A number of modern translators understand Law here as a specific reference to the Jewish Law (so Jerusalem Bible, An American Translation*, Moffatt); others take the word in a more general sense (so New English Bible, New American Bible).
Human nature is literally “flesh.” See the discussion on this in the previous chapter.
The first sentence in verse 3 may require alteration in the order of clauses—for example, “God accomplished what the Law could not accomplish because human nature was weak.” Weakness must refer to moral weakness, not lack of physical strength.
In rendering he condemned sin in human nature, it is important to avoid the idea of “condemning sinful human nature.” It is rather “his condemnation of sin that operates in human nature” or “sin that uses human nature.”
Who came with a nature like man’s sinful nature is literally “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” There are at least two exegetical problems involved in the translation of this verse. First, does Paul use the word “flesh” in the sense of Christ’s physical body or of his human nature? In light of the manner in which Paul uses “flesh” in the earlier part of this verse, it seems better to understand his meaning here to be human nature (so New English Bible). However, a number of translators take this as a reference to our Lord’s physical body (so An American Translation* and Jerusalem Bible).
The second exegetical problem involves Paul’s use of the word “likeness” (Greek homoiōma). Here it is important to realize that the emphasis is on the identity that Christ shared with “sinful flesh” and not on his difference from it. That is to say, Paul is either declaring that Christ has a physical body exactly like the physical bodies of other men, or that Christ had a human nature exactly like the human nature of other men. As indicated above, the Good News Translation accepts the latter of these two interpretations. Does this interpretation then imply that Christ was sinful like all other men? The answer is “no.” Paul is only affirming that even though Christ possessed a human nature like that of all other men, he himself remained sinless because he never yielded to the impulses of this nature. This may seem a difficult point to comprehend, but it is easier to understand if one realizes Paul’s intention in this passage. He insists that Christ must fully identify with fallen man if he is to conquer sin in the arena where all other men have been conquered by sin. And this would require that Christ assume not only a physical body like the body of all other men, but that he assume the same nature that all other men possess. Thus Paul declares that as Christ possessed the full nature of God (his own Son), so he possessed the full nature of man.
The expression of means in the phrase by sending his own Son may be rendered in some languages as “in order to do this (that is, to condemn sin) he sent his own Son.” The clause who came with a nature like man’s sinful nature is rendered in some languages as “who came to earth with a heart like the hearts of men who sin” or “he came having a body just like men’s bodies which tend to sin.”
To do away with sin translates a phrase which is sometimes used in the Old Testament with the meaning “sin offering.” Some translators see in this phrase an emphasis on the aspect of sacrifice (New English Bible “as a sacrifice for sin”; An American Translation* “a sin-offering”), while other translators emphasize the result of this action (Jerusalem Bible “God dealt with sin”; Moffatt “to deal with sin”; New English Bible alternative rendering “to deal with sin”).
If it is necessary to restructure the phrase with a nature like man’s sinful nature so that the resulting form involves a clause, it may then also be necessary to separate the final phrase to do away with sin and make it a complete sentence. Otherwise, this purpose may become confused with some aspect of man’s sinning. An adequate translation in some languages may be “he came in order to do away with sin” or “he came in order to be a sacrifice for sin.” However, such a translation could imply that he was a sacrifice for his own sins, and therefore it may be necessary to say “he came in order to be a sacrifice for the sins which others had committed.”
Quoted with permission from Newman, Barclay M. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1973. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.