25-The new life of the Justified and their splendid destiny
The new life of the Justified and their splendid destiny The redemption of which we spoke just now, the redemption which evokes the outburst of thankfulness, though in one aspect ‘potential,’ in another is ‘actual’ exceedingly. Right relation is restored between God and the believer. Thereby the believer passes from the peril of condemnation. This freedom from condemnation appears in the very opening of the memorable 8th chapter. The last clause of chap. 7 might have suggested that the peril still exists. But it ought not so to be. After all, it is only if the ‘flesh’ is allowed to prevail that any danger arises. And it need not be allowed; it must not be allowed. For hear what St Paul has to say!
8:1, 2. “There is then no condemnation for them that are ‘in Christ Jesus’; for the rule of the Spirit of Life hath freed thee, in Christ Jesus, from the rule of Sin and of Death.” The ‘then’ does not refer to what has gone just before. It looks further back-maybe to the end of chap. 5. The form of the word κατάκριμα may possibly be taken as individualising the result. It is not οὐδεμία κατάκρισις, which would be a general phrase stating an universal result, but it is οὐδὲν κατάκριμα, none for ‘you’ and none for ‘me.’ The σε (which I believe to be right, as in the older MSS.) tends likewise to the same conclusion. Τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ covers the thought of mystical incorporation. In v. 2, νόμος is used with the same wide-ranging freedom as in the last chapter. “The ‘Law’ of Sin and Death” does not mean the ‘law’ they impose, but the rule, the authority they exercise. We live under a new regime. Not Sin, not Death is master. There is another prevailing power. It is “the rule of the Spirit of Life.” In this last phrase it is possible that the two nouns are in apposition. For the Spirit is the Life. But a more probable explanation would be that “the Spirit of Life” is a phrase akin to “the Body of Death.” He is called “the Spirit of Life” because He gives new life, and makes a man καινὴ κτίσις.
Next follows a well-known crux. I would render it freely like this:
8:3. “For what the Law could not do-where the Law was weak through the ‘flesh’-God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and indeed for sin, achieved … He condemned sin in the flesh.”
Here be difficulties truly! not indeed in the two opening clauses; for they are plain enough. They are appositional phrases, the second explaining the first, to be taken in relation to the main pronouncement of the sentence. The Law would have ‘condemned sin’ (how, we will discuss directly), only human frailty stood in the way. It was the σάρξ that baffled the ‘Law,’ from this point of view.
“What the Law could not do …” suggests, as a contrast, “God did.” I venture to supply it. For, without some slight expansion, the sentence, to English ears, would tend to become meaningless. But the trouble does not end there. The sudden turn of the sentence, to be found in the word κατέκρινε, has this of awkwardness in it; to wit, that the act described by the word κατέκρινε was really the work of the Son, and not of the Father, unless we have recourse to the dogma of ‘coinherence’-which, I take it, we shall not do. But we have not yet arrived at κατέκρινε. There is a phrase which comes before that. God is said to have “sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.” The word ὁμοίωμα is used in Php 2:7 in speaking of the Incarnation. There it runs ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπου γενόμενος. As I have remarked before, in ὁμοίωμα there seems to lie an added idea of ‘reality.’ So here, Christ came “in the likeness of frail humanity.” The ‘likeness’ was real, complete; but it did not extend to the frailty, for frailty is not of the essence of humanity. Σάρξ does not here connote, in itself, any such conception: it is as in Colossians 1:22.
About καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας there is large controversy. Our revisers say “and as an offering for sin”: the American Committee, who frequently are right when they differ from our own body, very cautiously prefer “and for sin.” But what does it mean? If one refuses to believe in the ‘LXX’ usage here (περὶ ἁμαρτίας for ‘sin offering’: cf. Hebrews 10:3), the least that one can do is to say something which has a meaning. It might be “and with sin in view.” That would give the degree of vagueness, that is obviously desiderate, if ἐν τῇ σαρκί is explained as I for one think it should be. And now comes the greatest difficulty of them all; the interpretation of κατέκρινε τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἐν τῇ σαρκί.
Here S. says “condemned Sin by His flesh.” In the first place, that emphasises the point I remarked before as touching κατέκρινε, that it was the Son who κατέκρινε, strictly speaking. Or rather, it aggravates the difficulty of Persons: for ‘his’ must needs refer to the subject of the sentence; and that is the Father. Next, “in (or by) His flesh” would naturally mean “in His Life,” “by His Life,” on Earth. There would be no plain reference to death upon the cross. And that, I think, would destroy the explanation of S., that Christ ‘non-suited’ sin, for evermore, by His death. His idea is that Sin has no claim against a believing man, inasmuch as he shares Christ’s death. Because I cannot believe in this explanation of ἐν τῇ σαρκί-the explanation of κατέκρινε, by itself, would undoubtedly do admirably-I incline to another view.
It was not ‘sin’ Christ condemned, it was ‘sin in the flesh.’ That is, He demonstrated, for all eternity, the needlessness of sin. Up till then everyone had urged ‘humanum est errare.’ There are scores and scores of proverbs which condone all sorts of wrongdoing. ‘Ils le font tous,’ I have had said to me. But they do not! Christ did not! He lived in utter sinlessness. In a word, “He condemned sin-in-the-flesh.” It is not a question of ‘sin’ (that needs no condemnation) it is a question of sin in man. Is that excusable or is it not? Christ showed that it is not! What was the importance of this? It is very plain to see. As long as ever man held sin to be only natural: so long there was small chance of humankind attaining to aught of holiness. But ‘what man has done, man can do.’ And, at least, we cannot say, ‘It is hopeless for a man to try to live in holiness.’ Christ rises up before us in all His perfect innocence. He “condemned” sin. He condemns us too if we give way to it. The upshot (if you will, the upshot that was intended by the ‘Divine Love’ which sent the Son) is set forth in the very next verse:
8:4. “To the end that the claim of the Law might be fulfilled in the case of us that walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.” The δικαίωμα of the Law is what the Law demands as right. One would have looked for a plural here. It may be there is reference to some comprehensive precept, such as Levit. 11:45. If it were not for the manner in which the sentence ends, a wholly different sense might attach to the word. The δικαίωμα of the Law might be the death of the sinner; and that would have been ‘fulfilled’ (ἐν ἡμῖν) by the death of the Crucified. But plainly the δικαίωμα has to do with righteous living, and not with sin’s punishment. Δικαίωμα we have already had with manifold significations. In 1:32 it stood for ‘just decree’; in 2:26 (plur.) for ‘ordinances’; in 5:16 for ‘verdict of acquittal’; in 5:18 for ‘act of righteousness’; and here for ‘just demand’-a sense nearer 1:32 than any other. So the word is used five times, and always with a different meaning. Yet all are intelligible and readily derived from the root meaning and the formative element.
Πληρωθῇ reminds us again of 13:10. To “walk after the flesh” is a phrase that is fragrant of its origin. In our everyday speech it would be ‘live the lower life.’ In περιπατεῖν κατὰ πνεῦμα, the question suggests itself, what πνεῦμα? Having regard to κατὰ σάρκα (which must mean our lower nature) one would say, the ‘spirit’ is ours; it stands for the higher part of us, that part, thanks to which we enjoy our contact with the Divine; that part in us, which alone can be influenced by the Divine.
8:5-8. “For they that are ‘after the flesh’ are fleshly minded; and they that are ‘after the spirit’ are spiritually minded. The mind of the Flesh means death; contrariwise, the mind of the spirit means life and peace. The mind of the flesh, you see, means enmity towards God. For it does not submit itself to the Law of God; indeed it cannot: and they that are ‘in the flesh’ cannot please God.” In this there is little to trouble us. “After the flesh” and “in the flesh” are phrases both expressing surrender to the lower nature. The second is probably the stronger. In the one case the figure would seem to be that of following a guidance; in the other it is utter absorption. When you are “in the flesh” the lower nature masters you altogether. Φρονεῖν is a difficult term, and φρόνημα even harder-I mean, to render in English. As S. observes, the terms connote very much more than ‘reason.’ ‘Affections’ too and ‘will’ are covered by them. For the phrase φρονεῖν τὰ τῆς σαρκός, compare St Matthew 16:23 (οὐ φρονεῖς τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ), and Php 3:19 (οἱ τὰ ἐπίγεια φρονοῦντες). The φρόνημα of the flesh is that general attitude towards life, and all that is in it, which stamps the lower nature. It is identified with ‘death’ (In very much the same manner as ‘the rock’ In 1 Cor. is identified with Christ), because it leads to death unfailingly. It is also said to be ἔχθρα εἰς θεόν. That and death are, in the end, the same. God is Life; and that which is ungodly is ipso facto ‘death.’ Οὐχ ὑποτάσσεται (v. 7) describes the normal state of the ‘fleshly mind.’ As a habit, it does not bend or bow to the will of God. The verb one would call ‘deponent.’ Ἀρέσαι does not mean ‘please once’ but simply ‘please.’ The Apostle now gladly leaves the saddening contemplation of the ill case of the ungodly and terns to a brighter picture:
8:9, 10. “But you, you are not ‘in the flesh,’ but ‘in the spirit’; so surely as God’s Spirit dwells in you. But if anyone hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. On the other hand, if Christ be in you, although the body be dead, because it is sinful, the spirit is life indeed because.…”
It will be noted that though περιπατεῖν κατὰ πνεῦμα is to “live after one’s own higher nature,” in the expression εἶναι ἐν πνεύματι (seeing that ἐν πνεύματι undeniably signifies a dominating influence) the πνεῦμα is not our πνεῦμα, but the ‘Spirit’ which comes from God and in a sense is God. Εἶναι ἐν πνεύματι means to have God’s Spirit in one; or, in another form of speech, to have Christ in one. Πνεῦμα Θεοῦ πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, Χριστός, all three express the same thing. It is what we commonly call the ‘Indwelling Christ.’ The latter half of v. 10 is highly obscure. The ‘body’ is, we can understand (because it was and remains the σῶμα τοῦ θανάτου, owing to the σάρξ of it), ‘dead,’ in a mystical sense. There is nothing obscure in that. It sins; it has sinned; it is always liable to sin. We are here not very far from the ‘σῶμα σῆμα’ conception; though that is, to be sure, in no wise Pauline teaching. The ‘body,’ ex hypothesi, is our body; is the ‘spirit’ also our spirit? And if the body be νεκρός, because it has sin in it, is our spirit more than living, positively a source of life (ζωή), because the taint of sin in it has disappeared (διὰ δικαιοσύνην)? It is conceivable, but not likely.
If this idea is dismissed we have to face the plain alternative, which involves an awkward phenomenon. The ‘body’ remains your body, but the ‘spirit’ is no longer your spirit-even vitalised by God’s Spirit. It is now the Spirit of God which is ‘life’ essentially (even as Christ said of Himself, “I am the Life”); and the change from the thought of ‘you’ to the thought of God is somewhat startling in its very abruptness. Nor are we finished with questionings even now. The Spirit of God is Life; none questions that; but why “Life διὰ δικαιοσύνην”? Is it because, in Himself, the Spirit is altogether Holy? or, is it because His gracious influence makes you ‘holy’-or even in a lower sense ‘righteous’ (that is, keeps you right with God)? It is plain to see one could argue long about it. Anyhow, consideration calls for some revision of our paraphrase. Shall we alter it, and say this?
8:10 (bis). “And if Christ be in you; for all the body is dead, because it is sinful; yet the Spirit” (which is Christ) “is a source of Life.…”
Up to this point all goes smoothly. Then we have to make our choice, I should hold, between three renderings:
(1) “because He is wholly righteous”; though I believe that ‘righteousness’ is only a quality of God in a somewhat narrow range, (2) “because He will make you righteous,”
(3) “because you are at peace with God.” The third I hold to be right. The thought of the sanctifying power, which we associate with the Holy Spirit, is contained here in the word ζωή-and not in δικαιοσύνη. The believer can be sanctified because he is quit of guilt; because he is δίκαιος. That is a necessary foundation for the Spirit’s further work.
“The body is dead, because of sin; the spirit is life, because of righteousness”; so says our English. And I think it will have to stand. Yet, beyond all manner of doubt, it lies in very great need of explanation. Plain people clamour for more. They say, What does it mean? Or, worse still, they make haste to decide all unaided what it means; and are very likely wrong. But it may be said in reply, Well, so are so-called scholars. And that is also true: but at least they try to weigh conflicting theories. And the Spirit which is Christ’s, or Christ, is more than life-giving now. It brings with it the splendid promise of life surpassing life. And so we proceed:
8:11. “And if the Spirit of Him, who raised Jesus from the dead, do dwell in you; He that raised the Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, through His indwelling Spirit in you.”
Here we notice how the Risen One is named by two several names. The first time He is Jesus (a name full of hope for us, for it is His human name); the second time He is God’s Christ (and, as such, our Redeemer). It is curious that our MSS. have, some διά with the accusative, others διά with the genitive, at the end of this statement of hope. The latter is clearly preferable. It is not owing to the Spirit’s mere Presence, but because of His potent Presence, that we can look for resurrection. The authority of MSS. is said to be ‘evenly balanced.’
If then the πνεῦμα in us is so vitally important; if our very resurrection wholly depends on it; the moral is obvious. We must live ‘by’ and ‘in’ the πνεῦμα. All our actions must ever be subjected to His guidance, directed to one great end. Long ago in 1 Thess. the Apostle had given warning τὸ πνεῦμα μὴ σβέννυτε. That was in a narrow sense. Expand it to the fullest and you are in possession of life’s secret. There is no other. This is set before us now in language most plain and direct.
8:12, 13. “Accordingly, my brothers, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh-for, if you live after the flesh, you are on the road to death; but if by the spirit you slay the evil deeds of the body, you shall live.”
Once more we have a sentence broken off at the very start. “Not to the flesh,” it says. Then to what? We are never told. Engrossing ideas crowd in, and we have to tell ourselves-in this case an easy matter. Μελλετε ἀποθνήσκειν is no easy phrase to render. I have given what I think its force. Πνεύματι, brief as it is, really covers no less than this, “by living the spirit-life.” A somewhat similar instance occurs in Galatians 5:5. Πρᾶξις bears in other places the sense of ‘nefarious doing.’
Looked at from another point of view, the ‘spirit-life’ not only carries with it the promise of deathlessness, but is also the title to sonship.
8:14-17. “For, all that are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.…”
(And sons you are.)
“… For you have not received the slave-spirit, to relapse into craven fear; but you have received the spirit of sonship, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The very Spirit of God joins in witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. And if children, also heirs-God’s heirs and Christ’s coheirs; if so be we share His sufferings, that we may also have a share in His glory.” The ‘slave-spirit’ in this place is contrasted with the ‘spirit of sonship.’ The former is the mind with which the bondsman is forced to regard his master. The ‘son-spirit’ is something more. With regard to υἱοθεσία, it may be said: it comes five times in St Paul and never appears to carry any special sense of ‘adoption.’ Of course, we are not ‘sons,’ as Christ is Son. Yet υἱοθεσία means no more than ‘sonship.’ There is no other word, so far as I am aware, to express the idea. Plato would have coined υἱότης; and that would have been useless here; for it would have meant a different thing. What we want is the ‘status of son’: the πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας is the ‘spirit’ (it is almost the φρόνημα) of folks who have that status. The Jews knew nothing of adoption; and, I think, in our translations ‘adoption’ might well vanish. ‘Fear’ was our old condition, the fear of the ‘wrath’ of God. It does not comport with ‘sonship’; but only with the ‘slave status.’ Πάλιν εἰς φόβον is highly irregular; but S. is plainly right in taking it as equivalent to ὥστε πάλιν φοβεῖσθαι. Κράζειν connotes passion. Such an appeal was made by Christ in the Garden to His Father. I mean the writer of ‘Hebrews’ denominates it κραυγή. The cry, that is our cry, is the very cry of Jesus, Ἀββά, ὁ Πατήρ. In St Mark we have the same form. Christ was, all but certainly, bilingual Himself. It is difficult to account for the disappearance from our Liturgies of this traditional appeal. It plainly should be there. In v. 16 the sense would seem to be, our own spirit tells us we are God’s ‘children’; God’s Spirit, present in us, bears out our spirit. We have, in common English, no word that quite expresses the tender beauty of τέκνον. ‘Bairn’ does; but ‘bairn’ alas! has never won its way into ‘classical’ acceptance. But it is just the right word precisely parallel. The members of the family-the τέκνα or the υἱοί (which indeed is the usual term, when legal rights are in view)-are ipso facto ‘heirs.’ ‘Heirship,’ associated first with the ‘land,’ is a common O.T. idea, endorsed by the usage of Christ. The ‘joint-heirship’ seems to draw no distinction in ‘kind’ of heirship as between the ‘Son’ and the ‘sons.’
Συνπάσχομεν might refer to the mystical union in Christ’s Passion. However probably it does not. It speaks of that ὑπομονή by which ‘souls’ must be won. The ‘glory’ of Christ is regarded as one supreme event in which we may have a share. By contrast, the tense of συνπάσχωμεν describes a way long and hard-the path of the bitter Cross.
Yet why need a Christian man take any thought of suffering? With this inspiring thought we pass into that great passage which, in its majestic working up to a climax truly magnifical, may very well be regarded as the most splendid in all the Epistles.
8:18-21. “For I reckon that (all) the sufferings of the time that is now are nothing worth, compared with the glory that shall be revealed-aye, reach to us.”
“For the earnest expectation of all creation is eagerly looking for the revelation of God’s sons. Creation was made subject, you know, to disappointment; not of its own free will, but because of Him who subjected it, with a hope that creation itself shall be freed from the thraldom of constant failure, and enter on the glorious freedom that belongs to the children of God.”
One hardly likes to comment at all on a passage like this. Τὰ παθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ indicates that the suffering of συνπάσχομεν, just above, is literal hardship, such as falls to the lot of sincere believers in most ages. The order of the words that come at the end of the sentence is strictly ‘classical,’ save for εἰς ἡμᾶς. That is an appendix. Its addition and its form are both characteristically Pauline. Καραδοκεῖν (a curious formation) means to ‘watch intently.’ The compound noun is said to be common in later Greek. How far the force of the term has worn away with years, we cannot tell. Both times it occurs in St Paul it seems to carry an intense meaning. The κτίσις is the creation (by which St Paul probably meant our world), in the Vulgate creatura. This creation has had a ‘fall’: it has been condemned to ineffectiveness. The teaching is derived from the story of Genesis. Ματαιότης, in English, would be represented by ‘futility.’ ‘Vanitati’ is again Vulgate. The conception is that the world is ashamed of its ineffectiveness; it would like to be vastly better. But it cannot; it may not be so. The Will of the great Creator has said ‘no’ to its ambition. And it did do better once, before it was ‘cursed.’ Time was when its Maker pronounced it ‘very good.’ But this doom imposed upon it is neither imposed capriciously, nor bars the door to hope. Ἐφʼ ἑλπίδι-the spelling is familiar in the Catacombs-goes, of course, with ὑπετάγη, which it happily modifies. Man is the firstborn of nature. He has anon his redemption (reserved to the ‘sons of God,’ who are ἀπαρχή τις τῶν αὐτοῦ κτισμάτων, James 1:18); and when that redemption comes, the poor world’s will come as well. For man’s sake the earth was cursed; but when man is redeemed and enters once for all upon his glorious freedom, then all reason for earth’s curse will have disappeared and she will have her δόξα. The coming of the glory of God’s redeemed is called a ‘revelation,’ an ‘unveiling.’ It is then the ‘image of God’ will stand out unmistakeable.
Meanwhile there is eager waiting for man and all creation, waiting and even groaning. The δουλεία of φθορά is not very happily rendered by the ‘bondage of corruption.’ ‘Corruption’ suggests putrescence. This φθορά is merely ‘spoiling,’ the deterioration which disappoints a happy promise-for the earth does promise well.
8:22-25. “For we are sure the whole Creation groans together, aye travails together, and always has. Yes, and also we ourselves, though we enjoy the Spirit as a firstfruit, I say we ourselves groan within ourselves, looking forward to the sonship, the redemption of the body.”
“For hope it was we were saved. Now a hope that is realised is not a hope. For none hopes for what he sees. But if we hope for that we do not see, we have courage in the waiting.” When the whole Creation is said to “groan together,” it means that there goes up from it an universal groan. Συνωδίνει may describe any agonising pain: here however the ‘birth’ metaphor (as in Jesus Christ’s own saying) is not improbably present. In v. 23 ‘the Spirit,’ that is, the gift of the Spirit to man, which came after Christ’s Ascension, is said to be an ἀπαρχή of our future inheritance. In 2 Cor. 1 and 5 it is called an ἀρραβῶν. The phrase there is just as here. In the one case we have ‘a firstfruit in the Spirit’; in the other ‘an earnest in the Spirit.’ In either case the πνεύματος is an appositional genitive. In Ephes. 1:14 the Holy Spirit is called the “earnest of our inheritance.” It is a pledge and proof that one day we shall have it all.
Creation groans; we groan. It is the full ‘sonship’ that we want; for that ‘sonship’ brings with it the ‘bodily redemption.’ It is then, as we conceive, that the body, in Pauline phrase, will become πνευματικόν. In v. 24 we find theological doctors differing not a little with regard to τῇ ἐλπίδι. The old view was solid for “by hope.” But that is hardly defensible. ‘Faith’ or ‘grace,’ as you chance to regard it from man’s side or from God’s, is the medium of ‘saving.’ And moreover this act of faith, or this giving of God’s grace, is a something now behind us. The ‘hope’ must lie in front, if it is to correspond to St Paul’s statement just below. Therefore “by hope” it cannot be. “In hope” enjoys the preference of the American company. “With hope” might, perhaps, be better-a ‘comitative’ dative. “For hope” has a good deal to be said for it. In Galatians 5:1 we have a similar dative: and there, as well as here, the rendering ‘for’ suits best. It appears to be employed, as if it were ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι, like ἐπʼ ἐλευθερίᾳ. The latter is actually found in Galatians 5:13. The ἐσώθημεν refers to the earlier ‘redemption,’ the redemption of δικαίωσις.
Ἐλπὶς βλεπομένη I have made bold to paraphrase by “a hope that is realised.” In English we cannot ‘see’ a ‘hope’: we can ‘see’ the thing we hope for. The variants in this verse do not affect the sense in the least. I have followed the R.V. reading. It matters not whether one says “none hopes for,” or “there is no need to hope for.” And that represents the amount of divergence in the readings. In v. 25, I should say, the stress must lie not on ἀπεκδεχόμεθα, but on διʼ ὑπομονῆς. I have rendered it accordingly. One can afford to wait; one can afford to show courage in waiting, if one has a real ‘hope’-a hope like the Christian one.
Ὑπομονή, by the way, is the Christian form of ἀνδρεία. The latter word does not occur in the whole of N.T. Maybe it was rejected from the faith’s vocabulary because of its arrogant sound. St Paul does use ἀνδρίζεσθαι in one place, but only once.
We now pass into a section of a highly esoteric character, in the course of which we first touch on one especial way in which the Spirit helps us; and shortly after deal for a time with the puzzling problem of predestination. Let us take these two topics separately.
8:26. “And, acting as we act, the Spirit also lends His aid to our infirmities. For how we should pray aright, we are not sure: but the Spirit Himself intercedes on our behalf, with groanings not in words.”
It may well be thought that here there is some sort of reference to the strange gift of ‘glossolaly.’ When that was displayed ‘in Church,’ mysterious sounds were poured forth, sometimes intelligible, and also sometimes not. These may have been sometimes of the nature of στεναγμοί. Ἀλάλητος is a hard word. If is only here in N.T. (Liddell and Scott in their Lexicon give one reference from the Anthology.) It ought to mean ‘past telling,’ and the Vulgate in this place says inexenarrabilibus. The natural rendering, therefore, is “with groanings terrible.” And indeed it is easy to see that there would be a something terrifying in a paroxysm of ‘glossolaly,’ in which the unwitting speaker should outwardly seem to be in a very agony of fervent supplication. In a general way, however, the reference is thought to be to ‘unuttered,’ or ‘mute,’ pleadings, of which man has, and can have; no cognisance whatever. Or again, there are who think that these groanings of the Spirit are called ‘unutterable’ because they may not be uttered. This seems to me most unlikely: for, plainly, from v. 27, if anybody heard them, he did not understand them. Only “He that searches the hearts” could fathom that potent pleading. On the whole then I suspect that there is a reference to something of which they knew the secret, but we do not. Yet, truly, the view which supposes a pleading of the Spirit, all unbeknown to us, is far more attractive really, and withal far more encouraging. Perhaps there may be on earth ‘pneumatic’ persons still, who could throw real light upon it. For commentators cannot. Mere language we can understand: and therefore I will say that συναντιλαμβάνεσθαι is equivalent to our English ‘lend a helping hand.’ It belongs to everyday speech. In the Gospel of St Luke it is what the busy Martha desires Mary to do. “Our weaknesses” represents “us, weak in our different ways.” The singular notwithstanding would have been more intelligible. For the ‘weakness’ in this case would seem to be well defined-a weakness in laying needs before Our Father in prayer.
8:27. “And He that searcheth men’s hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is. For in a way divine He intercedes for Saints.”
Ὁ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας may be a reminiscence of a curious phrase in Proverbs 20:27, ὃς ἐραυνᾷ ταμιεῖα κοιλίας. But in Revelation 2:23 the Son of God declares to the angel of the Church in Thyatira, “I am He which searcheth reins and hearts”; and conceivably Christ Himself, when on earth, said some such thing. The Fourth Gospel undoubtedly claims for Him some such power in earthly days. Yet in this case, one would suppose, ὁ ἐραυνῶν must be the Father.
It does not appear to me wise to make the clause ὅτι κατὰ Θεόν κ.τ.λ. depend too immediately on that which goes just before. A colon would seem desirable directly after πνεύματος. The great God, to whom prayer is addressed, knows what we cannot know, the ‘intent,’ or ‘mind,’ of the Spirit. The term is anthropomorphic, but that cannot be helped. The reason St Paul seems to give for this intuitive knowledge is that the Spirit’s supplication is of itself κατὰ Θεόν. He that prays and He that hears are more than en rapport; they are actually One. The passage in 1 Cor. 2 (about the spiritual ‘wisdom’) has certain statements in it, which offer analogy. The following verse is important because it forms a bridge to the ‘predestination’ teaching. In itself it but carries forward the idea of the Spirit’s aid. That aid is in our prayers. But it really extends to all life. Moreover not only the Spirit is a helper of God’s people. Everything helps them; everything must.
8:28. “We are sure, that for those who love God, He makes all things work together for good-for those that are the ‘called,’ in accordance with His purpose.” The reading in ‘W. H.’ commends itself, as providing the sense we desiderate. It is God and the purpose of God behind all things that are, that make the believing man’s position impregnable. Συνεργεῖν, to be sure, elsewhere is a neuter verb. But it is not unreasonable to suppose that, on occasion, it might be used in a manner corresponding to its sister verb ἐνεργεῖν. And, if it be active here, there is no reason I can see for ‘refining’ in our rendering. Why imagine a brachylogy? Surely there is meaning enough in the words as they stand. The κατὰ πρόθεσιν starts a whole new train of thought. It is the spark which fires a whole train, as we shall see directly.
Before I venture on any sort of rendering of the next two verses, let me say something about words. Πρόθεσις is an ordinary late Greek term for ‘purpose.’ Προγιγνώσκειν is a ‘classical’ word; it means to ‘know beforehand’ (to know as a bird, for instance, knows that spring is coming); or, to ‘determine’ or ‘judge’ beforehand. In N.T. it occurs four times. First, in Acts 26:5, where St Paul affirms that his fellow-countrymen could bear out what he was saying, if they chose, προγιγνώσκοντές με ἄνωθεν (“because from of old they have knowledge of me”): there the πρό- in προγιγνώσκοντες is practically obliterated by the ἄνωθεν. In ‘Romans’ we have it twice; here and in 11:2, “God hath not cast from Him His people, ὃν προέγνω.” That instance, I think, stands apart. It is found also in 1 Peter 1:20, where Christ is spoken of as προεγνωσμένου πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (which can hardly mean “foreknown,” but must mean “foredetermined” for that particular service, the redemption of men with His blood). 2 Peter also contains it, in the primitive, simpler sense “having foreknowledge, beware” (3:17).
Προορίζειν is non-classical. Further, it is not in LXX. It Is ‘N.T.’ and later only. It is read in the notable prayer (Acts 4:28): “all the things that Thy hand and Thy counsel foreordained to come to pass.” It occurs here in this section twice. Again, in 1 Corinthians 2:7, where the Apostle speaks of the heavenly σοφία, he says that God had “foreordained it (προώρισεν) before the ‘world’ (πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων) for our glory.” In ‘Ephesians’ we have two instances; 1:5 (προορίσας ἡμᾶς εἰς υἱοθεσίαν διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and 1:11. The latter is a passage very analogous to this in ‘Romans.’ It is part of that weighty sentence with which the Epistle opens. The words are; “according to His good pleasure (εὐδοκίαν), which He purposed (προέθετο) in Him, εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν”-a very difficult clause, which I conceive to mean, “to be worked out, when the right time came,” the εἰς being ‘temporal’-“to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth; in Him, I say, in whom also we were made God’s own (ἐν ᾧ καὶ ἐκληρώθημεν), προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ (foreordained thereto according to the purpose of Him who maketh all things work to suit the counsel of His will).”
Here we have four nouns in all to set forth the conception of the Heavenly Purpose; εὐδοκία, πρόθεσις, βουλή, θέλημα; together with two verbs, προτίθεσθαι and προορίζειν. It is neither possible nor of any profit, I think, to endeavour to discriminate between the ‘nominal’ terms. And further, I should say that, in regard to the verbs, προτίθεσθαι bears the simple meaning ‘propose,’ or ‘purpose’; while προορίζειν means ‘to appoint beforehand’-no more. The statement in ‘Ephesians,’ and the statement in ‘Romans’ here, we shall not do amiss to regard as containing part of that σοφία, of which mention is made in ‘Corinthians.’ Of that wisdom the Apostle says, ἡμῖν ἀπεκάλυψεν ὁ θεὸς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. And the question is, what does this mean? and further, who are ἡμῖν? Does it cover all Christians together, or does it mean St Paul himself?
There remains yet one more word to be briefly discussed. That is εἰκών. In the incident of the tribute money, εἰκών means merely ‘likeness.’ In ‘Revelation’ it occurs pretty frequently, to describe the “image” of the “beast.” In St Paul it is clearly a term covering more than externality (as also in Hebrews 10:1, where αὐτὴν τὴν εἰκόνα τῶν πραγμάτων apparently means “the things, as they actually are”). For instance, while in 1 Corinthians 11:7 the male is said to be the εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα Θεοῦ (from Genesis, of course); in 2 Corinthians 4:4 the Son Himself is said to be εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ. The same descriptive phrase is applied to Him in Colossians 1:15. In Colossians 3:10 we read of the “new man,” who is “renewed … κατʾ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν” (Genesis, once again). It would seem that the Pauline doctrine is, that our ‘manhood’ is to be substantially as Christ’s ‘manhood,’ when the day of its perfection comes, at the second Redemption. It will be more than mere ‘resemblance’; very much more. And now let us face the two verses:
8:29, 30. “For those whom He ‘foreknew,’ He also appointed of old to attain to the intimate likeness of His own Son; that so He might be the firstborn in a family of many brethren.1 [Note: Cf. Hebrews 2:11.] And whom He appointed of old, them He also ‘called’; and whom He ‘called,’ them He also ‘justified’; and whom He ‘justified,’ them He also ‘glorified.’ ” From the very nature of God-from our bare conception of Him-it follows, of necessity, that His ‘knowledge’ is absolute. It transcends all bounds of time and bounds of space. This ‘foreknowledge’ we must assume; we cannot help it. At times St Paul loves to dwell on the amazing comfort that lies, for every humble believer, in the idea that his own ‘call’ is part of an eternal purpose. But how did he come by the thought? Did he deduce it, as we should do, from the definition of Godhead? Or does he claim in his statements about it a ‘plenary inspiration’? On them, as everyone knows, stupendous superstructures have been up-reared. Ruthless logic has divided mankind not only into σωξόμενοι and ἀπολλύμενοι, but even virtually into σεσωσμένοι and ἀπολωλότες. And, no doubt, some have gone so far as to see the futility of any preaching at all in a world where some are doomed everlastingly to death and others, equally certainly, to everlasting bliss. In our age we have come to understand that such conclusions will not hold. We cannot let the concept of God’s ‘foreknowledge’-inevitable as that is-conflict with that other concept of His unending Love. In consequence, we refrain from pushing to their logical issues any apostolic pronouncements, however they may help to strengthen faith. We may be sure he did not mean or desire that any rigid system should be raised upon what he has said. Our own ‘Church of England’ Article on this topic is a marvel of cautious statement; especially considering the age in which it was penned. Then religious ‘determinism’ (as fatal to morality as any other ‘determinism’) was fairly rampant. Now it is well-nigh dead. The swing of the pendulum is all the other way. Maybe it has swung too far. For the rest we must remember that the very term ‘foreknowledge’-or indeed ‘fore-’ anything else-is bound to lead us astray. For the existence of God is timeless. Moreover, the Apostle-whatever views we may hold of the nature of inspiration-in speaking as he does, was plainly a man of his age. But let us return to his words. In προέγνω there may be, as S. maintains, a flavour of O.T. usage. In Amos 3:2 we read, “You only have I known (ἔγνων) of all the nations of the earth.” There ‘known’ means ‘accepted,’ ‘recognised,’ even ‘chosen for mine.’ There may be a similar ἔγνων in St Matthew 7:23. But I rather doubt it. Nor am I clear about this ‘peculiar’ usage in Romans 8; though in 11, I must admit, it seems decidedly likely. For there the ὃν προέγνω (“whom He ‘knew’ of old”) may very well re-echo the ἔγνων of the Prophet. Here I should be content with a very general sense, “had in His mind of old” (keeping, of course, the translation “foreknew”). The ‘προ’ travels back in thought to the time before all time. In the other προέγνω it is a matter of earthly history. Προώρισεν (Vulg. praedestinavit) is adequately rendered by ‘foreordained’ or ‘appointed of old.’ ‘Praedestinavit’ itself was once a harmless word. Now, as ‘Ian Maclaren’ might say, it is dark with the accumulated darkness of ages of theology. The phrase, which sets before us what we are ‘appointed’ to be, needs very careful handling. We are to share the μορφή of the εἰκών of God’s Own Son. It is plain ‘man’ cannot share the μορφή of God (especially if μορφή is-as Lightfoot vows it is-a term that is consecrate to express ‘essential being’). What we can share is Christ’s ‘Sonship.’ The reality of sonship, as perfected and consummated in the very ‘Son of sons’-that we may well attain. We are beyond dispute to be like Him, very like Him, for the idea is emphasised by the intentional reiteration.1 [Note: Cf. 1 John 3:2.] And there we must stop. Only, as St Paul declares, this likeness one day to be must be recognised and cherished, as in accordance with a ‘purpose,’ that was before time was. Still, here we do not find any phrase like πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων. However, in the end, that matters not. The general issue is this; we are to look forward to a day when Christ will be indeed the ‘Eldest Brother’ in a mighty family.
Verse 30 marks the stages in the evolution of the believer. First, in the far-off past, in the abysm of eternity, the everlasting ‘purpose’; then, on the stage of earth, the ‘call’; the ‘call’ once welcomed by ‘faith,’ succeeds the δικαίωσις, the ‘acceptance’ as God’s own. Here we look for another term, which is not present. After δικαίωσις, normally, would follow ἁγιασμός. But that we overleap, and pass to the final stage of all, the stage represented by ἐδόξασε. Here again we should have looked for δοξάσει. But not so; the thing is conceived as potentially accomplished. In the mind of God it is. The thought that underlies the pair of verses is predominantly of that stupendous destiny (reaching forward and reaching backward beyond all flight of thought) which belongs to the people of God. It is just because they are His, they may assure their hearts all is absolutely true. In view of truths so stupendous, what confidence should be ours!
8:31, 32. “This being so, what shall we say? If God be for us, who is against us?1 [Note: Cf. Psalms 118:6.] He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him (to death) on behalf of us all! How shall He not then with Him freely give us everything?”2 [Note: Cf. Genesis 22:16 (LXX).] The ‘gift of all gifts,’ obviously, is pledge of all other ‘givings’; that they cannot and will not fail.
There follows a well-known problem, and a very hotly argued one, in textual punctuation. This is the method I would follow:
First come general question, τίς ἐγκαλέσει; This question is not answered. Instead it is contemplated in the light of two great facts. Not only God, but Christ as well, are the champions of the elect. No accusation then; no assault in any form; can conceivably prevail.
8:33-35. “Who shall impeach God’s elect?”
“God is He that acquitteth: who is it that condemns? Christ it is, who died-nay rather, who was raised, and is at God’s right hand; who also intercedes for us. Who is it, that shall part us from Christ’s love?” The first question merely repeats, in a more special form, and under a particular figure, the question of v. 31, τίς καθʼ ἡμῶν; The ‘elect’ (who are the same people, in St Paul, as the κλητοί, though viewed from a different standpoint) do not lend themselves to accusation. For why? God “acquits” (the forensic sense is demanded by the context); then who is like to “condemn”? Aye, speaking even more broadly (for now we seem to bid farewell to the question, τίς ἐγκαλέσει;), have we not a ‘rock of defence’ in the Person of Jesus Christ? He “died” for us-there is proof of love supreme. He was “raised,” He is “at God’s right hand”-there is proof of infinite power. He “makes Intercession for us”-there is proof of effectual aid. Is it conceivable any person can sever us from that love? or even any thing?
8:35-39. “Shall pressure, or straitness of circumstance, or persecution, or famine, or peril, or the sword? As it stands in Holy writ, For for Thy sake we are slaughtered all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the like knife.”1 [Note: Psalms 44:23 (LXX).]
“Nay, in these things, all of them, we are more than victorious, through Him that loved us. For I am convinced, that neither death nor life; nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers; nor things present, nor things to come; nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to sever us from the Love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord.” The Apostle himself had had (as 2 Cor. 11 testifies) no small experience of the thousand and one hardships that may beset a Christian man, especially a missionary. In all the long catalogue there is only one thing he knew not; and that he was to know before the end. The ὅτι in v. 36 is not ‘recitative’; it belongs to the quotation. Our splendid “are more than conquerors,” which I do not like to degrade by insertion in my paraphrase, is a legacy from the Genevan Version. The Genevans may have darkened counsel with their predestinarian tendencies, but we owe them much for this. In v. 38 the word δυνάμεις seems somehow to have got misplaced. It appears to belong to the group with ἄγγελοι and ἀρχαί. Πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως come together in Ephes. 1:21, all being appellations of the angelic hierarchy. In Colossians 1:16 we have a somewhat different nomenclature, θρόνοι … κυριότητες … ἀρχαί … ἐξουσίαι. This angelology (cowering apparently malignant powers as well as beneficent) belongs, to Jewish thought. It is no necessary part of a Christian man’s belief. A ὕψωμα is really ‘a high thing,’ a thing that is uplifted; βάθος correspondingly ‘a low thing’ (only by analogy). Maybe, the two terms cover ἐπουράνια and καταχθόνια. In 2 Corinthians 10:5 we have “and every ὕψωμα that uplifts itself against the γνῶσις of God.”1 [Note: Php 2:10.] There the “high thing” is different; it seems to stand for “arrogant thought.” In v. 39 οὔτε τις κτίσις ἑτέρα covers any conceivable thing that may exist, though it be beyond our ken. In ἑτέρα there lies the meaning ‘different in kind.’ just now the question was “Who shall sever us from the love of Christ” (v. 36, where our oldest MSS. read ‘God,’ as they do here): now it is “from the Love of God,” but this love for man all centres in the Person of the Crucified.