Christ Our Substitute and Identification (2 of 6)

The Meaning of "Likeness": Alike, or Not Alike?

Now, when Christ became a curse for us on the cross, He appeared in a form of existence which resembled the fleshly human nature affected by sin. As reformed theologian John Murray rightly observes here: “He himself was holy and undefiled—the word ‘likeness’ guards this truth. But he came in the same human nature. And this is the purpose of saying ‘sinful flesh.’”[1] Now the word “likeness” just means to assume or become something that you weren’t before. This is what John Murray means when he says, “the word ‘likeness’ guards this truth” with regards to Christ in “Himself” being holy and undefiled. He who knew no sin like sinful human beings, was made exactly like a sinful human being, even according to 2Cor. 5:21, which we also discuss a little later.

This Greek word for “likeness” in Rom. 8:3 is also used also in Rom. 1:23; 5:14; 6:5, and in Php. 2:7 (which was mentioned earlier in part one). For example, in Rom. 6:5 it says that “if we have been united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection” (NASB). There is nothing to indicate to us here that we are not actually united with Christ spiritually in His death, or that we are not raised spiritually with Him, which is what all of this is talking about here. A physical death and resurrection is not even in the picture here at this moment and time. And even if a physical resurrection was being denoted here, we will all be physically resurrected some day exactly like Christ was raised physically. So, clearly, “likeness” means EXACTLY alike, not partially alike.

The Interpreter’s Bible keenly observes here on Rom. 8:3:

It should be pointed out that the Greek word ομοιωμα ["likeness"] has a somewhat different connotation from "likeness" in English. It does not mean—or at least may not mean—mere appearance, but rather the form of manifestation which a concrete thing assumes. Thus Goodspeed renders this, "our sinful human form"….Paul has a conception of the flesh (as hopelessly corrupted by sin) which makes him shrink from describing Jesus simply as [or "merely" as] "being in the flesh." But this is what he means in fact, [with] such terms as "likeness" and "fashion" (Phil. 2:7) notwithstanding…. [If] Jesus’ flesh was real flesh, but not "flesh of sin"…in that case how [else] could he have been thought of dealing with sin in the flesh?[2]

Their point is well taken. In other words, there would have been no other way to express the idea of flesh with sin in it, other than for Paul to add the words: “of sin.” On the cross, Christ’s flesh was no longer merely just called “flesh” which he assumed from Mary in His incarnation (cp. Rom. 1:4), but flesh “of sin,” like the “body of the sin” mentioned by Paul in Rom. 6:6. Who in their right mind would not understand “body of the sin” as denoting a body in which sin is manifested? Paul didn’t understand the word “body” here to mean “merely” a body, but a body in which sin is manifesting itself; and he expressed it as such by similarly stating it in the same way that he does in Rom. 8:3 with the words “of sin.” Do you see that? “Body of the sin” and “flesh of sin” denote something with sin attached to it. The former has to do with the fleshly physical body as the vehicle for the sin that Paul says was rendered powerless over our lives in the crucifixion of our old man; the latter has to do with a human nature with the capacity to sin, and of which Christ stopped dead in its tracks for us in His flesh, and as well as in us! In Rom. 6:6, the body of the sin has been rendered ineffective to continue in sinning, in the fact that Christ condemned (or crucified) the sin in His entire human nature in Rom. 8:3. Christ takes on the sin of us in His entire human nature (or flesh), in order that the sin might be annulled in our entire human nature (or flesh) as well. Our Substitute identified with our personal sin both within and without (as demonstrated in the laying on of hands by the high priest in the OT), that we might identify with Christ in His personal righteousness both within and without that was imparted to us via the new man created in us, thus making us "partakers of His holiness" (Heb. 12:10).

Now many commentators and bible expositors want to downplay the word “likeness” to mean “likeness of flesh,” conveniently overlooking “of sin” altogether to stop short of saying likeness “of sin” or of “sinful flesh,” because they want to protect Christ’s sinlessness. But this need not be a problem for us when we understand that Christ was “made sin” (or made like us) according to 2Cor. 5:21, on the cross, and not before the cross, in order to condemn and put to death the principle of sin within us along with the accompanying sins practiced by it, and to be an atoning sacrifice and propitiation that appeased the wrath of God for us by having our sin placed in and upon His person. As Arthur Pink also strongly denotes in no uncertain terms with regards to what happened to Christ in 2Cor. 5:21: "'He [God] made him [legally constituted Christ] to be sin for us,' not in mere semblance, but in awful reality..."[3]

The words in Rom. 8:3, “of flesh of sin,” according to Greek expositor A. T. Robertson, are “two genitives”[4] of possession (as noted earlier by Alford). With the first denoting that Christ is “of flesh,” and the second denoting that Christ is of flesh possessed “of sin.” And as Robertson also correctly observes here, this genitive lets us know that Christ’s flesh is “marked by sin.”[5] Clearly, this is the “likeness” or resemblance of our sinful flesh that Christ’s flesh assumed on the cross on our behalf. But for theological reasons Robertson stops short of saying that Christ’s flesh was sinful here: “the flesh of man is, but not the flesh of Christ.”[6] Robertson just got through telling us that the Greek substantiates for us that the genitive lets us know that Christ’s flesh is “marked by sin.” But his theology forces him to side-step or overlook these genitives of possession in the Greek in favor of his own doctrinal position and traditions of man. He thus refers his readers to his larger treatise on all of this, which states:

Sometimes it is quite important for doctrinal reasons to be careful to note whether the adjunct is attributive or predicate. Thus in Rom. 8:3,…if en teh sarki [“in the flesh,” at the end of the verse] is attributive with hamartian [the “sin” likewise mentioned at the end of the verse], there is a definite assertion of sin in the flesh of Jesus. But if the phrase [in the flesh] is predicate and to be construed with katekrine [condemned], no such statement is made. Here the grammarian is helpless to decide the point. The interpreter must step in and appeal to the context or other passages for light.[7]

So, either the word sin is attributed to the flesh in which the entire sinful human nature is being condemned here in Christ's flesh, or the word sin is not attributed with Christ's flesh here and condemned apart from being in Christ's flesh altogether. The “condemnation” is either predicated on just “sin” alone being condemned here, or “sin” is attributed as part and parcel with Christ's flesh as the sinful human nature which in its entirety is being condemned IN His flesh. I opt for the latter, because our sinful human nature cannot be condemned in us (let alone outside or apart from us) unless it is first condemned in Christ’s flesh, not objectively but subjectively. How can our sinful human nature (or our “old man” in Rom. 6:6, or “the flesh” in Gal. 5:24) be condemned in Christ’s flesh if there was no such nature (or old man) placed in or upon Him to condemn to begin with? And this is in fact what many believe. Boy, all one has to do is just read 2Cor. 5:21 with Lev. 16:21-22 in order to realize that our sins were really placed (transferred and imparted) on Christ’s person as the son of man.

Robertson appeals to the context and other passages in the Greek for help with his argument above, but with no real conviction one way or the other. For him, all is really guesswork from hereon out, based solely upon one’s own “doctrinal reasons.” This is why there is so much confusion with regards to all of this. Everyone is bringing to the table their own thoughts and ideas into the mix of things here, and either adding to or subtracting from God’s Word. If Robertson would have only stuck to the literal Greek, and believed it, he wouldn’t have been led astray to entertain any other notion. In fact, he himself says that it is quite possible that if sin is to be attributive to “the flesh,” and not just to the word “condemned,” that “there is a definite assertion of sin in the flesh of Jesus.”[8] And isn’t this what Christ is in fact condemning in Romans 7-8? The flesh with sin in it? So that we are no longer those “in” or “of” the flesh in Romans 8, but now “in” and “of” the Spirit? This is all about a freedom that is within us to keep and fulfill the Law mentioned in Romans 8:4, not to disobey the Law; about submitting to God’s Law, not rebelling against God’s Law (see also verses 6-9).

Now, may I ask, isn’t “sin” what is being attributed by all to the word “flesh” in the first part of Rom. 8:3? And isn’t it the sinful human nature that renders the law powerless to do what it could not do, which Paul says is to condemn our sinful human nature that wants to sin? And isn’t it our sinful human nature which is eventually condemned and put to death, as Romans 6 also delineates, and not just the sin that is separate and distinct from our human nature and which is expressed in our physical bodies? Isn’t it in fact the principle of sin or the sinful nature in our human nature called “the old man” that is being crucified and condemned here? Rom. 6:6 says it is: “our old man was crucified with Him in order that our body of the sin [or our physical fleshly body that is the instrument of the sin] might be rendered powerless, so that we should no longer be slaves to the sin…” (lit. trans.; words in brackets mine). In fact, verse 5 says that we were united in the “likeness” (same Greek word as in Rom. 8:3) of Christ's death that He died, because He was evidently united in the likeness of our sinful flesh or nature in which He is said to have crucified in verse 6. He had to be made “like” us in order to crucify us in His person, and we had be become “like” Him in order to be spiritually raised with Him. Christ brought death to our old natural man both physically and spiritually, so that we would be raised a new spiritual man both physically and spiritually.

The Expositor’s Greek NT likewise adds concerning Rom. 8:3:

He [Paul] wishes to indicate not that Christ was not really man, or that His flesh was not really what in us is sarke hamartias [flesh of sin], but what for ordinary men is their natural condition is for this Person [Christ] only an assumed condition…. But the emphasis in omoiwma [likeness] is on Christ’s likeness to us, not His unlikeness; “flesh of sin” is one idea to the Apostle, and what he means by it is that God sent His Son in that nature which in us is identified with sin….It does not prejudice Christ’s [own] sinlessness, which is a fixed point with the Apostle…; and if anyone says that it involves a contradiction to maintain that Christ was sinless, and that He came in a nature which in us is identified with sin, it may be pointed out that this identification does not belong to the essence of our nature, but to its corruption, and that the uniform teaching of the N.T. is that Christ is one with us—short of sin [in His own person]. The likeness and the limitation of it (though the former is the point here urged) are equally essential in the Redeemer.[9]

Greek expositor Kenneth Wuest counters Robertson’s remarks above in the words of Denney:

The words "in the flesh" are to be construed with "condemned": the flesh—that in which sin had reigned—was also that in which condemnation of sin was executed. But Paul does not mean that by His sinless life in our human nature, Christ had broken the power of sin…; he means that in the death of His own Son, who had come in our [sin-stained] nature to make atonement for sin, God had pronounced the doom of sin, and brought its claims and authority over man to an end.[10]

Boy, I like that!

Charles Cranfield, in his commentary on Romans, similarly agrees that this condemnation wasn’t just of the sin, but that it took place “in Christ’s flesh, [in] Christ’s [entire] human nature”[11]; and, “if we recognize that Paul believed it was fallen human nature which the Son of God assumed, we shall probably be inclined to see here also a reference to the unintermittent warfare of His whole earthly life by which He forced our rebellious nature to render a perfect obedience to God.”[12] In his footnote, Cranfield again succinctly remarks:

Those who believe that it was fallen human nature which was assumed have even more cause than had the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism to see the whole of Christ’s life on earth as having redemptive significance; for, on this view, Christ’s life before His actual ministry and death [on the cross] was not just a standing where unfallen Adam had stood without yielding to the temptation to which Adam succumbed, but a matter of starting from where we start, subjected to all the evil pressures which we inherit, and using the altogether unpromising and unsuitable material of our corrupt nature to work out a perfect, sinless obedience.[13]

Former reformed OPC pastor, theologian and commentator John Murray, who was the successor to Gresham Machen, also joins ranks with the likes of Wuest and Cranfield saying:

It is not sufficient to think merely of the condemnation of sin which the unblemished life in Jesus offered….[With regards to] “in the flesh”—we cannot escape the eloquent contrasts which the use here of the word “flesh” throws into relief. The law “was weak through the flesh” and here “flesh” means sinful human nature. God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and, again flesh, because it is the flesh of sin, is used in the depreciatory sense….It is not that sin in the flesh was condemned but that sin was condemned through the flesh. In that same nature which in all others was sinful, in that very nature which in all others was dominated and directed by sin, in that nature assumed by the Son of God but [in Himself] free from sin, God condemned sin and overthrew its power. Jesus not only blotted out sins guilt and brought us nigh to God. He also vanquished sin as power and set us free from its enslaving dominion. And this could not have been done except in the “flesh.”[14]

Condemnation: To Our Justification Or To Our Sanctification?

Now it must not go without saying here, how that many think that when Paul is talking about “condemnation” in Rom. 8:1-3, that he is only talking about our justification here. But nothing could be further from the truth. Paul is saying that there is now no longer any condemnation from the Law with regards to sin to bear upon the Jew (or anyone) who is now in Christ, because in Christ what the law was powerless to do in attempting to condemn (or destroy) the sin in them (or us), Christ did in fact do. Christ stopped the continuance of sin “in” all of us in order that we might fulfill the righteous requirements of the law, not disobey them! Paul isn’t talking about Christ forensically fulfilling the righteous requirements of the law for us (even though He did) in order to justify us; that is not the issue here. Paul is talking about the sinful human nature that incited us to sin being destroyed or condemned (even as a house is condemned to destruction) in Christ’s person and work on the cross, so that we can now personally keep the good, holy and just requirements of the law, no longer falling under its condemning effects. Not to mention the fact that the Law is now no longer our husband that tells us what to do, as described for us in Rom. 7:1-6. How can the Law any longer condemn us for our non-compliance, if we are no longer subjugated to it anymore as our husband? It can't! And it doesn't. But, nevertheless, we are not without law to God, but under law to Christ.

In Romans 7, we see the Law demanding and condemning but unable to free us from such condemnation; while in Romans 8, we are now free to fulfill the righteousness requirements of the Law (v. 4) through the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (v. 2), by the fact that the ability to continue in sin has been crucified in us in Christ (v. 3; cp. also w/Gal.5:24 and Rom. 6:6). If this isn't sanctification, then I don't know what is! Far be this from just speaking about our justification. And in verse 8 Paul says that the one still in the flesh with the mind of the flesh has no ability to keep the law, whereas just the opposite is now the case for us in verses 9-11. Again, the context here is all about our sanctification, not our justification. The word for "righteousness" here in Rom. 8:3, again in the words of Greek expositor Henry Alford, "is not precisely the word so often used in this Epistle to denote 'the righteousness which justifies' (Rom. 1:17; 3:21; 4:5, 6; 5:17, 18, 21), but another form of the same word, intended to express the enactment of the law, meaning here, we believe, the practical obedience which the law calls for."[15] The fulfilling of the law here in verse 3 is the antithesis to no ability to keep the law in verse 7. And so this surely, "by no means conveys the idea of a merely outward [judicial or forensic] action, but includes also the inner morality accordant with the law."[16]

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown couldn't agree more. And they note here on Rom. 8:1 in their commentary how that this is, “a difficult and much controverted verse. But it is clearly, we think, the law’s inability to free us from the dominion of sin [cp. Heb. 7:19] that the apostle has in view; as has partly appeared already…, and will more fully appear presently. The law could irritate our sinful nature into more virulent action, as we have seen in Ro 7:5, but it could not secure its own fulfillment. How that is accomplished comes now to be shown.”[17]

Everett Harrison goes on to even further claim in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, how that,

The construction of vv. 2-4 carries us beyond the thought of freedom from condemnation in the sense of guilt. What is developed is the application of the redeeming work of Christ by the Spirit to the believer’s life in such a way that the dominion of sin is broken and the reign of godliness assured. The noun “condemnation” has its counterpart in the verb “condemned” (v. 3), which is followed immediately, not by a statement about the standing of the believer, but by one concerning his manner of life (v. 4).[18]

The “standing” of the believer is treated much later in this chapter once again in passing in verses 33-34, beginning in verse 28, but that is not the subject here in verses 1-27 (or in chapters 6 and 7). What is said of “the law of sin and death” in Rom. 8:2, has just been immediately treated previously in Rom. 7:23 (and also in v. 25) in Paul’s members to which he said he was a “prisoner” and a “slave” to prior to being saved, showing us that Paul still has the same subject matter in mind, and what also gives occasion for his inferential words, “therefore now,” in Rom. 8:1. The “law of sin and death” in Rom. 8:2 is the inward principle of sin in juxtaposition to “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (also in v. 2). These nouns back-to-back in both of these phrases are what is known in Greek grammar as subjective genitives, ruling out entirely the idea of the Mosaic Law being the Law of sin and death, though that idea is not without biblical precedent elsewhere. As such, verse 2 starts out by literally reading: the law OF THE SPIRIT, not the Spirit OF THE LAW, as anyone with no knowledge of the Greek can readily see. Clearly, it is the principle and regulating power of the Spirit. And the same goes for the law of, literally, "the sin and the death." Here as well it is not: the sin OF THE LAW or the death OF THE LAW, but the law OF THE SIN or the law OF THE DEATH. The New Living Translation helps us here, when it likewise denotes the phrase "the law of the Spirit" as: "the Spirit's law." And in Rom. 7:25, the Darby Bible Translation, the World English Bible, and The New Heart English Bible also help us as well, by saying, "sin's law," which is the same subjective genitive in the Greek. And we see this same subjective genitive being used in Rom. 3:27, where it likewise speaks of "law OF FAITH," verses "faith OF LAW." So what we are talking about here in all of these instances is the regulating principle or power of the Spirit, of the sin, of the death, and of faith. This "law" is the the product or the effect of these subject genitives, not the means of them, as the Mosaic Law would be if this "law" is referring to it.

With regards to this subjective genitive, William Mounce notes in his Basics of Biblical Greek how that it occurs with a head noun (in this case, "the law") that expresses a verbal idea. And the verbal idea of this head noun is seen above in the active principle or power which is the product of these subjects noted above respectively. As Mounce also notes here: "You can use the helping word 'produced' to help identify this usage," and he mentions Rom. 8:35 as an example, which says: "Who will separate us from the love of Christ?" Here Mounce notes that it is: "The love produced by Christ" (ibid, p. 52). No wonder that many commentators are referring to the verses in chapter 7:21, 23 and 25 as linking us to what Paul is actually talking about in Rom. 8:2. The truth is in the details. Meyer, in his in-depth analysis and commentary at biblehub.com, caught on to this. And I hope that many will now be able to do so as well. Thus, again, the New Living Translation comes to the rescue by translating Rom. 8:2 as: "And because you belong to him, the power of the life-giving Spirit has freed you from the power of sin that leads to death." This truly tells the story. And which, by the way, proves beyond all doubt that we are NOT talking about our justification here, but our inward sanctification and once-and-for-all freedom from the power of sin and death as expressed also in Rom. 6:6.

As such, God's law or regulative principle and power behind the Spirit of life, “has freed you” (or "me," depending on what Greek texts one uses) from the regulative and enslaving power of that corrupt principle and law behind “the sin and the death” that use to be in all of us in Rom. 7:21, 23 and 25, until the new life in Christ took possession of us in our new inner man who has been created after God's very own image and likeness, according to Eph. 4:24. As Jamieson, Fausset and Brown succinctly note here: “the ‘strong man armed’ is overpowered by the ‘Stronger than he:’ the weaker principle is dethroned and expelled by the more powerful; the principle of spiritual life prevails against and brings into captivity the principle of spiritual death.”[19] Again, Harrison continues here: “The powerlessness of the law because of the weakness of the sinful nature to which it [the law] commands are addressed is an obvious reminder of the major thrust of chapter 7. The law makes demands, and it condemns when those demands are not met, but it cannot overcome sin. This inability of the law required the personal action of God in Christ.”[20]

With that said, all of this is no mere forensic or legal act; it is a union of life with Christ that actually frees us from the condemning effects of the law and of the principle and power of sin that use to be within us. And as one can plainly see from the immediate and preceding context, Christ is not condemning the principle of sin in our flesh to the pardon of it for our justification, but for the infliction of judicial vengeance upon it in order to condemn it so that it loosens its power over our lives; to release its iron grip upon us and to drive it from our inner human nature. With the commanding power of sin taken away, the condemning power of it is taken away as well. Christ, in essence, made the power behind sin to forfeit its dominion over us, and to flee from us with its tail wagging between its legs.

Again, John Murray similarly concludes under Rom. 8:1:

If the apostle is thinking merely of freedom from the guilt of sin and from the condemnation which guilt entails, then we should have to find the basis of the inference in that part of the epistle which deals particularly with that subject (3:21-5:21). But if there is included in freedom from condemnation not only deliverance from the guilt of sin but also from its power, then the “therefore” could be related quite properly to what immediately precedes (6:1-7:25) as well as to the more remote context. It is this latter alternative which the evidence would appear to demand. The word “condemnation” here can scarcely be interpreted apart from the immediately succeeding context in which it appears and so we must look for the specific complexion given to the word by this context to which it is so closely related. In this context, as will be shown later, the apostle is not dealing with justification and the expiatory aspect of Christ’s work but with the sanctification and with what God has done in Christ to deliver us from the power of sin. Hence what is thrust into the foreground in the terms “no condemnation” is not only freedom from the guilt of sin but also freedom from the power of sin….The thought moves in the realm of internal operation [in us] and not in that of objective [or forensic] accomplishment [in Christ]….While it is true that the work of Christ was expiatory and in that respect involved for Him the vicarious endurance of the condemnation due to sin, yet that expiatory accomplishment is not defined in terms of the condemnation of sin….The word “condemn” is used in the New Testament in the sense of consigning to destruction as well as of pronouncing the sentence of condemnation (cf. I Cor. 11:32; II Pet. 2:6).[21]

Murray cites 1Cor. 11:32 and 2Pet. 2:6 as examples of this kind of condemnation that brings destruction with it; and a few more examples could be cited. But just one more will suffice: In Mat. 20:18 Jesus talks about the Pharisees and how “they will condemn Him to death.” Here the condemnation results in Christ’s death. It is not just a forensic sentence pronounced that is in view here, but a sentence which results in Christ’s actual death, and, unbeknownst to them, even a death to the power of sin in us. As Godet also correctly notes of the usage of this word "condemnation" in this particular instance: "To condemn, is to declare evil, and to devote to destruction; and we see no occasion to depart from this simple and usual meaning.... The condemnation of sin in Christ's life is the means appointed by God to effect its destruction in ours."[22] Again, "For it was in the very fortress where sin had established its seat, that it behooved to be attacked and conquered."[23] And again, "This was the necessary condition of the destruction of the sinful tendency in mankind, in order to the restoration of holiness."[24] And finally, "There is therefore only one way of preventing sin from causing us to perish, that is, that it perish itself. Grace does not save by patronizing sin, but by destroying it."[25] When Paul says that Christ condemned the sin in the flesh—and “the sin” as we came to understand it as a collective term for the mass of humanity's sin, whether for one sin or for any or all sin used in its noun form and not in its verb form—Paul is talking about a judgment passed upon sin in our flesh wherein our nature prone to sin is actually crucified and put to death (and even circumcised) in us, so that we can now live the opposite of how we use to live in the previous condition described for us in Romans 7 of a sinner who keeps on sinning. This is what the “therefore” in Rom. 8:1 is there for. What the Law was powerless to do "in" the unsaved individual in Rom. 7:5, 7 and thereon, Christ has now done "in" us in Rom. 8:2-4 (for alternate viewpoint, see footnote).[26] In Rom. 8:7, the mind “of the flesh” (of the one with the sinful human nature) is “hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.” This is akin to Rom. 7:18, where the “fleshly” man sold under sin (v. 14) according to the ESV translation has: “not the ability to carry it out” (i.e., the good that the good Law would have him to do). The Holman Christian Standard Bible renders verse 18: “but there is no ability to do it.” The Aramaic Bible in Plain English says: “I am unable to perform it.” Weymouth's translates this as: “the power to carry it out is not.” And the Greek verb tense in the present active indicative bears this truth out. We are not just talking about an occasional lapse into sin here, but a lifestyle where sin is the dominating feature in this person’s life, as Jesus starkly demonstrates to us in John 8:34 in the ESV translation. As these "present" tense verbs denote in Romans, this person is a practicing sinner (see NASB), not just a believer who might occasionally lapse into sin, and Paul emphasizes this in verses 15 and 19 as well by using the Greek verb "prasso" that is translated "practice" in the NASB (compare also with its Greek cognate, "prossantes," used in Gal. 5:21).

Murray goes on to say with regards to the “condemnation” here not being used just in the sense of absolving us from guilt:

“Corroboration of this view of the expression ‘condemned sin in the flesh’ is derived from the expression ‘is justified from sin’ in 6:7.…In that context the apostle is undoubtedly dealing with deliverance from the power of sin. ‘We died to sin’ (6:2) is the thesis unfolded in that chapter, and the forensic term ‘justify’ is used with reference to the judgment executed upon the power of sin in the death of Christ. The result is that all who have died with Christ are the beneficiaries of this judgment executed and are therefore quit of sin’s dominion. This is the force of the expression ‘justified from sin.’ In like manner the forensic term ‘condemn’ can be used in this instance to express the judicial judgment executed upon the power of sin in the flesh of Christ.”[27]

Either being in or of the flesh here in this overall context of chapters 7 and 8, is being “in the flesh” apart from the idea of any sin in it at all, or being “in the flesh” is used here in its ethical/moral sense of one having a sinful human nature which is what in totality is being condemned here in Christ. Again, Robertson opted for the idea presented above of just the sin being condemned; whereas I and those noted above opt for the idea of the sin principle being condemned based upon the overall context and how “in” or “of the flesh” is being used here in its ethical/moral sense. Now we can really see here, as Robertson said, that it is “for doctrinal reasons…whether the adjunct is attributive or predicate”; whether “likeness” really means “likeness,” and whether or not “sin in the flesh” is referring to the sin in the flesh, or just sin apart from the flesh; and, whether Christ killed “the flesh of sin” or “sinful flesh” (aka, our old man or the sinful human nature), or not. But if “likeness” really means “likeness,” and being “in the flesh” is attributed to flesh with “sin” engraved in it, then, in the words of Robertson again, “there is a definite assertion of sin in the flesh of Jesus.”[28] And if Rom. 6:6 says that Christ has indeed killed our old man (which it does), and not just our outward associations to a realm or regime, as some like Douglas Moo mentioned earlier claim in his commentary on Romans, then Christ actually became us that He might kill us, in order that we would become a new man (a holy man) in Him. We shouldn’t water down the significance and meaning of this transaction as a bare crucifixion, empty and void of anything done in us; or even the significance and meaning of what “likeness” is truly conveying to us here. And regardless of being uncomfortable with this idea, the Bible clearly states that our sins were actually (and not just forensically) imparted and imputed to Christ; not just objectively by imputation on behalf of our sins, but subjectively as well through impartation in and upon His entire human nature of body, soul and spirit; in order that Christ could actually redeem us in our body, soul, and spirit. This is the doctrine of impartation and imputation, beloved. It is being delivered not only from the penalty of sin, but also from the power of sin, and also referred to as our justification and our sanctification. We see this imputation and impartation with our first man Adam unto us; with our sin being imparted and imputed unto Christ; and, with Christ imputing and imparting unto us as our Second Adam—reversing all that the first man Adam had done to all of us. On the cross Christ took our nature, not as Adam received it initially before the fall from his Creator’s hand (although Christ did that too), but as it is in us—encompassed within and without with all of our infirmities—and with nothing to distinguish Christ as a man from any other sinful man, except for the fact that Christ in His own person knew in fact that He was personally without sin.

Click here for part three.


Footnotes: 6-23

[1] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 280.
[2] The Interpreter’s Bible (Nashville: Abingdon, 1954), vol. 9, pp. 507, 508.
[3] The Satisfaction of Christ, p. 52; words in brackets his.
[4] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the NT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1931), vol. 4, p. 372.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek NT in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 784.
[8] Ibid.
[9] James Denney, The Expositor’s Greek NT on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprint 1990), p. 645.
[10] Kenneth Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek NT, Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), vol. 1, pp. 128-129. Words in brackets mine (Clearly, Wuest is differentiating between the sinless nature of Christ and our sin-stained nature).
[11] C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 1 (Edinburg: T. and T. Clark, 1975), p. 382. Words in brackets mine.
[12] Ibid., p. 383.
[13] Ibid., p. 383, footnote #2. Words in brackets mine.
[14] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), pp. 281, 282.
[15] Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary, accessed online at: biblehub.com.
[16] Meyer's NT Commentary, accessed online at: biblehub.com.

[17] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary accessed online at: www.biblehub.com. Words in bold and italics for emphasis mine; words in brackets mine.

[18] Everett F. Harrison, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), vol. 10, p. 86. Bold italics for emphasis mine.
[19] Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary accessed online at: www.biblehub.com. Words in bold and italics mine; words in brackets mine.
[20] Everett F. Harrison, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), pp. 86-87.
[21] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), pp. 274-275, 277, 278. Words in brackets and in bold italics mine. The one word just italicized is his.
[22] Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub., 1977), p. 299.
[23] Ibid, p. 300.
[24] Ibid, p. 298.
[25] Ibid, p. 296.
[26] Charles Hodge, in speaking for many (but not all) reformed brethren, disagrees. He says “therefore” refers not to what has just been previously stated, but to all that Paul has talked about previously (actually before chapter 6) with regards to our justification, and not with regards to our sanctification at all.

In discussing the righteousness of the law that might be fulfilled in us in verse 4, Hodge says that the meaning of this passage,

...is determined by the view taken of ver. 3. If that verse means, that God, by sending his Son, destroyed sin in us [which Hodge and many others do not believe], then of course this verse must mean, ‘He destroyed sin [in us], in order that we should fulfill the law;’ i.e., that we should be holy. But if ver. 3 is understood of the sacrificial death of Christ, and of the condemnation of sin in Him [and not in us] as the substitute of sinners, then this verse must be understood of justification, and not sanctification.”(a)

Earlier, under verse 1, Hodge had just written: “The decision of the question as to the connection [of the “therefore”] depends on the view taken of the apostle’s argument. If he argues that believers are not liable to condemnation, because with the mind they serve the law of God, then the connection is with what immediately precedes [in chap. 7]. But if the argument is, that those in Christ are not exposed to condemnation, notwithstanding their imperfect sanctification [in chap. 7], because Christ has died as a sacrifice for their sins, then the connection is with the main argument of the epistle.”(b) And then Hodge goes on to state what this “main argument” is: “Since men, being sinners, cannot be justified by works [in chaps. 2-4]; since by obedience of one man, Jesus Christ, the many are made righteous [in chap. 5]; and since through him, and not through the law, deliverance from the subjective power of sin is effected [in chap. 6], therefore it follows that there is no condemnation to those who are in him.”(c) Did you notice what Hodge has just done here? He has subtly interjected that “through him [Christ], and not through the law, deliverance from the subjective power of sin is effected,” and so it follows in all that Hodge has just stated that we have “no condemnation” in Christ. On the surface this all sounds fine and dandy. But Hodge cannot have it both ways here. Either “no condemnation” here, strictly speaking according to Hodge, is referring only to our justification; or it is actually a “deliverance from the subjective power of sin,” not through the law, but through Christ—which is what I and others have been saying all along here. How can Hodge include here that “no condemnation” intimates a “deliverance from the power of sin,” when he just got through stating earlier to us that Paul is treating "no condemnation" here only as it relates to our justification here in chapter 8:1-4, and not to our sanctification at all?

He continues with this same nonsense and ambiguity of what “no condemnation” really means here in these verses by again affirming: “And this again is not to be understood as descriptive of their present state merely, but of their permanent position.”(d) Again, Hodge is speaking out of both sides of his mouth here. Like I said, he can’t have it both ways here. Either “no condemnation” here is with respect to our justification, or with respect to our sanctification, but not to both! He vehemently and tenaciously argues against those who say that Paul is not talking about our justification here, but only about our sanctification. So why even bother to now conveniently include this idea about our sanctification as well? I think I can tell you why. It is because he wants to appease to the masses and not his conscience. Clearly, Hodge’s conscience is telling him that “no condemnation” at least (or “merely”) ever-so-slightly includes this idea, leaving the door open just a little bit for the idea that "deliverance from the subjective power of sin is effected," according to Romans 6. But not here in Rom. 8:1-4. Perish the thought that Christ crucified the sin in us, let alone in His own person, so they affirm. As Charles Hodge's son, Archibald Hodge notes with regards to Christ subjectively receiving our sins in His entire person of spirit, soul and body (or spirit/soul and body if you are a dichotomist):

It is claimed that these expressions [in Isaiah 53:6, 12; 2Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; Heb. 9:28 and 1Pet. 2:24] cannot possibly be interpreted literally; that it cannot be true that Christ in any literal sense was transformed into sin; that the all-perfect Son of God could not have been in any natural sense of the word a sinner. Those who reject the orthodox doctrine of satisfaction hence illogically conclude that since these terms are not to be interpreted literally, they have no definite and certainly ascertainable meaning at all, but may be accommodated to any view of the atonement which we have reason on other grounds to prefer. In opposition to this, we maintain that the usage of Scripture with respect to the phrases "sin," "to bear sin," or "iniquity," "to impute" or "to lay upon" one "sin" or "iniquity," is uniform, and that their sense is both definite and certainly ascertainable; and that the meaning of the passages above quoted, when interpreted in the light of this usage, is unmistakably clear and consistent only with the doctrine that our sins were, in strict rigour of justice, laid upon and punished in the person of Christ. (e)

Just earlier, A. A. Hodge had said that our sins "were charged to his [or Christ's] account, and made his in such a sense that they were the legal [and not actual] cause of his suffering the penalty to them."(f) And just when you thought (as I did at first) that Hodge might be stating in his first few sentences above, what I am stating in this article, he doesn't. He is arguing for the idea that Christ did not "literally" take our sin in His human nature, but only upon His human nature; not expiating our sin placed in Him, but only expiating the guilt of our sins place upon Him; and sins not actually placed upon Him, mind you, but only hypothetically placed upon Him at that. “Because," as Hodge states, "personal moral qualities, and the pollution inherent in sinful ones, are inalienable and cannot be transferred by imputation.... Because, as [John] Owen pointed out long ago, to be 'alienoe culpoe reus' [that is, penally responsible for another's sin, as Hodge paraphrased this Latin phrase just earlier] makes no man a sinner, subjectively considered, unless he unwisely or irregularly undertake the responsibility.”(g)

First of all, “impartation” is not to be confused with "imputation," which is the “reckoning” or “placing into one’s account” usually (but not always) in an objective manner, as with regards to us being justified for nothing of note in us (which is what those, like Hodge, have in mind here with regards to Christ being imputed with just the "guilt" of our sins). So we are not talking here about the Greek word, logizomai, for “reckon,” that is used primarily in the NT of placing into one’s account for no work we have done. We are talking about internal impartation through Christ's union with us as the old man; not an external reckoning which, as the case may be here with Christ, is a result of this internal impartation of sin in and upon Christ's human nature, which Owen considers "unwise" and "irregular" for someone to do. But, ahh, it is the wisdom of God unto our sanctification. Foolishness to some, but the power of God to us-ward who believe. As Meyer has correctly deduced in his commentary of Gal. 3:13: "that is just the foolishness of the cross, which is wiser than men."(h) And Meyer believed, as noted earlier, that Christ was actually made sin in His person with our sin. Again, we are talking about Christ's union with us and our union with Him as our representative in His death, burial, and resurrection—and a spiritual death to sin and a spiritual resurrection to walk in newness of life at that—in accordance with Rom. 6:4-6. Here Paul says we died with Christ. We didn't die a physical death, but a spiritual one. We were already dead in sins and trespasses (Eph. 2:1, 4), so how is it that we died with Christ, if it wasn't physical? We died with Christ spiritually to "the sin" of the old man, and we rise to life spiritually in Christ because Christ likewise was "made alive in spirit" (see also 1Pet. 3:18 and 1Tim. 3:16 in ASV). And, of course, this is all followed with a physical resurrection someday as well. But the point in Romans 6 is that we spiritually died with Christ, in order be made spiritually alive with Him as well. Christ identified with us, and with our sin, that we might identify with Him and His righteousness, both positionally and practically. What occurred with Christ was through no fault of his own, and what has occurred to us is through no righteousness of our own. But this does not disclude the idea in all of this that Christ was actually made sin with our sin, and we are actually made righteous with Christ's righteousness. With regards to Christ, He was condemned with our sin placed in and upon His person; whereas, in our case, we are justified for no righteousness as of yet in our person. Both of us are "reckoned" or "imputed" either as "guilty," or "righteous," but with Christ He is "imputed" for the "guilt" of our sins actually place upon Him, while we are "imputed" as "righteous" for no righteousness within us as of yet at that time.

With that said, it must also be note here (and then later again in part three) that the word used for "imputation" in the Hebrew OT (and in the Greek Septuagint translation of the OT), that it is used in one particular case, in Lev. 17:4, of a person's sin being imputed (or reckoned) to them as the reason for God judging them, with the Septuagint using a form of the Greek word logizamai that is commonly used in the NT for imputation in a forensic manner of justifying a person (or even implied for condemning them) for no righteousness or sin of their own. So it is clear here that one cannot just pigeonhole this word to mean that imputation is used in a manner of reckoning men as sinners, or of justifying them, based solely upon nothing in them. This verse above in Leviticus says that sometimes they are. And even Psm. 32:2 with Rom. 4:8 (along with 2Cor. 5:19), mentions how that God has not reckoned or imputed our own sins to us, by justifying us regardless of our own sin, implying that we can be imputed for our own sin. In juxtaposition to all of this, the I.S.B.E also notes how this idea of us being imputed or reckoned "guilty" in a forensic manner for our own sins is implied or inferred in Lev. 5:12; 7:18; 19:8 and 22:9.

And as I also note in part three, John Murray makes note of these differing uses of "imputation" above in his book, The Imputation of Adam's Sin. And while Murray notes this fact, he also says that for the sake of our discussion here that it is best to stick with this word "imputation," as it is also used throughout Scripture in the sense of reckoning something to someone through no work of their own (and Archibald Hodge, while not oblivious to this former usage of imputation above, gives us a couple examples of this latter usage as well in: Gen. 31:15; Lev. 16:22; Isa. 53:11; Lam. 5:7; Num. 18:27, 30; 33:22). So, when we are speaking of "imputation" in this particular article with regards to Adam's "guilt" for his sin being imputed to us or, in God justifying us, we are referring to reckoning something to someone's account, regardless of their own works or endeavors. And when we are talking about our moral corruption as an old man in Adam, or our moral incorruption as a new man in Christ, we are talking about impartation (or, as some of the Protestant reformers liked to refer to it as: a "representative union" of being either in Adam or in Christ). In our particular case, the impartation of our moral corruption via Adam's transgression is the means of us becoming the old man in Adam and thus our union with him in his sin reckons or imputes to us God's condemnation. In like manner, the impartation of our moral incorruption via Christ's obedience is the means of us becoming a new man in Christ and thus our union with Him in His righteousness through faith reckons or imputes to us God's justification to life. In the case of both Adam and Christ (our Second Adam), Adam was reckoned or imputed as a sinner based upon his transgression which condemned him to death; while Christ was also reckoned or imputed as a sinner with our sins in our stead and which likewise condemned Him to death. The latter, of Christ being reckoned among sinners, condemned Him to death in His human spirit and body; while the former, of Christ's obedience being perfectly righteous in and of Himself, brought justification to life in His human spirit and body as well. His later obedience of suffering under the weight of our sin crucified our old man, while His previous obedience as our sinless Substitute via His resurrection created us as the new man.

Secondly, to say as Hodge that “personal moral qualities” (or attributes) cannot be transferred by impartation (and not by "imputation," mind you, as he words it), is clearly a case for mistaken identity. Again, Hodge is confusing the two to the extreme of defending the doctrine of imputation (as he narrowly understands it) and Christ's own personal sinlessness, at the expense of our personal sanctification in Christ that He wrought for us on the cross. Just read Leviticus 16, where the laying on of hands implies an actual impartation upon Christ of some kind, and not just a reckoning to His account for no sins placed upon Him, as Hodge also understands this chapter in Leviticus. Clearly, no doubt, Hodge is confusing “reckoning to someone’s account” (again, as he narrowly understands it) with “imparting” something to someone. And just as Christ has made us to become “partakers of His divine nature” (2Pet. 1:4), or, “partakers of His holiness” (Heb. 12:10), Christ too, in turn, has been made to become a partaker of our sin. Christ being “made” sin, and us becoming righteousness in 2Cor. 5:21 (and in many other verses), in all honesty, denotes this latter idea of impartation and identification with us through a creative act of God which this Greek word for "made" (poieo) implies (which is discussed in more detail in part three), and not the former of “reckoning to one’s account" or just constituting or regarding Christ as sin with no sin placed in or upon His person, another mistake that many of these men make with regards to this verse, and for which I also discuss in more detail throughout this article. Again, Christ was “made sin” not with His own personal sins, but with ours. So to say that “personal moral qualities...cannot be transferred” from one person to another is absolutely wrong. This might be true with men, but it is not impossible with God. And isn’t that essentially what the Lord allowed to happen to us when Adam sinned? Was not the result of his original sin imparted or attributed to us through no fault of our own? And what about us becoming partakers of Christ's divine nature and holiness? Has not God's moral qualities and attributes been transferred to us?

So, according to these men, Christ didn't actually become us with all of our sins both within and without in order to destroy sin both in Him and in us, but only to remove the "guilt," doing nothing about the indwelling sin within us. According to these men, and many like them, indwelling sin still remains in us. Christ bore the burden of the judgment for "the guilt" of that sin, but He did not remove the sin in us in His person. Again, according to these men, Christ removed just "the guilt" from us, but not the sin. But as I have said elsewhere, Rom. 6:6, 2Cor. 5:21, and Rom. 8:3 (along with Lev. 16 and a handful of other verses) argue otherwise. But these men, and all those in league with them, beg to differ.

Now Charles Hodge even says in his commentary on Romans, that the bondage to sin that we have been released from in Romans 6, is not the same kind of bondage to sin that still remains within us in Romans 7. Under Rom. 7:14, Hodge states how that Paul wasn’t sold under the power of sin as those mentioned in 1Kin. 21:20 and 2Kin. 17:17 who deliberately chose to sin as their (or his) master and to which they (or he) was devoted to doing, due to the fact of what some believe (and maybe even Hodge) to be the “passive” nature of this Greek verb piprasko in v.14 for our English translation “having been sold” (which, by the way, does not mean Paul was “passive” with regards to sin, but only that he was “passively” sold to the sin by another; namely, Adam, who subjugated all of us to the sin inherent in all who are unregenerate). And so it is in this "passive" sense of not being deliberately devoted as a slave to sin (as Hodge notes of all those who are devoted to it in chapter six who are “unrenewed”), that it is “from this kind of bondage believers are redeemed, vi. 22.”(i) And then Hodge continues to to say here under verse 14:

But there is another kind of bondage [here in Romans 7]. A man may be subject to a power which, of himself, he cannot effectually resist; against which he may and does struggle, and from which he earnestly desires to be free; but which, notwithstanding all his efforts, still asserts its authority. This is precisely the bondage to sin of which every believer is [still] conscious [of]. He feels that there is a law in his members bringing him into subjection to the law of sin; that his distrust of God, his hardness of heart, his love of the world and of self, his pride, in short his indwelling sin, is a real power from which he longs to be free, against which he struggles, but from which he cannot emancipate himself. This is the kind of bondage of which the apostle here speaks...” (j)

Again, all of this is nothing more than a bunch of double-talk. It is absolute confusion. And who is the author of confusion? And if all that were not enough, under verse 15 Hodge again writes after quoting Paul, as saying:

"For what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I." This is a further description of this state of bondage.... Pride, coldness, slothfulness, and other feelings which he disapproves and hates, are, day by day, reasserting their power over him. He struggles against their influence, groans beneath their bondage, longs to be filled with meekness, humility, and all other fruits of the love of God, but finds he can neither of himself, nor by the aid of the law, effect his freedom from what he hates, or the full performance of what he desires and approves. Every evening witnesses his penitent confession of his degrading bondage, his sense of utter helplessness, and his longing desire for aid from above. He is a slave looking and longing for liberty.” (k)

I kid you not: Distrust of God, hardness of heart, Paul’s love of the world and of self, his pride, his coldness and slothfulness—in short: his indwelling sin—is still holding him as a captive slave to all of these vices, and then some. I hope you are just as flabbergasted by all of this as I am. Paul “of himself” as a believer, according to Hodge and all those in league with him, is still “a slave [to sin] looking and longing for liberty.” (l) Away with such foolish thinking about ourselves. Away with such utter and absolute nonsense.

So there you have it. But, if on the other hand, Christ has indeed dealt a death-blow to that subjective power of sin in Romans 7, in Romans 8:3 (which He has), and for which Hodge and many others of his persuasion so vehemently deny, then Hodge's house of cards all comes tumbling down, forcing both himself and others to rethink (and to rewrite) all that they have ever said about our blessed Vicarious Penal Substitute and Identification. But in Hodge's case, it's a little too late for that now.

Hodge could clearly see that what Paul says in Romans 6 goes against what he believes with regards to Romans 7, so he twists the Scriptures to say what they are not saying. And he's done this as well with Christ only bearing the "guilt" of our sin, rather than being actually made sin; being just a sin-offering, rather than being made flesh with sin in it, for sin, and in order to condemn the sin (our sin) in His flesh, as well as in ours.

Now, with all things being considered, the ruling thought of Romans 8:1-4 (and especially verse 2), as correctly articulated by reformed pastor John Murray, “have respect to our deliverance from the power of sin, rather than just deliverance from the guilt of sin. The thought moves in the realm of internal operation and not in that of objective accomplishment….There does not appear to be good warrant for supposing, as has been done by many interpreters, that the reference is to the expiatory action of God in the sacrifice of Christ.”(m) And Murray refers to these ‘many interpreters’ in a footnote as: "Calvin, Philippi, Hodge, Haldane, Shedd, ad loc.". Yes, Charles Hodge is on Murray’s list of those of whom he is in stark contrast with. Murray continues, “While it is true that the work of Christ in reference to sin was expiatory and in that respect involved for him the vicarious endurance of the condemnation due to sin, yet the expiatory accomplishment is not defined in terms of the condemnation of sin.”(n) It is the condemnation of the flesh with sin in it (or, "the flesh of sin," the sinful nature, or the old man), as already laid out for us everywhere else in this article.

In tandem with what Paul says in verses 1-11 in chapter 8, Paul sums it all up again with the words, “Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature [or the flesh], to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature [the flesh], you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the [physical] body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave [to sin] again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship” (vv. 12-15, ‘84 NIV). As Jesus said, “Everyone practicing sin is a slave of sin. Now the slave abides not in the house forever, but the son belongs to it forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed” (Jhn. 8:34-36). Free from what? Free from being slaves to sin! Sons of God live as what sons born of God are suppose to do—which is to live free from sin! In juxtaposition to this, slaves to sin do what naturally comes for them to do—which is to be enslaved to sin. This is the antithesis between one who is in and of the flesh in Romans 7-8, verses one who is in and of the Spirit. The condemnation of judgment resulting in death is the fruit of the former; no condemnation resulting in death is the the fruit of the latter due to the fact that sin has been condemned in both Christ's flesh, and in ours. Hallelujah!. The sin principle is no longer in me! That little leaven that leavens the whole lump has been eradicated from our lives. "Crucified!" I believe, are the words of St. Paul. "Circumcised!" under another guise.

(a) Charles Hodge, Romans (Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 1835), p. 254. Bold emphasis and italics mine; words in brackets mine.
(b) Ibid., p. 249. Bold emphasis and italics mine; words in brackets mine.
(c) Ibid. Bold emphasis and italics mine; words in brackets mine.
(d) Ibid. Bold emphasis and italics mine.
(e) The Atonement, pp. 169-170.
(f) Ibid, p. 169.
(g) Ibid, p. 174.
(h) Accessed online at: biblehub.com.
(i) Romans, p. 230.
(j) Ibid. 230.
(k) Ibid, pp. 230-231.
(l) Ibid.
(m) John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), p. 277. Bold emphasis and italics mine. Words in brackets mine except for those whom Murray has referred to of whom he is in disagreement with.
(n) Ibid. Emphasis his.

[27] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), pp. 279. Words in bold italics mine.
[28] A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek NT in the Light of Historical Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), p. 784.