Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν οὐ τῇ σαρκὶ
As a result [from the preceding information] therefore , brothers, we do not owe the flesh a thing
τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν,
in order to grant the flesh whatever it beckons.
εἰ γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆτε,
[For let me explain]: if you live your life granting the flesh it's desires
[then] you are destined to die [eternally].
εἰ δὲ πνεύματι
But, [on the contrary] , if by means of the Spirit['s guiding direction],
τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώματος θανατοῦτε,
you put to death the deeds of the body [i.e., if you do not live your life granting the flesh whatever it beckons],
[then] you will live [eternally].
ὅσοι γὰρ πνεύματι θεοῦ ἄγονται, οὗτοι υἱοὶ θεοῦ εἰσιν.
[ The reason you will live is] because those who are lead by the Spirit of God are sons of God [and the implication that I present is that since you are led by the Spirit, you are therefore sons of God ]
οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον
For [the reason you are sons of God is because] you did not receive the spirit of slavery [in order to return back] again [for the goal/outcome/final result of ] fear,
ἀλλʼ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας
but [on the contrary] you received the Spirit of adoption
ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν• αββα ὁ πατήρ.
by means of whom we cry, "Abba, Father." [i.e., we cry "Abba, Father" by means of the Spirit of Adoption]
αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα συμμαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύματι ἡμῶν ὅτι ἐσμὲν τέκνα θεοῦ.
[ Therefore] :The Spirit himself confirms with our spirit that we are children of God.
εἰ δὲ τέκνα,
And if [we are] children [of God],
[then] also [we are] heirs [of God];
κληρονόμοι μὲν θεοῦ,
[ Therefore, since we are] heirs [to receive the blessings] of God,
συγκληρονόμοι δὲ Χριστοῦ,
[then therefore it is also true that we are] heirs with Christ [i.e., we are also heirs just as Christ is an heir]
— provided that we suffer with (i.e., in a manner like) [him],
ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν.
for the purpose that we also might be glorified [with him].
What is the relationship between σάρκα and σώματος in this verse and the whole of Paul's Epistle to the Romans?
See BDAG, 628 for this translation.
The context does not suggest that the μὲν clause contrasts the δὲ clause (See BDAG, 630). Rather, the μὲν ... δὲ construction in this context suggest a correlation (See ibid., 629).
Agency (Wallace, 163–164)
Agency (Wallace, 163–164)
1st-class condition [if prot. is true, the apod. is also] (Decker, 500–01)
1st-class condition [if prot. is true, the apod. is also] (Decker, 500–01)
Attributive Genitive (Wallace, 87)
Purpose (Wallace, 610; Decker, 370)
ὀφειλέτης takes a a subsequent dative. Here, dative of interest: "we are not debtors, with interest to/for the benefit of the flesh." (Wallace, 174; cf. 142)
Paul didn't have to use this demonstrative, but it seems that he did so to provide emphasis. "As many as who are led by these Spirit of God, these are sons of God."
Intensive use of αὐτός ("It is the demonstrative force intensified," Dana-Mantey in Wallace, 349).
1st class condition (Decker, 500–01)
Possessive Genitive (Wallace, 81)
Telic εἴς? (See Harris, 88)
Dative of means, not agency (See Wallace, 373–374)
Dative of Association ( Going Deeper , 133; Wallace, 159)
Genitive of association (Wallace, 129; cf. 159)
Particle that heightens the expectation of subsequent material (Runge, 75).
The Ἄ ρα οὗν indicates that a new section has begun, which directly results from the preceding material.  Paul thinks it great importance to exhort the Romans to a life that does not cater to the demands of the flesh. Although Paul seems to present a point/counterpoint set, and then drops off the counterpoint,  the main idea of Paul’s argument in these six verses is verse 12: Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν οὐ τῇ σαρκὶ τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα ζῆν.  Verse 13 further explains v. 12, while vv. 14–17 function as a large ground for both v. 12 and 13. [8:12] Nothing Owed to the Flesh The dative τῇ σαρκὶ should be taken as a dative of interest: “we are not debtors with the interest to/for the benefit of the flesh.”  The image of Paul and the Romans being debtors ( ὀφειλέται ) to the flesh could be one of monetary debt, but most likely refers simply to an obligation to adhere to the flesh.  That is, when the flesh beckons them with its desires, Paul and his comrades do not listen, since they owe no debt whatsoever to the flesh.  They are no longer obligated to oblige the demands of the sinful cravings in them. [8:13] Verse 12 Qualified The γάρ is difficult. BDAG lists three main categories for this conjunction: cause, clarification, or inference.  Runge’s explanation of γἀρ is a bit broader, but helpful in determining how it operates here: Γάρ introduces explanatory material that strengthens or supports what precedes. This may consist of a single clause, or it may be a longer digression. Although the strengthening material is important to the discourse, it does not advance the argument or story. Instead, it supports what precedes by providing background or detail that is needed to understand what follows.  Thus, we can be sure that the γάρ somehow strengthens v. 12—yet, we must look to the nature of vv. 12 and 13 in order to uncover the precise logical relationship. Interestingly, Cranfield—even though he comments on the γάρ in vv. 14, 15, and 18—does not comment on the γάρ of v. 13.  The function of this γάρ is perhaps the most difficult to uncover in vv. 12–17. Logically, it cannot be causal. It makes no sense to say, “We are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh, because if you live according to the flesh you are sure to die … etc.”  How can the contrasting conditions, which present two opposing and potential lifestyles (a life led by the flesh, and a life led by the Spirit of God), ground the reality of not being a debtor to the flesh (i.e., the life led by the Spirit of God [8:1–11])? Likewise, it makes no sense to take γάρ as inferential: “We are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh; therefore , if you live according to the flesh you are sure to die …” Similar to the problem of viewing the conjunction as causal, this fails because the reality of those who are not debtors to the flesh grounding the potential lifestyle of living according to the flesh is impossible. The ἅρα οὖν in v. 12 signals a result from the preceding section, where Paul has just established that those who have the Spirit of God are free from the law of sin and death (8:2), walk not by the flesh, but by the Spirit (8:3), and are in the Spirit (8:9). Therefore, being in the Spirit also means that one is not a debtor to the flesh. Therefore, it is impossible for the reality of being in the Spirit to support a potential condition of being in the flesh . If the γάρ isn’t causal or inferential, then, taking BDAG’s remaining entry, does it clarify anything?  I think so—yet, it is not a simple restatement. In this instance, v. 13 supports v. 12 by clarifying the nature of what it means to not be a debtor to the flesh. Or, to put it more precisely, v. 12 is a concessive statement, while v. 13 is the subordinate: “[ Although ] we are not debtors to the flesh to live according to the flesh, [ nevertheless ] if you live according to the flesh … etc.” The subordinate statement stands despite the reality of the concessive. Here Paul essentially says, “I uphold the truth that we are not debtors to flesh. We no longer have to pay up, despite its beckoning. However, even though this is a decisive and unbreakable truth, it is also true that you will die eternally if you live according to the flesh— but, on the contrary, you will live if you kill the body’s deeds by the power of the Holy Spirit.” He already knows that his audience falls into the latter group of those who kill the deeds of the body by the Spirit (8:4, 9–11). They have the Spirit of God and are not debtors to the flesh any longer—done. So, what of v. 13? Verse 13 supports and clarifies v. 12 by demonstrating that although they are decisively not debtors according to the flesh, the deeds of the body still wage battle in their members —and they must kill it by the power of the Holy Spirit. The reality of Romans 6:1–11 makes an appearance here. Although Christians are dead to sin (i.e., no longer debtors to the flesh), sin still dwells in the body—and therefore Christians should completely strip sin from its reigning authority in the body (i.e., kill the deeds of the body by the Spirit). [8:14–17] The Ground of vv. 12–13: Sons of God What immediately follows in the final four verses is a Bilateral (BL) construction,  which can be seen in Appendix I. The simple logic of 8:12–17 can be succinctly stated only when v. 14 is in the picture: We are not debtors to the flesh, which would result in a life lived gratifying the flesh, because we are sons of God. Therefore, just as v. 12 is the main point of vv. 12–13, v. 14 is the main point of vv. 14–17.  [8:14] Sons of God Therefore, the γάρ grounds the preceding two verses.  We are no debtors, because everyone who is led by the Spirit is a son of God (the implication is that both Paul and his audience are in this ontological category). Paul is very clear with this assertion. He does not just say, “because you are sons of God,” but “everyone (ὅσοι) who is led by the Spirit of God, these only (οὗτοι) are sons of God.” Only those who are led and governed by the Spirit’s influence are sons of God. The term sons of God (υῖοι θεοῦ) recalls OT truths. Israel was God’s firstborn son (Exod 4:22; Deut 14:1; Isa 43:6; Jer 3:19; 31:9; Hos 1:10; 11:1). The blessings of God’s firstborn son are now granted to those who become sons by receiving the Holy Spirit—namely, Gentiles (cf. Gal 4:6). Relating this truth to the preceding text, Cranfield winsomely asserts, The daily, hourly putting to death of the schemings and enterprises of the sinful flesh by means of the Spirit is a matter of being led, directed, impelled, controlled by the Spirit. Though the active participation of the Christian is indeed involved (θανατοῦτε), it is fundamentally the work of the Spirit (hence the passive ἄγονται).  Therefore, we see that the only way Christians can “put to death” (θανατάω) the deeds of the body is not by merely following the Spirit, but by the Spirit leading them. The passive ἄγονται demonstrates the strength to put sin to death does not originate in them—but from the Spirit of God. They no longer owe the flesh anything because they are not of the flesh, but of the Spirit. And those who have the Spirit are sons of God. [8:15] The Received Spirit As already mentioned, a BL construction contains one main supporting proposition, around which the first and third propositions are placed. So, in this text, verse 15 is the supporting material for both v. 14 and vv. 16–17. That is, v. 15 grounds v. 14 and vv. 16–17 both ways—forwards and backwards. Therefore, the logic of vv. 14 and 15 are as follows: “ For all who is led by the Spirit of God are sons of God, because you did not receive the spirit of slavery (in order to go back again into fear), but you received the Spirit of adoption …” The reason why Christians are sons of God is that they have received the Spirit of adoption. It seems logical to conclude that one is considered a son only when the Spirit of adoption is given. That is, there is no sonship without the Spirit of adoption. One must received the Spirit of adoption before one is led by the Spirit and deemed a son. Therefore, v. 15 grounds verse 14.  But what are we to make of the contrasting πνεῦμα δουλείας and πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας? Moreover, how are we to take πάλιν εἰς φόβον ? And what does Paul mean by φόβον ? First, what do the contrasting πνεῦμα δουλείας and πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας refer to? A major theme of chs. 6–8 is the freedom from sin that Christ secures for those united to him. Those in Christ—i.e., united with Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom 6:5)—are taken from their former slave-owner sin and transferred to their new slave-owner: righteousness [or God] (Rom 6:17–23; 8:2). Christians were once slaves, now they are free; and the freedom they now experience is a slavery to righteousness (or God). Therefore, knowing this frame of reference and knowing that this verse comes in the context of radical violence against the passions of the body (8:13), πνεῦμα δουλείας must refer to the former slavery to sin that all experienced before freedom in Christ. This interpretation harmonizes with the subsequent πάλιν εἰς φόβον . This phrase shouldn’t be seen as adverbial to ἐλάβετε, but as another common employment of brachylogy  —Paul leaving out perhaps a purpose infinitive. However one interprets the grammar, the point of πάλιν εἰς φόβον is that the current Spirit that they have received isn’t one who will revert them back into fear.  And the “fear” ( φόβον ) shouldn’t be seen as a godly fear, but as a fear that comes from knowing a grave and inevitable punishment.  Believers, having already been set free from the law of sin and death have no need to fear of anything, for their eternal destiny is secured (cf. 2 Tim 1:7). Where Paul implied a point/counterpoint construction in v. 12, he makes explicit the construction in v. 15. The goal in stating the reality negatively, and then positively, is to highlight the positively stated reality. Here, Paul draws emphatic attention to the reception of the “Spirit of adoption.” “You have not received this, but this .” He could have easily achieved the same end if he only said: “For you received the Spirit of adoption …” But he wanted to draw attention to this reality by stating it negatively first. In this way, Paul heightens the reader’s expectation that something better has happened—namely, not the spirit of slavery, but the Spirit of adoption .  [8:16–17] Sons of God Confirmed (8:16) The Spirit’s Witness Drawing from the reality of v. 15, Paul then draws an inference, which takes up the last two verses (vv. 16–17) in this section. As mentioned above, you could argue that the inference drawn in vv. 16–17 restates in further detail the realities of v. 15. Having connected most of his propositions—and thus, the majority of his argument—with γάρ (8:2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15), Paul draws special attention to what he is about to say with an asyndeton.  Stephen H. Levinsohn asserts that asyndeton “tends to imply ‘ not strengthening, not developmental, not associative, not inferential, etc.’”  Though this may be true, the relationship between v. 15 and v. 16 suggests an implied inference.  “You received the Spirit of adoption … therefore the Spirit himself confirms with our spirit …” The only way the Spirit can confirm with our spirit that we are sons of God is if it is first given to us. Thus, we receive the Spirit of adoption and then he bears truth with our spirit of our sonship. This is a glorious reality that all believers experience. “Not only do our filial feelings towards God prove that we are his children, but the Holy Spirit itself conveys to our souls the assurance of this delightful fact.”  Paul says this reality happens, without qualification, for all true believers. The way in which true beleivers can know that they are saved is due to a supernatural conviction, which is owing to the Holy Spirit’s confirmation with the soul of the believer. That is what I take συμμαρτυρεῖ to refer to. Looking elsewhere in the Pauline corpus, we glean further insight to this spiritual reality: “For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 4:6). The glory of God in the reality of the gospel shines into the hearts of all true believers, producing faith, obedience, love, and joy for God in Christ (cf. the prophecies of the OT: Deut 30:6; Jer 31:33; 32:39; Ezek 11:19; 26:27; 36:26). (8:17) The Benefits of Sonship As noted above, vv. 16–17 make up an inferential unit from v. 15 (i.e., the third proposition in a BL construction). Within this unit, v. 17 also seems to logically connect with v. 16 as an inference. Therefore, “The Spirit himself confirms with our spirit that we are children of God. And therefore ( δὲ ) if we are children of God …” The δέ signals a further development in Paul’s argument,  and the relationship between the Spirit’s confirmation and the conditional statements in v. 17 suggest that this development is an inference from v. 16.  The logical flow of thought is this: “The Spirit himself confirms with our spirit that we are children of God (v. 16). If we are therefore ( δὲ ) [of God], then we are also heirs. [ Therefore , since we are] heirs [to receive the blessings] of God, [it is therefore also true that we are] heirs with Christ [i.e., we are also heirs just as Christ is an heir]— [and this is all true] provided that (εἴπερ) we suffer with [i.e., in a manner like] him, for the purpose that ( ἵνα ) we also might be glorified with [him](v. 17). The benefits of sonship are made explicit in v. 17. To be a son of God is to receive God’s glorious inheritance. Schreiner take the inheritance to refer to not the promises of God, but of God himself.  Though his language is problematic, I do not think he would disagree that what God has promised is himself (cf. Eph 5:27; 2 Cor 11:2; Rev 19:7; 21:9). To be an heir of God means to inherit precisely what God has promised. He will bring us back to the Garden and fill us with delight for himself. “They feast on the abundance of your house, and you give them drink from the river of your delights” (Ps 36:8). Moreover, these delights come from the mysterious union with his Son—for he is also an heir (17d). “The inheritance becomes a reality through union with Christ, the true seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16). Those who are united with Christ share in the inheritance that he has gained for them.”  Yet, Paul qualifies this statement with εἴπερ συμπάσχομεν ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν (“provided that you suffer with him, that you also might be glorified with him”). If taken to mean the death believers experience by union with Christ in his baptism, Cranfield helpfully notes that “a past tense would have been natural.  But we see not an aorist or imperfect tense form, but the perfective subjunctive συνδοξασθῶμεν . Thus, potentiality is in view. Therefore, the suffering we share with Christ is inevitable, and, by union with Christ, fulfills the condition.  “Indeed, all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tm 3:12). This seems to be the case here. The key for this interpretation depends on how one interprets εἴπερ. Most likely it indicates a conditional statement.  The ἵνα , then, indicates the ultimate purpose for such suffering: glorification —i.e., the future inheritance just mentioned.   “ … introduces a new paragraph setting forth the practical conclusion to be drawn from vv. 1–11,” C. E. B., Cranfield, A critical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle to the Romans vol. 1 (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 394.  See Steven Runge, Discourse Grammar of the Greek New Testament: A Practical Introduction for Teaching and Exegesis (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 73–100 for an overview of point/counterpoint constructions. Runge says, “The term point/counterpoint set describes clauses or clause elements that have been related to one another rthrough one or more grammatical means,” Ibid., 74. He then notes that μέν creates “anticipation that some related point will follow,” then “the use of an interrogative or negated clause that is restricted using εἰ μή or πλήν,” and finally “the use of ἀλλά [corrects or replaces] something in the preceding context,” Ibid.  Cranfield asserts, “the position of the negative strongly suggests that Paul intended to continue with something like ἀλλὰ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ κατὰ πνεῦμα ζῆν, but broke off in order to insert the warning of v. 13a, and then, after adding a natural complement to v. 13a, failed to complete the sentence begun in v. 12,” Ibid.; So Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans , Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 311; John Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries (Complete) , trans. John King; Accordance electronic ed. (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847), paragraph 79561; John R. W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World , The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity, 2001), 227; Contra Thomas Schreiner: “This explanation is unlikely. Paul does not want to speak of believers being “debtors” to the Spirit and thus he intentionally does not follow through with the parallel,” Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 420.  Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: an Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 174; cf. 142.  “ὀφειλέτης,” BDAG, 742.  Some scholars are split on the precise function of the articular infinitive τοῦ … ζῆν . Thomas Schreiner sees it epexegetical (Schreiner, Romans , 419), and Cranfield says it could be either epexegetical or result (Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans , 394). I hold to the latter.  “γάρ,” BDAG, 189.  Runge, Discourse Grammar, 54.  Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans , 394.  So Schreiner, Romans , ___.  BDAG, 198.  A Bilateral construction is “a proposition that supports two other propositions, one preceding and one following,” ( biblearc.com) . I n other words, there are three proposition: the second proposition supports the first, and the third proposition is inferential from the second (e.g., X happened, because of Y, therefore Z).  To be more precise, vv. 16–17 restate v. 14. So, you could argue that vv. 14, 16–17 are the main point of vv. 14–17. I simply state that v. 14 is the main point because it encapsulates all the explications of vv. 16–17.  So Stott, The Message of the Romans , 230; Hodge, Romans , 265; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans , 312; Contra Schreiner, Romans , 422; Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans , 395; Calvin, Calvin’s Commentaries , on Rom 8:14.  Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans , 395; So Schreiner: “The ‘leading’ … of the Spirit does not refer to guidance for everyday decision in determining the will of God. It refers to being ‘controlled by’ or ‘determined by’ or ‘governed by’ the Spirit,” Schreiner, Romans , 422.  Contra Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans , 396; Kässmann says, that vv. 15–16 are “a proof of v. 14,” Kässmann, Commentary on Romans , 227.  “Condensed, abbreviated speech or writing, usually involving the omission of an element of language that must be supplied from the context to fully complete the meaning (βραχυλογία, ‘short speech’),” Matthew S. DeMoss, Pocket Dictionary For The Study Of New Testament Greek (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2001), 26.  So Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans , 396; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans , 314, says, “We might not have expected him to say again , but the word is apparently being used in the sense of “back” and refers to a reversion to the state from which they had been delivered. Christ had freed them from their bondage to sin; they must not think that the Spirit would lead them back to it.” Further, the εἰς is likely a “telic εἰς ,” which expresses “metaphorical direction, i.e., goal or purpose,” Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament , (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 88.  “In the words again to fear , there is an evidence allusion to the state of believers prior to the reception of the Spirit. It was a state of bondage in which they fear, i.e., were governed by a slavish and anxious apprehension of punishment. In this state are all unconverted men, whether Jews or Gentiles, because they are all under the law, or the bondage of a legal system,” Hodge, Romans , 266; So Schreiner, Romans , 424; Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans , 396; Morris, Epistle to the Romans , 314; Stott, The Message of the Romans , 232 says, “The slavery of the old age led to fear, especially of God as our judge; the freedom of the new age gives us boldness to approach God as our Father. So everything has changed. True, we are still slaves of Christ (1:1), of God (6:22) and of righteousness (6:18f.), but these slaveries, far from being incompatible with freedom, are its essence. Freedom, not fear, now rules our lives.”  “Heckert describes ἀλλά as a ‘global marker of contrast,’ one that ‘introduces a correction of the expectation created by the first conjunct; an incorrect expectation is cancelled and a proper expectation is put in its place,’” Runge, Discourse Grammar , 93 quoting Jacob K. Heckert, Discourse Function of Conjoiners in the Pastoral Epistles (Dallas: SIL International, 1996), 23.  Runge, Discourse Grammar , 22 notes “the use of asyndeton indicates that the writer chose not to make a relation explicit. The relation must be gleaned from the context.”  Stephen H. Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek , 2nd ed. (Dallas: SIL International, 2000), 118.  Cranfield sees the asyndeton merely adding weight to Paul’s argument from v. 15: “The asyndeton has the effect of giving this sentence extra weight and solemnity,” Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans , 402.  Hodge, Romans , 267.  See Runge, Discourse Grammar , 28–36 for an overview of the developmental connective δέ.  So Schreiner, Romans , 427: “Verses 15–16 confirm that believers are children of God. Verse 17 builds from the fact of that relationship, drawing the conclusion that those who are children are also heirs.”  “The wording suggests no merely that believers are heir of what God has promised … but of God himself,” Schreiner, Romans , 427.  Ibid., 428.  Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans , 408.  “But this suffering is in some way linked to the sufferings of Christ,” Morris, The Epistle to the Romans , 318; so Marvin R. Vincent: “Mere suffering does not fulfill the condition. It is suffering with Christ,” Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament , 4 vols.; 2004), on Romans 8:17.  Contra Cranfield, who says, “ As in v. 9, εἲπερ means here ‘seeing that’ (cf. Old Latin ‘si quidem’), and is roughly equivalent to γάρ ,” Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans , 407  Schreiner, Romans , 428; cf, Bruce, Romans , 169.