THE BOOK OF ROMANS
Lesson 17, Chapter 8
We have reached the (more or less) halfway point in the Book of Romans as we enter chapter
8. So it is fitting that the first word of chapter 8 is “therefore”. “Therefore” is a word that
indicates that what follows is a conclusion of things previously said. Because Paul has been
using the Talmudic style of debate popular among rabbis (complete with straw man), then the
sentence and religious ruling that Paul makes in verse 1 is meant to sum up (at the least) what
he said throughout chapter 7. But from a higher view it is actually a ruling of the extensive case
that Paul has been building since the opening of chapter 1 for trusting Yeshua of Nazareth as
Israel’s Messiah and how this solves the problem of sin and death.
So I too will begin today’s lesson with a “therefore” and use this opportunity to summarize
some things we have learned in order to continue building up your general body of knowledge
about various aspects of our faith. The goal of Bible study here at Seed of Abraham is not
about study and knowledge for its own sake. Rather it is a search for divine truth as a means to
spiritual and personal maturity in the Lord, and an ever closer and more obedient relationship
with Him. Sometimes to achieve that we need to look to our own history as the body of Christ
and understand how we got here from there.
While chapter 7 of Romans is thought by many Bible commentators to be the most
theologically important chapter in the Bible (a very questionable perspective in my opinion),
chapter 8 is thought by other Bible commentators to be the pinnacle of New Testament
narratives that portrays just what it means to be a Christian. What I’d like you to take from this
is that Western Christianity finds Romans chapters 7 and 8 to be both a Bible within the Bible
and the primary source of doctrinal belief for the Church from the time of the early Church
Fathers right on up to our current era. For those who have studied with Seed of Abraham
Torah Class for a few years, learning what the Old Testament has to say, I suspect it is a little
easier for you to see that there is danger in a mindset that makes a mere 2 chapters of the
New Testament as essentially the molten core of our faith; 2 chapters that decides the most
important of Christian doctrines. When studying the Bible, at any point in either Testament, one
must look not only at the meaning of individual words but also at the entire sentence in which
the words appear. And the sentence must be understood within the context of the entire
chapter, and the chapter within the context of the entire book. But even a Bible book must be
taken within the larger context of the entire Word of God. In other words, to arrive at a well-
rounded conclusion and a proper doctrine we must look at Scripture from the near, mid, and far
view.
Some time ago I told you that many Christian Bible commentators readily admit that the
Church as we have known it for centuries, and never more so than within the last 200 years, is
not so much the Church of Christ as it is the Church of Paul. By no means am I saying that the
modern Church believes in Paul rather than Jesus as Lord and Savior. However the Church
has decided to rely more on the words of but one single highly venerated man, Paul the
1 / 9

Apostle to the Gentiles, for our doctrines and theology than all the other Biblical writers
combined. But even more, Church authorities have decided to focus on words of one particular
book in the Bible more than any other; the Book of Romans. And even beyond that, Romans
chapters 7 and 8 are regularly regarded as the epitome of doctrinal teaching above all else
written in the New Testament or Old (I’m speaking in broad generalities of course, since the
Church is not monolithic in its thoughts and doctrines). Thus whatever else is written in the
Bible, it is often made to conform to Paul’s supposed thoughts of Romans chapters 7 and 8. I
say “supposed” thoughts because Paul has been miscast and poorly misunderstood over the
centuries; less so by the Bible scholars, but more so by the Church government. This leads me
to a brief comment about Church structure in order to perhaps help you gain some insight on
how it is traditionally operated.
The institutional Church within a plurality of its mainstream denominations (including
Catholicism) is usually organized into two basic branches: the academic branch and the
governing branch. The academic branch is those scholars and Bible commentators whom the
Church looks to for Biblical knowledge on the one hand, but on the other hand they also are
the scholars who devise the apologetics for accepted Church doctrine. That is, these scholars
who are devoted to a particular denomination of Christianity provide for both Biblical exposition
and for a formal rationale as to why their denomination believes the things it does. However
this branch of Church organization is visible only in books and commentaries as reference
sources. It is the governing branch of the Church that Christians are most familiar with because
it is the visible branch; it is what we see and hear when we attend a worship service. The
governing branch on the local level is the Pastor and ministerial staff. Above him, if he is part of
a recognized denomination, are usually a regional and then a national board that not only
determines Church rules and doctrine, but also enforces them. However their decisions on
rules and doctrines influence and control the academic branch far more than the academic
branch influences the governing branch. From the governing branch’s viewpoint, the search
for biblical truth was concluded long ago upon the establishment of their denomination. With
their founding a set of doctrines were established by the original founders that would
henceforth be considered as immutable truth. These doctrines are not meant to be
reexamined; they are meant to be obeyed. The job of the governing branch is not to continue
searching God’s Word to be certain that their beliefs are accurate; their job is to enforce the
status quo and to emphasize the validity of their doctrines upon the members. From in
institutional perspective it is imperative that the research and knowledge of its scholars
validates what the governing branch of denomination already believes.
As I have conducted my biblical studies and research I have found that the Catholic Church
seems to allow their academic branch far more freedom of thought and doctrinal expression
than any other denomination I’ve run across. It can be quite striking to read the works and
conclusions of some of the finest Catholic scholars that regularly run counter to Catholic
Church doctrine; even openly challenging it. However it is also self-evident how little influence
the academic side has on the governing side of the Catholic denomination. I don’t wish to
communicate that other denominations don’t have their mavericks as well; but my point is this:
it is always dangerous to begin a search for truth from the consensus Church doctrine and then
working backwards from it to establish it in the Bible. More times than not the doctrines will
prove out; but at other times they won’t. So the typical solution for this dilemma is to either
2 / 9

ignore those passages that fly in the face of a denominational doctrine and instead highlight
those passages that seem to uphold it.
Since Paul is the primary writer of the New Testament then indeed it is nearly always Paul’s
statements that are used as the basis of Christian denominational doctrines. However as
anyone who has ever carefully studied Paul knows, he can be frustrating because on any
particular subject one doesn’t have to look hard to find more than one viewpoint. Thus a
denominational Church board has to pick those statements of Paul they will rely on the most
and dismiss the others as of lesser importance.
So when we take 2 chapters out of one book in the Bible as the source of the truth and beliefs
that we all ought to hold; 2 chapters out of the hundreds of chapters in the Bible as having the
most weight or even as a manual of corrections for what other parts of the Bible seem to say,
we need to be equal parts cautious and skeptical. To be clear: I am not a Paul skeptic. But
neither do I hold up Paul as the highest Biblical authority on spiritual matters. For a proper
understanding of what Paul says at any given time, it must be taken in context not only within
the particular book we find it in, but within the overall context of the several books he wrote.
And not only within the several books he wrote, but within the context of what Our Savior said
within the Gospel accounts. And not only that, but within the context of what other writers have
said in all parts of the Bible. As I have stated on more than one occasion: to take Paul as the
preeminent writer to rely on for our Christian doctrine is as wrong as taking Luke, or King
David, or John as preeminent. This is not Paul’s fault; it is gentile Church authorities who have
placed him in that position. It is critical that Believers remain balanced; but if we are going to
lean especially hard on anyone’s words in Holy Scripture, then it must be the Father’s first,
Christ’s second and Moses’s third with all other biblical writers and characters falling in
behind them.
But the other thing that needs to be said at the halfway mark of our study of Romans is this:
because Paul is rightly called the Apostle to the gentiles, this is the main reason that the
gentile Church has held him above all others writers of the Bible. The thought is that Paul is
like a specialist; he is the theology-for-gentiles specialist. So we need to listen to the specialist
first and foremost and give less credence to the non-specialists (meaning all the other writers
and characters of the Bible). Yet at the same time, because of this designation Paul has also
come to be perceived as more gentile than Jew with his Jewishness very nearly disregarded.
Thus his words are stripped of their Jewish cultural and religious contexts and so are regularly
misconstrued. This is why we are crawling along so deliberately through the Book of Romans,
just as we did through the Book of Acts. For the earliest readers of Paul’s letters (those to
whom his letters were addressed), the context was understood because they were living within
it. However for the early Church Fathers who were gentiles, the Jewish cultural context was
mostly a mystery, they were antagonistic towards it, and over time the Jewish component was
deemed to be irrelevant. It is this combination of mindset and circumstance that has led us, as
the Church body, to some very dubious doctrinal conclusions that are said to originate from the
words of Paul. Hopefully our lessons in Acts and now in Romans have shown you that what
Paul is supposed to have said is often terribly misunderstood due to a lack of knowledge about
Paul’s Jewishness, about Judaism in his time, and thus his intended meaning.
3 / 9

As we take up Romans chapter 8, I’ll spend more time adding in the Jewish cultural backdrop
that I hope will aid in our taking Paul’s words as he meant for them to be taken.
Open your Bibles to Romans chapter 8.
READ ROMANS CHAPTER 8 all
As I stated at the outset, the first word of this chapter is “therefore”. This means that what Paul
is doing is summing up (coming to a conclusion) about what he has previously said.
Remember that when Paul wrote this there were no chapters and verses, so it only appears as
though there is a break between the final verse of chapter 7 and the first verse of chapter 8;
originally it was just all one long letter. The point being that we don’t have to debate whether
the “therefore” is truly Paul drawing a conclusion about what he said in chapter 7 and before; it
is. And what is Paul’s conclusion as stated in verse 1? Is Paul’s conclusion that the Law is
now a dead letter for Christians? He says nothing of the kind. But you’d think so if you were to
listen to most denominations and their scholars. Paul’s words to open chapter 8 are very
specific and I want to give them to you in 3 English versions so that you can see that there is
no issue of different translation possibilities.
CJB
Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is no longer any condemnation awaiting those who are
in union with the Messiah Yeshua.
KJV
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
NAS
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ
Jesus.
As you can see, these verses from various versions all say essentially the same thing and use
the same key word: condemnation. What Romans chapters 1 through 7 all adds up to
according to Paul is that there is no “condemnation” awaiting those who are Believers in
Yeshua as Lord and Savior. What does condemnation mean? In modern times to condemn
mostly means to judge someone, or to publically censure them, or to denounce some action
that someone has taken. That is not at all what condemn meant even a couple of hundred
years ago. In the Bible era it meant one thing only: to sentence to death. So to use modern
words this verse says: ‘Therefore, there is no longer a death sentence awaiting those who are
in union with the Messiah Yeshua’. What death sentence is Paul speaking about? It is the
death sentence that all humans have coming to us due to our a) being related to Adam and
thus inheriting the consequence of Adam’s original sin and b) for us, as individuals, who break
God’s divine laws. As Paul has carefully pointed out in making his case during the previous 7
chapters, God’s laws come in 3 forms: 1) a direct commandment given one-on-one from God
to a specific person (as when God told Adam not to eat a specific fruit from a specific tree); 2)
the Natural Law, which is inherently present within all human beings regardless of race,
culture, ethnicity or nationality; and 3) The Law of Moses.
I want to point out a couple of things to consider: if, as some Christians claim, the only divine
4 / 9

law that Believers have to obey is the law of love, then why doesn’t Paul mention that as a 4
th
form of God’s divine law? If our only commandment is to love, then why when we don’t show
love isn’t that breaking God’s divine laws? And of all people that might overlook mentioning it,
it would certainly not be Paul. The other thing Christians often claim is that the Holy Spirit
directly tells each person the laws he or she should do and not do and that is the sum total that
any particular individual has the obligation to follow. Or that only the things Jesus repeated
from The Law of Moses are divine laws for His followers. Do we hear a hint of any of that from
Paul? No. For Paul there’s only 3 sources of God’s laws and instructions; not 4, 5, or 6. And
all 3 come directly from the Old Testament, the Tanach. These other so-called sources of
“laws” that are popular in the modern Church are no more than manmade doctrines.
So it is the death sentence of God than Believers no longer face as a result of our union with
Christ. Does this mean that Believers don’t die? No. This is referring to eternal or spiritual
death that is the result of sin. So biblically, and as it relates to any of the 3 forms of divine law
(including the Law of Moses), the ONLY aspect of those laws that changes due to the advent
of Messiah Yeshua is that breaking those laws does not condemn us. Or using the word that
The Law of Moses employs (but it means the same thing), Believers are no longer subject to
the “curse” of The Law. The Law itself is not done away with nor is the Law a curse; Believers
can still break the Law and sin as Paul lamented to end chapter 7. It is only that the eternal
death penalty due to us has been paid for by Messiah and so we don’t suffer it.
Verse 2 can create some problems for us if we don’t recognize something important. The
problem is that Paul uses different words and phrases for essentially the same thing. Why?
Because within Judaism in his day all these words and phrases were in common use, and
people understood them. Too often we try to nuance what are essentially synonyms so that we
can show some differences between those choices of words; but the differences aren’t
actually there. For instance: Paul says that the “law” of the Spirit, which produces life, has set
him free from the “law” of sin and death. This is not a new kind of law he is speaking about; it
is simply a manner of speaking. In our modern English it is like saying “principle”. But what
else can be confusing is the introduction of the word “spirit” into the narrative. What does he
mean by spirit in this case? If you were a Jew in his day, you would probably understand his
reference.
I’ve told you of the doctrine of the Two Ways or Two Masters that was common knowledge
within Judaism and how even Yeshua used this long held Jewish doctrine in His teaching (no
man can serve two masters). Throughout Romans Paul constantly falls back on the doctrine of
Two Masters in his teaching as an essential element of the effect of the Gospel. The Essenes
(the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls) held essentially the identical doctrine but being the
separatists that they were, they gave it a slightly different name that they preferred: the
doctrine of Two Spirits. So they thought and wrote of the evil and good inclinations as spirits of
evil and good. Thus Paul was merely using the Essene’s vocabulary when he introduces the
word “spirit” in verse 2; but it is virtually synonymous with the Two Masters doctrine and that’s
how Paul meant it.
Paul says a mouthful in verse 3; enough that theologians could write entire essays just on
pieces of it. First Paul says that what The Law could not do, God did. This is definitely referring
5 / 9

to the Law of Moses, and Paul is about to tell us that there was something that the Law was
not capable of, so God accomplished it using another means. Most often this is an “Aha!”
moment for Christian Pastors and Bible Teachers. They see this as an admission by Paul that
the Law of Moses was defective and so God had to apply a patch; or perhaps it was an excuse
for God to just get rid of it for something else that worked better. All that is being said is that
God did something that The Law was never created to do. The Law of Moses was not
designed as some kind of universal redemption devise that solved all of mankind’s problems
with sin and death. It served a limited but critical set of purposes that will remain needed until
we have the new heavens and earth that we are promised will eventually come. The thing the
Torah, The Law, was never created to do was to change the nature of humans. It could not
effect the evil inclination that dominates what Paul calls “our old nature”. The Law defines sin,
it characterizes God’s nature, it explains how to live a righteous life, and it tells us what to do
to make peace with God when a law is broken. But The Law could not cause a person to love
God or obey God; it could only instill a fear of God in them due to harsh consequences for
disobedience.
Yet in a certain, very real, sense The Law was God being accommodating towards His people.
He knew that His people needed a rather detailed roadmap on how to live as His redeemed
people; the Natural Law was very broad and left much for humans to determine for ourselves
(always to our detriment). But the moment He issued The Law His people would need help for
when they did not follow God’s road map as they knew they should; they would need to be
rescued from God’s wrath when they sinned. So in a marvelous act of grace, God instituted
ritual animal sacrifice. Why is this grace? Because when one of His people broke a law,
instead of them facing the spiritual death penalty (which is permanent separation from God)
the life of an innocent creature (an animal) could be substituted. That is the essence of the
purpose for the sacrificial system and it is important to remember that the God-principle behind
this system is exactly what has saved us. Yeshua’s death was nothing more nor less than
substitutionary sacrifice on our behalf.
In the second half of verse 3 Paul says something that has caused enormous debates within
Christianity. He says that the way God accomplished doing this thing that The Law of Moses
was never designed to do, was by sending His Son as a human being with a nature like our
own sinful one. Notice that Yeshua was sent as a human being; He was not an apparition who
only appeared to be human; He was fully human. In fact, says Paul, Yeshua had the same
nature as all humans; a sinful one. That is another never ending doctrinal battle within
Christianity; the idea that Yeshua had the same sinful nature as all of us is not universally
accepted within the Church.
In most English versions the word “likeness” is present to modify the words about Yeshua
having sinful flesh. Here is an example of other English versions of this verse:
KJV
Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in
the flesh:
The word “likeness” is indeed there in the Greek; but what does it indicate? Does it mean that
6 / 9

while Yeshua looked like He was made of the same stuff as regular humans (flesh), in fact He
wasn’t an actual human? Was his physical presence merely an illusion? Was he like the
Terminator? Flesh stretched over a non-human frame? If the word likeness was not there, then
it would unambiguously indicate that God sent His Son in typical human sinful flesh; but the
word is there. So what’s the answer? I think the most logical answer that fits with the context
of the chapter, with what Paul says elsewhere, and within the context of what we read about
Messiah Yeshua in the Gospels is this: indeed He came in sinful flesh, but as we find out later,
He never succumbed to it. That is, He had within Him an evil inclination so that He could be
tempted and feel what all the rest of us feel; but He also had God’s Spirit in Him and with the
power of the Spirit He was able to resist His evil inclination.
So Yeshua, theoretically, could have lived to a ripe old age and died (as do all humans). But,
He never sinned; He never once allowed Himself to be a slave to the Master of His evil
inclination. Yet He could suffer, He could feel pain and cold and heat; He could feel hungry and
thirsty; He had emotions including fear and anxiety; He could bleed and He could die.
Matthew 26:38-39 CJB
38
and he said to them, "My heart is so filled with sadness that I
could die! Remain here and stay awake with me."

39
Going on a little farther, he fell on his face, praying, "My Father, if possible, let this
cup pass from me! Yet- not what I want, but what you want!"
Or, in this even more dramatic version:
Luke 22:42-44 CJB
42
"Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, let not
my will but yours be done."
43
There appeared to him an angel from heaven giving him
strength,
44
and in great anguish he prayed more intensely, so that his sweat became
like drops of blood falling to the ground.
So I can only conclude that Paul added the term “likeness” to make it clear that the Word had
become flesh; real human flesh.
CJB
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God………..
14
The Word became a human being and lived with us, and we saw his Sh'khinah, the
Sh'khinah of the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth.
That is, the Word that was with God from the beginning remained Himself even when He
became flesh and blood (Jewish flesh and blood), was brought into this world through a human
mother as are all humans, and was given the human Jewish name of Yeshua. And since it was
the Word of God who was the author of the Torah, then what else could He do but fulfill what
Christians always say is impossible; He did The Law and never once broke it.
Deuteronomy 30:11-14 CJB
7 / 9

11
For this mitzvah which I am giving you today is not too hard for you, it is not beyond
your reach.
12
It isn't in the sky, so that you need to ask, 'Who will go up into the sky for
us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?'

13
Likewise, it isn't beyond the sea, so that you need to ask, 'Who will cross the sea for
us, bring it to us and make us hear it, so that we can obey it?'
14
On the contrary, the
word is very close to you- in your mouth, even in your heart; therefore, you can do it!
So since Yeshua had an evil inclination, then it means He also had free will. He could have
chosen to avoid the cross and clearly as He was in the Garden of Gat Shemanim
(Gethsemane) He was battling His own will that wanted to live and not die. But, His good
inclination again won as He virtually defined the difference between the good and evil
inclinations….between the evil Master and the good Master….when He said: Matthew 26:39
CSB Yet not as I will, but as You will." Because the good inclination is doing the Father’s
will, while the evil inclination is doing our own will.
The Good News is that once arisen, Christ no longer suffered with an evil inclination. And that
is one of the things that we Believers can look so forward to; when we arise from our rest upon
our resurrection we will no longer have to battle an evil inclination. It is gone, forever, never
again to afflict us because as Paul said, we have died in Christ. Through our baptism we have
identified ourselves with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. We have already achieved the
likeness of His death and burial; but now we await the End Times and His return, and for the
likeness of His resurrection.
I want you to appreciate why Paul spends all this time and ink speaking about the same two or
three principles that were already well known and taken for granted within Judaism. Please
hear me: as much as Paul’s teaching has crossed the boundaries of time and space to affect
us in the 21
st
century, he was by no means thinking in terms of speaking to gentiles in the 3
rd
Millennium A.D. He was writing this letter to the Roman congregations and addressing matters
directly pertinent to them, using terms they generally understood. But at the same time it is
important to understand that because these principles that Paul quotes were well established
and operating within 1
st
century Judaism, then of course Believers in every age need to
understand them within that same Jewish context. I think one of the better ways to help bridge
this difficult gap is to hear what the renowned 12
th
century Jewish sage RamBam
(Maimonides) had to say about the limitations of the Torah. In his work the “Guide for the
Perplexed” he says that The Law of Moses indeed has no power over the human nature, and
so no power to affect change to the human nature, and nothing ever will. This belief was a core
doctrine of Judaism in Paul’s day and so this is why Paul was going into such depth and
essentially repeating himself a number of times, or better, saying the same thing a number of
different ways to get this difficult point across especially to his fellow Jews (the gentile
Believers would not have known much if anything about this Jewish doctrine). He was refuting
this 1
st
century doctrine of Judaism that there is no way to change our human nature and be rid
of the evil inclination. Paul was explaining that while that may have been true at one time, it is
no longer. Yeshua is able to do the impossible; He can change human nature. Listen to the
RamBam:
8 / 9

What was there to prevent (God) from causing the (human) inclination to accomplish
acts of obedience willed by Him….to become a natural disposition fixed in us? God does
not change at all the nature of human individuals by means of miracles…..it is because
of this that there are commandments and prohibitions, rewards and punishments. We
do not say this because we believe that the changing of the (human) nature of any
individual is difficult for Him. Rather it is possible and fully within His capacity. But
according to the foundations of the Law, of the Torah, He has NEVER willed it, nor shall
He EVER will it. For if it were His will that the nature of any human individual be
changed because of what He wills from that individual, the sending of prophets and all
giving of the Law would have been useless.
What an amazing admission from Maimonides. First that the human nature is untouchable by
any earthly device, including The Law of Moses. And second, that IF God decided to change
the nature of humans (to get rid of the evil inclination), then the RamBam couldn’t understand
what the role of The Law would become. If only he would have read what Paul had to say here
in Romans.
Again: in his letter to the Romans Paul was not establishing some distant, ethereal, theoretical
systematic theology. He was directly addressing real issues of his time. It was a firm and
settled belief within Judaism that God, although fully capable, would never undertake the task
of changing the human nature.
We’ll continue with chapter 8 next time.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
9 / 9