When writing the Epistle to the Romans, Paul could take a wider view of

this term saying, 'There is nothing unclean (common) of itself' (Rom. 14:14).

While it is not to be thought that the common faith and the common

salvation had anything about them which could be classified as defiling or

unclean, we must not forget that Peter, long after Pentecost, told a Gentile

like Cornelius to his face that, apart from the vision given to him, a

Gentile who could be called 'devout', who 'feared God', who 'gave alms' and

'prayed to God alway' (Acts 10:2) would have been called by Peter 'common

or unclean' (Acts 10:28).  From all this painful discrimination, the Gospel

entrusted to Paul and shared by Titus was blessedly free.  The faith of God's

elect was no longer the preserve of one people, it was now the possible

possession of all men and particularly the Gentile.  The fact that Titus was

associated with the 'common' faith is an indication that faith was now open

to the Gentile as well as to the elect Jew, even as it was the glory of

Paul's ministry to be the steward of the Mystery 'for you Gentiles'.  'The

elect of God' is a title given to the saints at Colosse, who were mainly

Gentiles (Col. 3:12).  In this sense the ministry of Paul and the ministry of

Titus were the same.  It would have been just as true to have said that Paul

was an apostle for the common faith, and that Titus was a minister for the

faith of God's elect.

From Deuteronomy 25:1 we learn from the great law -giver that

justifying the righteous is the opposite of condemning the wicked.

Condemnation translates either krima (Luke 23:40), krisis (John 3:19),

katakrima (Rom. 8:1) or katakrisis (2 Cor. 3:9).  An understanding of Romans

8:1 -4 supplies all that the believer and the student needs to open up to him

the teaching of the Scriptures on this subject.  Let us therefore consider

this passage.

First let us note that the words, 'who walk not after the flesh but

after the spirit' in Romans 8:1 are an interpolation introduced into the text

from verse 4.

It may be that some felt that the statement of Romans 8:1 needed some

modifying, that freedom from condemnation, if proclaimed without some limits

and qualifications would be harmful.  This is exactly the opposition to free

grace that the apostle anticipated and met in Romans 6:1 and 15.  Bloomfield

expresses this uneasiness by rendering the words 'who walk' by 'if they do

walk'; and he quotes other writers who suggest 'so that they do but walk',

'showing that justification through Christ's death can only be made effectual

by sanctification through His Spirit'.  With all due regard to this wholesome

association of 'doctrine' and 'manner of life', the introduction of

conditions and qualifying terms here is unscriptural and subversive.  Freedom

from condemnation is not conditional upon the walk of the believer; it is

entirely conditional upon the Work of God's Son.  We must be free, before we

can think of walking according to the spirit.  While we were in slavery, we

were in the flesh, and could not please God.

A

no condemnation

In Christ Jesus.

B

a

the two laws

The law of the spirit of life.