Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Romans 8:18 - 8:39
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Rom_8:18-39
A. The present and subjective certainty of future glory, or the glorification of the body and of nature by the spirit (Rom_8:18-27)
For thy sake we are killed all the day long;
We are [were] accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that [who] loved us.
A. The present and subjective certainty of future glory.
Believers, from their present and subjective sense of life, are certain of future glory; accordingly, all the sufferings of the present time are to them as birth-pangs for future glory. This holds good, first, in respect to the pressure toward development, and the longing and patient waiting of nature in its present state; and this pressure toward development corresponds with that of God’s kingdom. It holds good, secondly, in regard to the birth-pangs of God’s kingdom, as manifested, first, in the groanings, longings, and hopes of believers, and in the unutterable groanings of the Spirit, who intercedes for them. Although believers have the Spirit of adoption, it is because they have it that they still groan for its consummation (2Co_5:1). Their principial salvation is not their finished salvation; but the latter is testified by their hope and confirmed by their patience. But the Spirit proves himself in their hearts by unutterable groanings, as a vital pressure, which harmonizes in this life with the sense of the future exercise of God’s authority, and points to the future objective certainty of glory as founded in the will of God; Rom_8:18 (17)–27.
B. The future and objective certainty of glory.
The love for God by believers is the experience of God’s love for them. But therein lies the security of an omnipotent power for its completion—a power which nothing can oppose, but to which every thing must serve. The certainty of the decisive êëῆóéò is the centre and climax of the life, from which the groundwork, as well as the future of life, is glorified. It points backward to God’s purpose, and forward to its consummation. The periods between the pre-temporal, eternal purpose of God, and its future, eternal consummation, are the periods of the order of salvation (Rom_8:29). That this way of salvation leads through suffering to glory, according to the image of Christ’s life, is secured by the omnipotent decision with which “God is for” (Rom_8:31) His children—a decision which is secured by the gift of Christ for them, by their justification, their reconciliation, redemption, and exaltation in Christ; in a word, by the love of Christ. This love leads them in triumph through all the temptations of the world, because it is the expression of Christ’s own conquest of the world (Rom_8:28-37).
C. The unity of the subjective and objective certainty of future glory in the glorious life of love already attained.
Life in the love of Christ is exalted above all the powers of the world (Rom_8:38-39).—Kindred sections: John 17.; 1 Corinthians 15., and others.
Tholuck: “This inheritance will far outweigh all suffering, and must be awaited with steadfast hope (Rom_8:18-27). But as far as we are concerned, we can suffer no more injury; the consciousness of God’s love in Christ rests upon so impregnable a foundation, that nothing in the whole universe can separate ‘him’ from it” (Rom_8:28-39).—Meyer finds, in Rom_8:18-31, “grounds of encouragement for the óõìðÜó÷åéí , ἲíá êóõíäïî . To wit: 1. The future glory will far outweigh the present suffering (Rom_8:18-25). 2. The Holy Spirit supports us (Rom_8:26-27). 3. Every thing must work together for good to them that love God” (Rom_8:28-31). Undoubtedly these things are grounds of encouragement; yet the Apostle evidently designs to encourage by a copious and conclusive didactic exposition of the certainty of the Christian’s hope of future glory, in face of the great apparent contradictions of this hope—an exposition which, in itself, has great value.
[Alford (Rom_8:18-30): “The Apostle treats of the complete and glorious triumph of God’s elect, through sufferings and by hope, and the blessed renovation of all things in and by their glorification.” (Rom_8:31-39): “The Christian has no reason to fear, but all reason to hope; for nothing can separate him from God’s love in Christ.”—Hodge, making the theme of the chapter “the security of the believer,” finds, in Rom_8:18-28, a proof of this “from the fact that they are sustained by hope, and aided by the Spirit, under all their trials; so that every thing eventually works together, for their good.” In Rom_8:29-30, another proof “founded on the decree or purpose of God.” In Rom_8:31-39, yet another, founded “on His infinite and unchanging love.”—R.]
Insignificant, ïὐê ἂîéá , not of weight; a stronger expression for ἀíÜîéá . They are not synonymous. The íῦí êáéñüò is the final, decisive time of development, with which the áἰὼí ïὗôïò will terminate.
In comparison with the glory which shall be revealed [ ðñὸò ôὴí ìÝëëïõóáí äüîáíἀðïêáëõöèῆíáé . On ðñüò after ïὐê ἂîéá , in the sense of in relation to, in comparison with, see Tholuck, Philippi in loco.—R.] Ôὴí ìÝëëïõóáí is antecedent, with emphasis. [To this Alford objects]. That glory is ever approaching, and therefore ever near at hand, though Paul does not regard its presence near in the sense of Meyer, and others.—In us [see Textual Note1]. The åἰò ἡìᾶò does not mean, as the Vulgate and Beza have it, in nobis [so E. V.]; it is connected with the ἀðïêáëõöèῆíáé . If it is imparted through the inward life of believers and through nature, it nevertheless comes from the future and from above, as much as from within outwardly, and it is a Divine secret from eternity in time—therefore ἀðïêἀëõøéò .
Rom_8:19. For the patient expectation [ ἡãὰñ ἀðïêáñá äïêßá . On ἀðïêáñáäïêßá . comp. Php_1:20. The verb êáñáäïêåῖí means, literally, to expect with uplifted head; then, to expect. The noun, strengthened by ἀðü , refers to an expectation, which is constant and persistent until the time arrives. The idea of anxiety (Luther) is not prominent. (So Tholuck, Philippi, De Wette, Meyer.) See below also. Tholuck remarks, that the strengthening of the attributive notion into a substantive makes a double prosopopœia, “not only the creature, but the expectation of the creature waits.”—R.] The ãὰñ introduces the first proof of his statement from the course of the whole êôßóéò . It may be asked, Shall the future glory be shown in its grandeur (Chrysostom [Hodge, Alford], and most expositors), its certainty (Fritzsche, Meyer), its nearness (Reiche), or its futurity (Philippi)? Tholuck, in its grandeur and certainty. If both must combine in one idea, then it is the truth or the reality of the glory, as such. The elements of its grandeur, as of its certainty, are united in the fact that the developing pain of the external êôßóéò , as of the inward life of believers—indeed, the groaning of the Divine spiritual life itself—labors for it and points toward it; that it will consist in the removal of all vanity and corruption in the whole natural sphere of mankind.
Of the creation, ôῆò êôßóåùò . The great question is, What is the êôßóéò ? Lexically, the word may mean the act of creation, as well as what is created, the creation; but actually, the question here can only be the creation in the broader or more limited sense. Tholuck: “ êôßóéò in the passive sense can mean the same as êôßóìá , the single creature; Rom_8:39; Heb_4:13. Ἡ êôßóéò , Book of Wis_2:6; Wis_16:24; Heb_9:11; or even ὂëç ἡ êôßóéò , Book of Wis_19:6; ðᾶóá ἡ êôßóéò , Jdt_16:17, the created world. But in that case, as also with ὂëïò ὁ êüóìïò (Joh_12:19), it is metonymically confined to the human world (Col_1:23; Mar_16:15; and also with the Rabbis, áְּøִéàָä ëּì , &c.), or to irrational nature, exempting man.”
The explanations are divided into different groups:
1. The natural and spiritual world. The universe. Origen: Man as subject to corruption; souls of the stars. Theodoret: also the angels. Theodore of Mopsvestia, Olshausen: The whole of the universe. Köllner, Koppe, Rosenmüller(tota rerum universitas).
2. Inanimate creation. (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, Beza, Fritzsche: mundi machina.)
3. Animate creation. a. Humanity (Augustine, Turretine, &c.; Baumgarten-Crusius: still unbelieving men); b. unconverted heathen (Locke, Light-foot, and others). Rabbinical usage of language: the heathen: ëְּøִéàָä ; c. the Jewish people, because the Jews were called God’s creation (Cramer, and others); d. the Gentile Christians, because the proselytes were called new creatures (Clericus, Nösselt); e. Jewish Christians (Gockel; for the same reason as under c.); f. Christians in general ( êáéíὴ êôßóéò , Socinians and Arminians).—Evidently there is no reference, on one hand, to the mathematical or astronomical character of the heavenly bodies, nor, on the other, to the real rational or spiritual world, but to a creature-life, which can groan and earnestly expect.
4. Inanimate and animate nature, in contradistinction from humanity (Irenæus, Grotius, Calovius, Neander, Meyer, De Wette) [Hodge, Alford].—[Schubert: “Even in the things of the bodily world about us there is a life-element which, like that statue of Memnon, unconsciously sounds in accord when touched by the ray from on high.”—P. S.] But the distinction from mankind must be confined to the distinction from the spiritual life of renewed mankind; for sinful mankind is utterly dependent upon nature, and even believers have their natural side (2Co_5:1 ff.). Nor can the universe, in its merely natural side, be altogether meant, since the Holy Scriptures distinguish a region of glory from the region of humanity in this life.
5. Tholuck: “The material world surrounding man.” The Scriptures very plainly distinguish between an earthly natural world related to mankind, and a region of glory. (See the ascension; 1 Corinthians 15; Heb_9:11, &c.) The former alone is subject to vanity, and hence it alone can be intended. But there is no ground for making divisions in reference to this human natural world. The Apostle assumes, rather, that this creature-sphere is in a state of collective, painful striving for development, which expresses itself as sensation only proportionately to the sensational power of life, and hence is more definitely expressed, appears more frequently, and reaches its climax in living creatures and in the natural longing which mankind feels (2Co_5:1). The real personification of nature in man is the final ground for the poetical personification of nature.
[6. The whole creation, rational as well as irrational, not yet redeemed, but needing and capable of redemption, here opposed to the new creation in Christ and in the regenerate. The children of God appear, on the one side, as the first-fruits of the new creation, and the remaining creatures, on the other, as consciously or unconsciously longing after the same redemption and renewal. This explanation seems to be the most correct one. It most satisfactorily accounts for the expressions: expectation, waiting, groaning, not willingly (Rom_8:20), and the whole creation (Rom_8:22). The whole creation, then, looks forward to redemption; all natural birth, to the new birth. As all that is created proceeded from God, so it all, consciously or unconsciously, strives after Him as its final end. What shows itself in nature as a dim impulse, in the natural man, among the heathen, and yet more among the Jews, under the influence of the law, comes to distinct consciousness and manifests itself in that loud cry after deliverance (Rom_7:24), which Christ alone can satisfy; and then voices itself in happy gratitude for the actual redemption. Olshausen aptly says: “Paul contrasts Christ, and the new creation called forth by Him, to all the old creation, together with the unregenerate men, as the flower of this creation. The whole of this old creation has one life in itself, and this is yearning for redemption from the bonds which hold it, and hinder its glorification; this one yearning has forms different only according to the different degrees of life, and is naturally purer and stronger in unregenerate men than in plants and animals; in them, the creation has, as it were, its mouth, by which it can give vent to its collective feeling. Yet the most of these men know not what the yearning and seeking in them properly mean; they understand not the language of the Spirit in them; nay, they suppress it often, though it is, meanwhile, audible in their heart; and what they do not understand themselves, God understands, who listens even to prayers not understood. But however decided the contrast between the old and new creation, yet they may not be considered as separated thoroughly. Rather, as the new man, in all distinctness from the old, still is in the old, so is the new creation (Christ, and the new life proceeding from Him) in the old world. The old creation, therefore, is like an impregnate mother (comp. Rom_8:23), that bears a new world in her womb—a life which is not herself, neither springs from her, but which, by the overmastering power that dwells in it, draws her life, with which it is connected, on and on into itself, and changes it into its nature, so that the birth (the completion of the new world) is the mother’s death (the sinking of the old).”—P. S.]
[This last view seems to be that of Dr. Lange himself. It is ably defended by Forbes, pp. 310–330. The limitation to creation, as capable of redemption, implies that only so much of creation as is linked with the fall of man, and subject to the curse, should be included. Thus it differs from 1. Col_1:20, however, gives a hint as to the extent of this connection with man. The context renders such a limitation necessary. On the other hand, it differs from 4, in including man in his fallen condition. The reasons for excluding humanity have been given above. It will appear that, against this view, they are of comparatively little weight. Certainly the burden of proof rests with those who adopt 4; for man is the head of the creation, to which they apply êôὺóéò ; not merely as the final and crowning work of the repeated creative agency which brought it into being, but as the occasion of its present groaning condition. Besides, man, viewed on one side of his nature, is a part of this material and animal creation. It seems arbitrary to sunder him from it in this case. At all events, we may admit that his material body involuntarily shares in this expectation, to which his unregenerate soul responds with an indefinite longing. In this view the degradation of sin is fearfully manifest. Nature waits, but the natural man is indifferent or hostile. The very body which, in his blindness, he deems the source of sin, waits for glorification, while his soul uses its power over it to stifle the inarticulate desire. On the whole subject, see Usteri, Stud, und Krit., 1832, pp. 835 ff., Tholuck, Meyer in loco, Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych., pp. 57 ff. and pp. 476 ff. (a most profound and eloquent sermon on Rom_8:18-23). Comp. Doctr. Notes, and Dr. Lange, Das Land der Herrlichkeit.—R.]
For the earnest expectation of the creature. As the êáñáäïêåῖí means, strictly, to expect with raised head, it is very proper to regard the êáñáäïêßá (intense expectation), and the ἀðïêáñáäïêßá (Php_1:20) (intense longing, waiting for satisfaction), as an allusion to the conduct of irrational creatures in reference to the future transformation of the sphere of nature.
Is waiting [ ἀðåêäÝ÷åôáé . Here, also, the preposition implies the continuance of the waiting until the time arrives.—R.] Even the poor creatures, whose heads are bowed toward the ground, now seized by a higher impulse, by a supernatural anticipation and longing, seem to stretch out their heads and look forth spiritually for a spiritual object of their existence, which is now burdened by the law of corruption. Certainly this representation has the form of a poetical personification; but it cannot, on this account, be made equivalent, as Meyer holds (p. 255), to the usual prosopopœias in the Old Testament, although these declare, in a measure, the sympathy between the natural and human world. Meyer would exclude from the idea not only the angelic and demoniac kingdom, but also Christian and unchristian mankind. But how, then, would Paul have understood the groaning of the creature, without human sympathy?
The revelation of the sons (children) of God [ ôὴí ἀðïêἀëõøéí ôῶí õἱῶí ôïῦ èåïῦ ]. The children of God in the pregnant sense of His sons. The creature waits for its manifestation; that is, for the coming of its äüîá to full appearance (1Jn_3:2) with the coming of Christ (Mat_25:31), which will be the appearing of the äüîá of the great God (Tit_2:13); therefore the absolute ἀðïêÜëõøéò itself, the fulfilment of all the typical prophecies of nature—and not only as complete restoration, but also as perfect development.
Rom_8:20. For the creation was made subject [ ἡ êôßóéò ὑðåôÜãç . Dr. Lange takes the verb as middle. It is the historical aorist, at the fall of man. See below. Comp. Gen_3:17-18.—R.]. God was the one who subjected (so say most expositors)—[This is evident from the curse, if the reference be to the time of the fall.—R.];—not Adam (Knachtb., Capellus); nor man (Chrysostom, Schneckenburger); nor the devil (Hammond).
To vanity. Ìáôáéüôçò . The Septuagint, instead of çֶëֶì , ùָׁøְà , øִé÷ . The word does not occur in the profane Greek; it means the superficial, intangible, and therefore deceptive appearance; the perishable and doomed to destruction having the show of reality. Earlier expositors (Tertullian, Bucer, and others) have referred the word to the ìἁôáéá = idols, understanding it as the deification of the creature. Yet the question here is a condition of the creature to which God has subjected it. Further on it is designated as äïõëåßá ôῆò öèïñᾶò . Therefore Fritzsche’s definition, perversitas (Adam’s sin), is totally untenable. But what do we understand by “subject to ìáôáéüôçò ”? Explanations:
1. An original disposition of creation; the arrangement of the corruption of the creature. (Grotius, Krehl, De Wette. Theodoret holds that the original arrangement was made with a view to the fall.)
2. A result of the fall of man. (The Hebrew theology, Berechith Rabba, many Christian theologians: Œeumenius, Calvin, Meyer, and others). No. 1 is opposed by the ὑðåôÜãç , &c. [by ïὐ÷ åêïῦóá , ἀëëÜ , which presupposes a different previous condition, and by the historical fact (Gen_1:31); Meyer.—R.]; and No. 2 by the originality of the arrangement between a first created and a second spiritual stage of the cosmos (1Co_15:47-48).
3. We must therefore hold, that Paul refers to the obscurity and disturbance of the first natural stage in the development of our cosmos produced by the fall. As, in redemption, the restoration occurred simultaneously with the furtherance of the normal development, so death entered, at the fall, as a deterioration of the original metamorphoses, into the corruption of transitoriness. Tholuck approaches this explanation by this remark: “As the Rabbinical theology expresses the thought that man, born sinless, would have passed into a better condition ‘by a kiss of the Highest,’ so, in all probability, has Paul regarded that ὰëëáãῆíáé of which he speaks in 1Co_15:52 as the destination of the first man.” Yet Tholuck seems, in reality, to adhere to De Wette’s view.
Not willingly. The ïὐ÷ ἑêïῦóá cannot mean merely the natural necessity peculiar to the creature-world; it applies rather to an opposition of ideal nature, in its ideal pressure toward development, to the decrees of death and of the curse of their real developing progress (Genesis 3; 2Co_5:1 ff.). Bucer: Contra quam fert ingenium eorum, a natura enim omnes res a corruptione abhorrent.
[But by reason of him who hath subjected it, ἀëëὰ äéὰ ôὸí ὑðïôÜîáíôá . Dr. Lange renders: the creature-world subjected itself to vanity, not willingly, but on account of Him who subjected it, in hope. The force of äéÜ with the accusative is on account of; but the E. V. is correct, indicating a moving cause—i. e., the will of God.—R.] This unwillingness is expressed, according to what follows, in the groaning of the whole creation. The translation: “it was made subject ( ὑðåôÜãç , passive), by reason of Him who hath subjected the same,” is opposed to the logical conception. [The simplest grammatical as well as logical interpretation accepts the verb as passive, with a reference to God as “Him who subjected the same.” (So Meyer, Tholuck, Hodge, De Wette, Alford, and most commentators.)—R.] Moreover, the reference of the äéὰ ôὸí ὑðïôÜîáíôá to man, to Adam, does not remove this logical difficulty, since, in that case, the ὑðåôÜãç would have to relate to another subject than the ὑðïôÜîáíôá . We therefore find ourselves driven, with Fritzsche, to the middle construction of ὑðåôÜãç . Thereby we gain the idea, that even the disharmony which nature had suffered has become, in turn, a kind of order, since nature has been found in the service of corruption by virtue of its elasticity, relative dependence, plasticity, and pliability, and its absolute dependence upon God; and pious nature is all the dearer to God because it is subjected in hope. [So Hodge, accepting the middle sense: the creature submitted to the yoke of bondage in hope of ultimate deliverance.—R.]
[In hope, ἐð ’ ἐëðßäé . Not precisely in a state of, which would be expressed by ἐí , but resting on hope (De Wette: auf Hoffnung hin).—R.] This means not merely, “hope was left to it” (Tholuck), but it is also a motive of positive hope in suffering nature. Just as the fallen human world shall be led in its ἀðïêáôÜóôáóéò beyond its primitive paradisaical glory, so shall nature come through this humiliation to a richer elevation, namely, as the transformed organism of the glorified Christ and His joint-heirs. The ἐð ’ ἐëðßëäé must be joined with ὑðåôÜãç , not with äéὰ ô . ὑðïô . (Vulgate, Luther, and others). [The question of connection is a difficult one. Of the two views here mentioned, Dr. Lange rightly prefers the former, since the latter would attribute the hope to the one subjecting, not the one subjected
(Alford). Ewald, making all that precedes in this verse parenthetical, joins in hope with Rom_8:19, and thus finds a reason for the emphatic repetition of êôßóéò in Rom_8:21. See Textual Note, where the view of Forbes is given. It seems to give greater clearness to the passage as a whole.—R.]
Rom_8:21. That the creation itself also [ ὂôé êáὶ áὑôὴ ἡ êôßóéò . See Textual Note5. The current of exegesis sets strongly in favor of the view which connects ὂôé with ἐð ’ ἐëðßäé , in the sense of that. Alford, who, in his commentary, defends because, is one of the authors of a revision which adopts that. Meyer suggests that the purport of the hope must be given, in order to prove the expectation of the êôßóéò as directed precisely toward the manifestation of the sons of God. Alford indeed objects, that this subjective signification of the clause would attribute “to the yearnings of creation, intelligence and rationality—consciousness of itself and of God;” but the same objection might be urged against the reference of êôßóéò to inanimate creation, in Rom_8:19-20; Rom_8:22, as well as here. If the figurative idea of longing be admitted at all, it may be carried out to this extent with equal propriety. The repetition may be readily accounted for, either by considering Rom_8:20 parenthetical, or by regarding áὐôὴ ἡ êôßóéò as emphatic.—R.] This explains the hope of the creature-world introduced in the preceding verse. With Chrysostom, Theophylact, and others, we regard the êáὶ áὑôὴ as a higher degree, itself also, and not merely as an expression of equality, also it. Meyer says, that the context says nothing of gradation. But the gradation lies essentially in the fact that the creature-world constitutes a humiliation in opposition to spiritual life, especially for contemplating the old world.
Shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption [ ἐëåõèåñùèÞóåôáé ἀðὸ ôῆò äïõëåßáò ôῆò öèïñᾶò ]. We do not hold (with Tholuck, Meyer, and others) that ôῆò öèïñᾶò is the genitive of apposition. For the question is, in the first place, concerning a bondage under vanity; so that the creature, even in its deliverance, will remain in a state of the äïõëåßá in relation to the children of God himself. The öèüñá is not altogether the same as ìáôáéüôçò , but its manifestation in the process of finite life in sickness, death, the pangs of death, and corruption; while the ìáôáéüôçò , as such, is veiled in the semblance of a blooming, incorruptible life. [There seems to be no good reason for objecting to the view of Tholuck, Meyer, Philippi, and others, that the bondage, which results from the vanity, and is borne not willingly (Rom_8:20), consists in corruption. This preserves the proper distinctions. The corruption is the consequence of the vanity; the unwilling subjection to a condition which is under vanity, and results in corruption, is well termed bondage.—R.] The alteration of the expression öèüñá into an adjective, “corruptible bondage” (Köllner), is as unwarranted as the translation of the ἐëåõèåñßá ôῆò äüîçò by glorious liberty (Luther [E. V.]).
[Into the freedom of the glory of the children of God, åἰò ôὴí ἐëåõèåñßáí ôῆò äüîçò ôῶí ôÝêíùí ôïῦ èåïῦ . The construction is pregnant. (So Meyer: Aecht Griechische Prügnanz. See Winer, p. 577.) We may supply: êáὶêáôáóôáèÞóåôáé , or åßòá÷èÞóåôáé , shall be brought or introduced into, &c. The freedom is to consist in, or at least to result from a share in, the glory of the children of God. Hence the hendiadys of the E. V. (glorious liberty) is totally incorrect. It makes the most prominent idea of the whole clause a mere attributive. Besides, were the meaning that expressed by the E. V., we should find this form: åἰò ôὴí äüîáí ôῆò ἐëåõèåñßáò ôῶí ôÝê . ô . èåïῦ .—R.] The åἰò ôὴí ἐëåõèåñßáí can mean only the sharing in the liberty of God’s children by the organic appropriation on their part, and by the equality with the children of God produced by means of the transformation; but it cannot mean an independent state of liberty beside them. Their freedom will consist in its helping to constitute the glory, the spiritualized splendor of the manifestation of God’s children. As Christ is the manifestation of God’s glory because He is illuminated throughout by God, and the sons of God are the glory of Christ as lights from His light, so will nature be the glory of God’s sons as humanized and deified nature. Yet we would not therefore take the ôῆò äüîçò as the genitive of apposition, since the glory proceeds outwardly from within, and since it is here promised to nature as recompense, so to speak, in opposition to the corruption. It shall therefore share, in its way, in the glory belonging to God’s children. But why is not the ἀöèáñóßá , incorruption, mentioned (1Co_15:45), in opposition to the öèüñá , corruption? Because the idea of corruption has been preceded by that of vanity. The real glory of the manifestation in which its inward incorruption shall hereafter be externally revealed, is contrasted with the deceptive, transitory glory of the manifestation in which the creature-world in this life appears subject to vanity. The elevation of the children of God themselves from the condition of corruption to the condition of glorification, constitutes the centre of the deliverance into this state of glory; but the creature is drawn upward in this elevation, in conformity with its dynamical dependence on the centre, and its organic connection with it.
Rom_8:22. For we know that the whole creation [ ïἲäáìåí ãὰñ ὂôé ðᾶóá ἡ êôßóéò ]. The Apostle furnishes, in Rom_8:22, for we know, the proof of the declaration in Rom_8:21. Since he has proved the proposition of Rom_8:19 by Rom_8:20, and of Rom_8:20 by Rom_8:21, Meyer, without ground, goes back with this for to Rom_8:20 : ἐð ’ ἐëðßäé ; De Wette [Philippi], to Rom_8:19. [If Rom_8:21 be taken as stating the purport of the hope, then Meyer’s view is the most tenable one. Philippi finds here a more general affirmation of the existence of the “patient expectation,” as an admitted truth.—R.]
Tholuck asks, Whence does the Apostle have this we know? and he opposes the view that it is an assumption of the universal human consciousness (according to most expositors), or rather, that the Apostle seems (according to Bucer, Brenz) to speak from the Jewish-Christian hope which rested on the prophets, as, even in Rom_2:2; Rom_3:19; Rom_7:14; Rom_8:28, the ïἲäáìåí is understood best as the Christian consciousness. We must not subject the Apostle to the modern sense of nature. But we can still less reduce the Apostle’s knowledge to that of the prophets. The modern sense of nature, in its sound elements, is a fruit of apostolical Christianity; and as the harmony between spirit and nature has been essentially consummated in Christ, so, too, has the knowledge of the language (that is, the spiritual meaning) of nature been consummated in Him—a knowledge which was reproduced in the apostles as a fountain, and ready for enlargement. This knowledge is, indeed, universally human chiefly in elect souls alone, under the condition of Divine illumination.
Groaneth together and travaileth in pain together [ óõíóôåíÜêåé Æáὶ óõíùäßíåé ]. The óõí in óõíóôåíÜæåé and óõíùäßíåé has been referred, by Œeumenius, Calvin, and others, to the children of God; Köllner, and others, have viewed it as a mere strengthening of the simple word. Tholuck and Meyer explain it, in harmony with Theodore of Mopsvestia, as a collective disposition of the creature. The latter: âïῦëåôáé äὲ åἰðåῖí , ὂôé óýìöùíïò ἐðéäåßêíõôáé ôïῦôï ðᾶóá ἡ êôßóéò . Estius: genitus et dolor communis inter se partium creaturœ. On the linguistic tenableness of this explanation, by accepting the presumed organization of nature in single parts, see Meyer, against Fritzsche. It is, indeed, against the reference of the óõí to the groaning of Christians that this groaning is introduced further on as something special.
Reiche holds that óõíùäßíåé refers to the eschatological expectation of the Jews, the çֶëֶìֵéÎäַîַּùֵéçַ , dolores messiœ; against which Meyer properly observes, that those dolores messiœ are special sufferings which were to precede the appearance of the Messiah; but the travailing of nature had taken place from the beginning, since Gen_3:17. Yet Tholuck remarks, with propriety, that the Apostle must have been acquainted with that term of Rabbinical theology. Likewise the developing suffering of nature will ascend toward the end to a decisive crisis (see the eschatological words of Jesus). But the “dolores messiœ” comprise also ethical conflicts. Therefore this continuous travailing of the world’s development is related to the dolores messiœ, as the preparation is to the fulfilment, or as the judgment of the world, immanent in the history of the world, is related to the final catastrophe. The ὠäßíåéí denotes the birth-pangs of a woman in labor. The figure is happily chosen, not only because it announces a new birth and new form of the earth, but because it reflects in travailing Eve the fate of the travailing earth, and vice versâ. Tholuck: “By pain, it will wrest the new out of the old; perhaps óôåíÜæåéí has reference to bringing forth (comp. Jer_4:31), but better, as Luther explains the óôåíáãìïß , Rom_8:26, the groaning, earnest expectation, which is intensified by the being in travail which follows.” Yet the groaning also indicates the painful announcement of positive sufferings, which subsequently arise from the groaning of Christians for redemption ( óôåíÜæïìåí âáñïýìåíïé , 2Co_5:4).
[Until now, ἂ÷ñé ôïῦ íῦí . Any reference to the future is forbidden by the use of ïἲäáìåí , which refers to experience (Alford). While it is not necessary to insist upon an important distinction between ìÝ÷ñé and ἂ÷ñé (see p. 181), it would seem best to consider that the idea of duration is the prominent one here. If any point of time is emphasized, it must be that of the beginning of the groaning, when the curse of wearying labor and travail came upon man, and through him the curse upon nature.—R.]
Rom_8:23. And not only so, but even we ourselves [ ïὐ ìüíïí äÝ , ὰëëὰ êáὶ áὐôïß . See Textual Notes and7. The reading of the Vaticanusis followed here.] Meyer’s mode of stating the connection with the preceding verse is utterly incorrect: “Climax of the previous proof that the êôßóéò in Rom_8:21 is correct in the ἐð ’ ἐëðßäé , ὂôé . Even we Christians would, indeed, do nothing less than unite in that groaning.” The principal thought is, not the deliverance of the êôßóéò , Rom_8:20-21, but the future glory of the children of God, Rom_8:18. The first proof therefor is the groaning of nature; the second, which now follows, is the groaning of spiritual life. Therefore Christians do not unite in anywise in the groaning of creation, but vice versâ: the groaning of creation joins in the groaning of Christians. Consequently, we must not translate: “But also we (Christians) on our part,” &c., but: even we Christians ourselves—namely, we who are most intimately concerned. The expression êáὶ áὐôïὶ ἐí ἑáõôïῖò brings out prominently the truth that these same Christians, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, are also saved by hope, though at heart they must still groan and earnestly expect. Thus áὐôὸò ἐãὼ , in Rom_7:25, means: I, one and the same man, can be so different; with the mind I can serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. Tholuck: “The difference between the readings seems to have arisen rather from purposes of perspicuity or style.” Augustine, Chrysostom, and others, hold that the connection—in which the subject is Christians in general—is decidedly against the odd limitation of the áὐôïß to the apostles (Origen, Ambrose, Melanchthon, and Grotius. Reiche, and others: the Apostle Paul alone. Others: Paul, with the other apostles). The former expositors maintain that the second êáὶ ἡìåῖò áὐôïß consists, in a more intense degree, of the apostles. But the addition is rather occasioned by the contrast presented: saved, and yet groaning (“the inward life of Christians shines”).
Though we have the first-fruits of the Spirit [ ôὴí ἀðáñ÷ὴí ôïῦ ðíåýìáôïò ἒ÷ïíôåò . The participle may be taken as simply defining the subject: we ourselves, those who have (Luther, Calvin, Beza, Hodge); or be rendered: though we have, despite this privilege. The latter is more forcible; the former sense would require the article ïἱ (Tholuck, Philippi, Meyer, Alford). Ἀðáñ÷Þ in itself occasions no difficulty; it means first-fruits, with the implied idea of a future harvest. Comp., however, Rom_11:16.—R.] The ὰðáñ÷ὴ ôïῦ ðíåýì . is differently interpreted.
1. The genitive is partitive, having this sense: the apostles (they alone, according to Origen, ?cumenius, Melanchthon, and Grotius), and the Christians of the apostolic period, have the first foretaste of a spiritual endowment, which, when complete, will extend to all future Christians (De Wette, Köllner, Olshausen, Meyer). But by this division the Apostle would not only have adjudged to later Christians the full harvest of the Spirit, which is contrary to the real fact, but he would also have obscured rather than strengthened his argument by a superfluous remark. For it is a fact, which will ever remain perfectly the same from the time of the apostles to the end of the world, that the life of Christians in the Spirit is related to their physical perfection and glorification, as the firstlings are to the harvest. But the following division has just as little force.
2. Our present reception of the Spirit is only preliminary, in contrast with the future complete outpouring in the kingdom of heaven (Chrysostom, and others; also Huther, Calvin, Beza, Tholuck, Philippi [Hodge, Alford, Stuart]). Apart from the fact that this view is not altogether apostolical, it adds nothing to the matter in question, and removes the point of view: the inference of the future äüîá from the present ðíåῦìá .
3. Therefore the genitive of apposition. The Holy Spirit is himself the gift of the first-fruits, if the completion of Christian life is regarded as the harvest (Bengel, Winer, Rückert, and others). The Spirit is the earnest, ἀῤῥáâüéí , of the future perfection (2Co_1:22; 2Co_5:5; Gal_6:8). Eph_1:14; Eph_4:30; and 1Pe_4:14, ôὸ ðíåῦìá ôῆò äüîçò , are of special importance. Meyer’s only objection to this explanation is, that the Apostle’s expression would have been misunderstood, since the ἀðáñ÷ἠ would have to be understood as a part of a similar whole. But the sheaves offered as first-fruits are not merely the first portions of the first sheaves collectively; they are the precious tokens and sure pledges of the full harvest, to which they constitute, if we may so speak, a harmonious antithesis. But the äüîá must be regarded as commensurate with the spiritual life; yet not as a new and higher outpouring of the Spirit, but as the perfect epiphany of the operation of the Spirit. Tholuck admits, at least, that this third explanation is also admissible with the second. On the singular explanations of Fritzsche and Schneckenburger, see Meyer.
Even we ourselves groan within ourselves [ êáὶ áὐôïὶ ἐí ἑáõôïῖò óôåíÜæïìåí . We, although we have the first-fruits, are far from being complete; despite this, we groan within ourselves. The inward, profound nature of the feeling is thus emphasized.—R.] Groaning is the expression of the longing which feels that it is delayed in its course toward its object