jn.3:21. There is a demonstration by God of his righteousness which is exercised through his saints. By their union with Christ and from the indwelling Spirit come forth works which God is pleased to accept as if done by his Beloved.​

​

Separate those works from Christ and his Spirit, and they are nothing and less than nothing. Even now, they do not make a saint who does them righteous. But in the flow of Paul's thought, I cannot see that he is stopping his train of thought respecting the fulfillment of the law's righteousness in us with justification; but Christ is not done with us and with his work upon us and from us.​

Better the hina clause than Santa Claus ( I just had to, I'm sorry. Besides, you wish you had thought of it first)

 

[alexanderjames]

I like what Matthew Henry says, and agree with the above comments. Although we rightly distinguish between judtification and sanctification we must be careful of separating them.
Could the argument not even be made that the implications of the apostle's words here extend further to glorification?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sorry, don't have the time to read all the replies. The point by Paul, in the shadow of Romans 7, is giving an explanation to the new "life" that we have in Christ by our union with Him in His death and resurrection. Christ condemning sin in the flesh deals in large measure with the idea that sin as power was judged in Christ, and the person united to Christ dies to its dominion. Sanctification entails first that we are positionally in Christ, that we have died to the Law as a Covenant of Works, and that sin no longer reigns in our mortal members. I think it is better to see this section as a 'scene setter," helping the believer understand who he was and who he now is. It's not that justification and sanctification are not in view here, but the more important aspect is what it means to be in Christ. It is in Christ that we receive Evangelical graces. We are justified but we are also set free and set free so that Christ may then subdue our sin, make us holy in Him, and defeat all of His and our enemies.