PNEUMATOLOGY IN ROMANS 8:
ITS HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT

by
Roger L. Hahn
 

Romans 8 provides a rich and obvious resource for the development of a doctrine of the Spirit. Of the 35 appearances of the word pneuma in Romans 21 are in chap. 8. Nowhere else in the Pauline writings or in the entire New Testament does such a concentrated use of pneuma occur. Legitimate exploitation of this rich resource for Pneumatology requires sensitivity to the historical setting of Romans, the place of chap. 8 in the structure of the letter, the relation of the pneumatology of Rom. 8 to Paul's theology in general and the interplay of pneumatology with other theological themes in Rom. 8. This paper will attempt briefly to set the pneumatology of Rom. 8 within the historical context of the letter as a whole and to explore some of the relationships between pneumatology and christology and eschatology in the chapter.
 
 

The Historical Setting of Romans 8

  The most recent generation of scholarship has seen a basic shift in the study of Romans. Older works tended to view the epistle virtually as a theological handbook providing in almost finished form the rudiments for a systematic theology. As such Romans was mined for its precious theological stones relatively unaffected by the insights of the historical critical method. In contrast recent years have seen Romans subjected to the basic historical questions that have formed the backdrop to the study of the other Pauline letters for decades. In particular questions of the setting, occasion and purpose of Romans have received intense investigation.1 Unless one subscribes to a partition theory for Romans, a very minority position 2 the historical setting of chap. 8 will be that of the letter as a whole.

Several have found the occasion of Romans in Paul's situation rather than in the church at Rome. In 1948 T. W. Manson described the epistle essentially as a circular letter, "summing up the positions reached by Paul and his friends" after the whole process of dealing with problems in Corinth.3 Johannes Munck envisioned Paul writing Romans while sitting on the dock awaiting the ship that would take him to Jerusalem for the final time. In anticipation of rejection by the church in Jerusalem suspicious of the collection and of persecution by unbelieving Jews unhappy over Paul's pro-Gentile bias the apostle penned Romans as his "manifesto of faith" in the integration of Jews and Gentiles in the church.4 Manson and Munck fail to explain why Romans was written with the Roman church as its specific addressees. Jervell and Bornkamm also attempt to understand Romans as arising from the situation of Paul contemplating his final trip to Jerusalem and yet to make sense of the letter's destination in Rome. Bornkamm argues that Paul intends to present the same basic message in Jerusalem and in Rome. However, the expression of that message in Romans is expressed in eternally and universally valid terms that imply that the epistle is Paul's last will and testament.5 Jacob Jervell's article title, "The Letter to Jerusalem," shows where he believes the occasion for Romans lies. The letter is sent to the Roman church, understood by Paul as the representative congregation of Gentile Christianity in the West, to gain that church's partnership in the case for a Gentile mission that Paul will make in Jerusalem.6

While Paul's own circumstances would very naturally have affected the writing of Romans, methodological consistency would suggest that the epistle be understood in relation to specific circumstances in the church at Rome. Unless compelling evidence can be shown to indicate that the occasion of Romans was not in the Roman church, that occasion should be a controlling factor in understanding Romans. Such is the trend of recent scholarship.7

The issue of the relationship of Jew and Gentile in Christ forms a significant trend that moves through much of Romans (1:5, 13, 16; 2:9, 10, 14, 17, 24, 28, 29; 3:1, 29; 9:24, 30; 10:12; 11:11, 12, 13, 25; 15:9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 27; 16:4). The treatment of the strong and the weak Christians in chaps. 14 — 15 highlights differences between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians.8 The presence of both Jewish and Gentile Christians in the Roman church is clear. Much of the argument of the letter is Jewish in form and presupposes the issues concerning Jewish Christianity. Yet specific statements are addressed directly to Gentiles.9 Though the history of the church at Rome prior to the writing of this letter to the Romans is difficult to know with certainty, it is likely that the church was founded by Jewish Christians whose witness to Jesus in the Jewish community of Rome contributed to the expulsion of Jews from Rome by Claudius in A.D. 49. At that point leadership in the church would have been left with Gentile Christians. Some shift in perspective would have inevitably occurred with such a change of leadership. As Jewish Christians began returning to Rome in the 50's conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christians would easily have arisen.

Paul's letter to the Roman church addresses itself to both segments of the church. As Beker notes, "Paul's basic apostolic effort — to establish the one church of Jews and Gentiles — is jeopardized in Rome, where disunity threatens in the factions of the 'weak' and 'the strong.' " The problem of Jewish Gentile relationships in the church was as significant in Rome as it was in Jerusalem.10 Paul's treatment of the matter is not one-sided. The development of the argument of chapters 2 — 4 can only be understood as affirming the right of Gentile membership in the people of God based on faith rather than on fulfilling provisions of the Law. Jewish exclusivity is attacked. The thrust of the argument and of the phrase, "both Jew and Gentile," is pro-Gentile. 9:30-31 concludes that Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness attained it, while Israel pursued righteousness futilely.

Though the apostle to the Gentiles makes his case for the place of Gentile Christianity, the letter to the Romans also defends Jewish Christianity against any Gentile Christianity.11 Neither side escapes Paul's admonition.

The historical context of Romans 8 is thus a church threatened by disunity between Jewish and Gentile Christians. There is no denying that Rom. 5 — 8 do not obviously reflect the historical circumstances just described.12 However, there is a flow of thought from chaps. 1 — 4 into 5 — 8 and chaps. 9 — 15 build on chapter 8. The very important uses of phroneo in 11:20; 12:3,16; 14:6 and 15:5 build on the use of same verb in 8:5 and of the cognate noun phronema, in 8:6,7 and 27. The wish prayer of 15:5-6 directly calls upon the Romans to set their minds on the same thing. They have been enjoined to not think too highly of themselves in 12:3 and 11:20, but the basis upon which they can fulfill those injunctions is Rom. 8:5-7 where they are told that the mind-set of the Spirit is life and peace. The role of the Spirit in witnessing to the sonship of the believer in 8:14-17 must be understood in relationship to chapter 4 which clearly reflects the historical situation.

If Rom. 8 is to be used as a resource for a doctrine of the Holy Spirit the fact of the historical context must not be forgotten. Paul was not writing a systematic treatment of the Spirit in Rom. 8. He was writing a letter to a church in which a fundamental problem of a theology of salvation history threatened the integrity of the church. He was writing to a church in which the appeal to live according to the Spirit, as opposed to living according to the flesh, appears to have been an important necessity. Whatever doctrine of the Spirit may emerge from Rom. 8, it must be recognized as applied theology and not speculative theology.
 

The Theological Context of the Spirit in Romans 8

The analysis of Paul's theology of the Spirit in Romans 8 must proceed along the structural lines of the chapter.13 Thus Paul's treatment of the Spirit will be investigated by sections: vv. 1-11, 12-17 and 18-39.

Life and the Spirit in Romans 8:1-11

Paul uses nomos and katakrima-katakrino to bind vv. 1-4 together as a unit to make his transition from chap.7 to his treatment of life in the Spirit in chap. 8. The sending formula in v. 3 stands at the center of this opening section.14 However, Paul's use of the sending formula here in Rom. 8:3 is quite different from its use elsewhere in the New Testament and from his own use of it in Gal. 4:4. Only here does the sending verb appear as a participle, which means that here alone Paul is making the sending concept subordinate to another thought, that expressed in the main verb clause, "he condemned sin in the flesh.15 In Galatians the sending formula is the main clause and its purpose is to describe the intention of God to save both Jew and Gentile. Redemption is from the Law and is part of the sustained invective against the Law that Paul developed in the main section of Gal. 3. 16

In contrast, the development of thought in Rom. 7 — 8 is much more concerned with sin, and the Law is dealt with in relation to sin rather than alone as in Galatians. The conflict with the Judaizers in Galatia caused Paul to treat the Law more negatively in Galatians than in Romans. Though sin played a curiously insignificant role in Galatians, it is bound up with the Law in Romans 7 — 8 and is especially important in the transition verses from chap. 7 to Paul's treatment of the Spirit in chap. 8. In 8:3 the condemnation of sin in the flesh is the main clause, and the sending formula describes the means of accomplishing that condemnation of sin — by God sending his Son. Vv. 1 and 3-4 declare that there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus because God has condemned sin in order that the righteous requirement of the Law might be fulfilled.

Here the difference between Romans and Galatians is especially significant. The result of sending in Galatians was redemption from the Law; the Law was perceived in a negative way. In Rom. 8:4 the purpose of the sending of the Son was the fulfillment of the righteous requirement of the Law; the Law is perceived in a much more positive light. But the fulfillment of the righteous requirement of the Law is "in you who are not walking according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." The fact that the Law is fulfilled en humin is particularly significant. The Law is internalized which echoes the prophecy of Jer. 31:31-34, but here it is accomplished by means of the Spirit. It is those who are walking according to the Spirit who fulfill the Law. However, walking according to the Spirit is not the condition of fulfilling the Law but the manner by which it is fulfilled.17 The Spirit internalizes the Law so that its righteous requirement may be fulfilled.

Thus, the formula describing God sending Christ is subordinated to God's purpose of internalizing the Law by the Spirit so that the Law might be fulfilled. The primary factor that enables Paul to speak more positively of the Law in Rom. 8:1-4 is the role that he sees the Spirit playing. Christology and pneumatology are linked at this point by the apostle. The coming of Christ condemned sin in order that those who walk by the Spirit might fulfill the Law. The objective event of the Incarnation has a subjective purpose, and that purpose is fulfilled by the work of the Spirit in the lives of believers.

The phrase, "the Law of the Spirit," in 8:2 is best understood as the Spirit taking possession and control of the Torah to accomplish God's purpose for the Law.18 In light of the connection with II Cor. 3:16 and Jer. 31:31ff one should understand Paul to mean here that the Spirit takes control of the Law and internalizes it by writing on the hearts of the believers. This connection with II Cor. 3:6 is suggested by the description of the Spirit as the Spirit of life in Rom. 8:2. The genitive, "of life," functions as a shorthand way of saying, "the Spirit who gives life," as the to pneuma zoopoiei of II Cor. 3:6 shows. The Law, internalized by the Spirit who gives life, sets one free from the Law controlled by sin and by death.

The connection of Christ with the Spirit in 8:1-4 develops an idea initiated earlier in Romans. The designation of the Spirit as the Spirit of life must be understood in terms of chaps. 5 — 6. The Spirit is the one who will apply the resurrection of Christ to believers, according to 5:5 and 5:9-11. The newness of life that is, according to 6:4, to be experienced by believers who have identified with the death of Christ is mediated by the Spirit who makes alive. However, that life derives from Christ as the full phrase in 8:2 makes clear; it is the "life which is in Christ Jesus," that characterizes the Spirit.19 Thus Paul shows the Spirit to be the one who actualizes the life of Christ in the believers.

Vv. 5-8, as a unity, build upon and define what it means to "walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit," in v. 4. The flesh Spirit antithesis was a traditional christological motif in early Christianity, but Paul, here and typically, uses the antithesis anthropologically. It may be that Paul's understanding of the believer's identification with Christ enabled him conceptually to make the shift from a christological to an anthropological use. Whether or not that was Paul's conceptual process, the result is that readers familiar with the christological use of the antithesis (Rom. 1:3-4) find it being applied to their own lives. This has the effect of enhancing their awareness of the Spirit's making real in their lives what was true of Christ.

The language of vv.5-8 is primarily descriptive of two ways of life. There is no overt paraenetic function in the use of the antithesis at this point. The subject changes in v. 6 from the persons living according to either flesh or Spirit to the mind-set of the flesh and of the Spirit. The Spirit is portrayed as setting its mind on life and peace. The mention of life as the goal of the Spirit reflects that which was said in 8:2 where the Spirit is described as the Spirit of life. It also corresponds to the association of the Spirit and the verb, "to make alive," found in I Cor. 15:45 and II Cor. 3:6. The description of the mind-set of the spirit as life also connects the Spirit with the treatment of life in Rom. 5:9-11 and chap. 6.

The new development of v. 6 is the connection of peace with the Spirit as a parallel predicate with life. The reference to peace at this point ties back to Rom. 5:1, where eirene was last used in the letter.20 Paul intends to connect the mind-set of the Spirit to the peace with God enjoyed by those who are justified. Since 5:1 predicates peace with God on being justified through Christ, the description of peace as the goal or mind-set of the Spirit portrays the Spirit as again actualizing in the believer's life the objective status provided for by Christ.

V. 9 places both members of the flesh Spirit antithesis as objects of the preposition en. This marks the first time in chap.8 that en pneumati is used. The flow of the context suggests that en would have the same meaning as the kata which was used from v. 4 on with a primarily instrumental sense.21 However, the phrase, en pneumati, was used in 2:29 and in 7:6 to present the Spirit eschatologically in terms of the two aeons. II Cor. 10:3 demonstrates that Paul is quite able to use en and kata in the same verse with contrasting meanings and the shift of prepositions here in Rom. 8 should be understood as an intentional shift to a locative use to focus on the eschatological age of the Spirit.22

The re-introduction of the eschatological aeons at this point is particularly important in relation to the association of the Spirit with Christ that has been being developed by Paul. The eschatological age of the Spirit is not future as it was for the Old Testament and Judaism, but is present because of Christ. The work of the Spirit in actualizing the work of Christ in believers' lives is the consequence of the present nature of the age of the Spirit. This is the significance of the emphatic statement in v. 9, "But you, indeed, are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit." The conditions by which one may experience the age of the Spirit are then developed in vv. 9-11.

It is significant that Paul brings together in v. 9 the statements that his readers are "in the Spirit" and that the "Spirit is in them." The combination of en pneumati and pneuma en humin reinforces the locative interpretation of en pneumati, more precisely defines the internalization of the Spirit, and is parallel to the similar use of en christo and christos en humin elsewhere in Paul. The internalizing ministry of the Spirit is not just the pouring of God's love into the believers' hearts as in Rom. 5:5, nor just the internalization of the Law by writing it on the heart as implied in 8:2, but it includes the actual internalizing of the Spirit himself. The Spirit dwells en humin and for that reason is able to perform its internalizing function mentioned elsewhere in Romans.

The importance of the indwelling Spirit is emphasized when Paul makes that presence the definition of being a believer by the introduction of the sentence of holy law in v. 9c, "if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him (Christ)." The language of "having the Spirit" cannot mean the possession of the Spirit as an object or even as a power, but in the light of the preceding clause it must refer to having the Spirit as an indwelling, internalized presence.

The expression, ei de christos en humin, which begins v. 10 is so nearly to parallel to "if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you" of v. 9 that some have seen an identification of Christ and the Spirit here. It does not matter whether one supplies the verb "to be" as almost all English versions do or whether one brings forward the verb "to dwell" from v. 9, Christ and the Spirit are pictured in an almost identical way. However, in v. 9 the Spirit and Christ are distinguished in the genitive phrase, the Spirit of Christ, and Paul does not identify, or even functionally identify, Christ and the Spirit at this point. The indwelling Spirit in v.9 is the basis upon which Paul argues that the Romans are part of the new aeon of the Spirit, rather than the old aeon of the flesh. In contrast, the indwelling of Christ in vs. 10 is the condition upon which the Spirit may be life. The Spirit is the means by which Christ exerts His power in the believer's life and the means by which the believer is incorporated into Christ.23 Because of this Paul can use Spirit and Christ in almost interchangeable ways in passages where it does not matter whether the reference is to the means or to the reality brought into being by that means. As Wikenhauser noted, Paul refers to Christ when he is speaking of salvation, but will use both Christ and the Spirit almost interchangeably when life in the church or "Christian" living is being discussed.24

V.10 b and c is very carefully constructed in an antithetical parallelism. "On the one hand the body is dead because of sin, On the other hand the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

The change from the flesh Spirit antithesis to a body Spirit antithesis appears to be governed by Paul's content in vv. 10-11. He is moving from discussion of the believer's life in the context of the internalized Spirit to the Spirit's relationship with resurrection in v. 11. Resurrection implies death and Paul never speaks of death or mortality in terms of the flesh, but always in terms of the body.25

Pneuma has often been understood anthropologically in v. 10c. The RSV even renders it "spirits." However, several considerations indicate that it should be understood as the Holy Spirit. First, the context has been dealing with the divine Spirit throughout all of chap. 8 up to this point and with one exception all the subsequent references to the pneuma in chap. 8 are to the divine Spirit. Second, Paul has shown in I Cor. 2:11 that when he shifts from divine Spirit to human spirit or vice versa in a way that would be ambiguous he uses the appropriate modifying genitives to remove the ambiguity. Finally, Paul here states that the Spirit is life, not that it is alive. He is not contrasting the human body, which is dead, and the human spirit, which is alive. Rather, he is pointing to the divine Spirit which is the source of life.26 The association of the Spirit with life in v. 11 also suggests that Paul referred to the divine Spirit in v. 10.

V. 11 spells out in more detail the meaning of v. 10. V. 10a, "If Christ is in you," is expanded by v. 11a, "If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you." V. 10c, "the Spirit is life," is expanded by the remainder of v. 11, "he who raised Christ from the dead will also make alive your mortal bodies through his Spirit which is dwelling in you." The conditional character of the sentences, the association of Christ and the Spirit, the concept of the Spirit as the source of life, and the en humin are all parallel features between the two verses. Two particular developments of v. 11 are strikingly apparent when the parallelism is seen. The first is the interchangeability of the terms Christ and Spirit with expressions for God. The second is the emphasis on the resurrection of Christ in this verse.

Though it is axiomatic that Paul did not think in terms of the later Christian doctrine of the Trinity,27 one can certainly see a basis on which later theologians could construct that doctrine in the almost interchangeable use of the names and titles in vv. 9-11. 28 However, the titles are not totally interchangeable. Only God is said to have raised Jesus from the dead and God does not dwell in the believers, though the Spirit of God does. However, Paul' s point was not to make ontological statements about the Trinity; rather he is wanting to relate the Spirit to the resurrection of the believers. The Spirit was described as life in v. 10 and that is further defined by the statement in v. 11 that God (He was raised Christ from the dead) will make alive the Roman readers through the indwelling Spirit. The condition for being made alive by the agency of the indwelling Spirit is the fact of the Spirit indwelling according to v. 11a. Thus the connection with the Spirit as the agency of resurrection life is not with the Spirit as external power, but it is with the internalized Spirit.

The role of the Spirit in the resurrection of believers points to a future aspect of Paul's understanding of the Spirit. The development of pneumatology throughout this section has been in terms of the present tense. En pneumati in v. 9 refers to the age of the Spirit realized in Christ. Even in v. 11 where the future tense of making alive appears, the condition is expressed in the present tense. If the Spirit is a present internalized reality in the believers' lives, then at the consummation of the age God will make them alive by the agency of that same internalized Spirit. Just when Paul seems to have related his pneumatology to a realized eschatology, he incorporates a futuristic aspect. A similar interplay of pneumatology and realized and futuristic eschatology will also appear in v. 17 and v. 23.

Vv. 1-11 have especially focused on the role of the Spirit in internalizing the work of Christ in believers' lives. The Spirit has particularly been associated with life. The reference to the work of Christ for the believer in Rom.5:10 and the reference to newness of life in 6:4 are explicated in 8:1-11. The internalized Spirit who gives life can enable believers to fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law if they live according to the Spirit rather than according to the flesh. Such a life reflects the mind-set of the Spirit and is life and peace, the subjective experience of the life and peace associated with Christ in chaps. 5 and 6. The indwelling of the Spirit is the condition of life in the aeon of the Spirit. Existence in the aeon of the Spirit is the life of Christ realized in the believer in the present. However, the indwelling Spirit also will be the agent for the resurrection life of the believers that lies yet in the future.

The Spirit and Sonship in Rom. 8:12-17

Though there is definite continuity of thought between vv. 12-13 and vv. 1-11, the ara oun of v. 12 and the movement to new material marks a new paragraph. Paul continues the use of the flesh Spirit antithesis in vv. 12-13, but he shifts the emphasis. Vv.4-8 had used the antithesis completely in the indicative mood. Here Paul continues the indicative, but by means of opheiletai, he includes a tone of exhortation. The obligation is to live according to the Spirit which, according to v. 13, will result in life.

The direction of Paul's thought here in Rom. 8:12-14 is in sharp contrast to a somewhat parallel passage in Gal. 5:16-18. The Galatians passage places flesh and Spirit in complete antithesis to each other and demands a choice based on the incompatibility of the two spheres. Gal. 5: 18 then contrasts being led by the Spirit with being under the Law as part of an appeal to the Galatians to abandon their shift toward Judaizing and to rely totally on the Spirit. However, Rom. 8:12-14 softens the antithesis somewhat by means of conditional clauses and uses the antithesis to move toward a definition of sonship as being led by the Spirit.

V. 14 makes the transition from the flesh Spirit antithesis to the concept of sonship which will occupy Paul's thought up through v.23. The unique development of Paul in this verse is the bringing together of the concepts of the Spirit, being led, and sonship. The Spirit may have been associated with sonship in a baptismal setting in pre Pauline Christianity and the motif of being led by the Spirit may have been traditional also. Whether these motifs were pre Pauline or not, Paul is the first, in v. 14, to bring them together. The first use of the plural, sons, also appears in v. 14. The singular, son, appeared in Rom. 1:3, 4, 9, 5:10 and 8:3, all in reference to Christ. Though the plural refers to the believers, its use, especially in connection to the Spirit, would have brought Christ to the Roman readers' minds. The connection of the sonship of Christ and the sonship of believers is made more explicit in 8:29. At v.14 the Spirit is again functioning in relation to Christ, making sonship, which is intrinsic to Christ, a potential reality in the lives of believers who are also led by the Spirit.

The concept of sonship which was introduced in v. 14 is further developed in v.15. To receive the Spirit was a traditional expression in early Christianity. Paul takes it up twice in v. 15 but modifies in two very different ways: the Romans did not receive a pneuma douleias, they did receive a pneuma huiothesias. The phrase, pneuma douleias, appears only here in the New Testament which has led several interpreters to conclude that it is the anthropological spirit being referred to here.29 Some then took the pneuma huiothesias as parallel and thus also a reference to the human spirit,30 while others felt that it must refer to the Holy Spirit because of the connection made between the Spirit and sonship in v. 14.31 In light of the identical "you received" with both instances of pneuma, both phrases should be understood in the same way. The traditional use of receiving the Spirit and the association of the Spirit and sonship suggests that receiving the pneuma of sonship should certainly be understood as receiving to the divine Spirit.

The difficulty is to explain how the pneuma douleias could possibly refer to the divine Spirit. Barrett is undoubtedly correct when he identifies the pneuma douleias as a "rhetorical formulation" based on the parallel Spirit of sonship. He paraphrases the expression, "The Spirit you received was not one which brings into bondage."32 The contrast between bondage and sonship in Gal.4:7 (hoste ouketi ei doulos alla huios) suggests that Barrett's analysis is correct.

The correct meaning of huiothesia is important for understanding v. 15. The background of the word is less important than Paul's use of it for determining meaning and all five instances of the word in the New Testament are in the Pauline corpus (Rom. 8:15, 23; 9:4; Gal. 4:5; and Eph. 1:5). The word focused on the act or process of adoption in the Greco-Roman world. Paul's emphasis is usually on the resulting sonship rather than on the act of adoption. Thus the reference is to sonship based on an act of adoption.33

In v. 15 sonship depends on the activity of the Spirit. V. 14 indicates that sonship is dependent upon being led by the Spirit. The relationship between sonship and the action of the Spirit can be past, present or future. The use of sonship in Rom. 8:23 is clearly future. Gal. 4:5 and Eph. 1:5 are clearly descriptions of the activity of God in the past. The aorist tense of elabete in v. 15 could be taken to indicate that Paul was referring to a past action and there is a sense in which the use of baptismal language here indicates just that, the past act of having received the Spirit. However, the present tense of vv. 14 and 16 indicates that the sense of sonship is also a present reality and not just a future hope as in v. 23 or the memory of a past act of adoption.34

The reason sonship is a present experience is because it is experienced by means of the Spirit according to both v. 14 and v. 16. Those who are led by the internalized Spirit are constituted sons of God. It is the Spirit in v. 16 who bears witness internally that sonship is indeed a reality in the believer's life. V. 15 also indicates that it is the experience of the Spirit that makes sonship a subjective reality. It is the Spirit of sonship who enables the believer to cry abba. If Jeremias is correct in understanding abba 35 Paul is describing a relationship of acceptance, warmth and trust that the Spirit makes real for the believer.

The abba cry is not the witness of the Spirit to sonship; it is enabled by the Spirit's witness to sonship. Paul has no intention of making the Spirit's witness dependent upon the cry of acclamation.36 The Spirit witnesses to the fact of sonship as v. 16 makes clear. It is noteworthy that Paul uses an emphatic auto with the Spirit in v.16, since 8:27 is the only other instance of his using such an emphatic construction with the Spirit. The construction suggests that Paul wants to especially stress the activity of the Spirit as the witness to sonship. The verb chosen by Paul to express the activity of the Spirit is summartureo, used only in the New Testament by Paul in Romans, here and in 2:15 and 9:1. In its original sense, the word meant to bear witness with, as a witness along side other witnesses. However, it soon lost the implication of other witnesses and came to mean simply "to confirm."37

It is the divine Spirit who confirms sonship to the human spirit. This is another instance in which Paul develops the Spirit in internalized terms. The Spirit en humin, or in the heart, or witnessing with the human spirit are all ways of describing the Spirit in its subjective ministry. External powers do not witness with the human spirit. An indwelling Spirit who brings life and peace and causes the believer to cry out to God in warmth and trust, abba, may witness to the human spirit that he or she is a child of God.

Though the word Spirit does not appear in v. 17 it provides an important conclusion to this section of Paul's treatment of the Spirit. The Spirit witnessed to the human spirit in v. 16 to the fact of being a child of God. Paul concludes that if one is a child, he or she is also an heir. Thus the Spirit witnesses to the believer's status as heir of God and co-heir with Christ. Again the Spirit and Christ are brought together by Paul in a relation in which the Spirit internalizes and makes real the believer's status with Christ. The relationship with Christ is emphatically presented with the three sun compounds used in v. 17.

The condition for being a co-heir with Christ is suffering with Him in order to be glorified with him. Sumpascho points back to the identification with Christ outlined in 6:2-4. The use of the aorist subjunctive of sundoxazo is exactly parallel with the aorist subjunctive of peripateo used in 6:4, in the phrase, "walk in newness of life." In both instances identification with the resurrection of Christ is intended, but because of the future nature of that identification it is expressed in the subjunctive. V. 17 here indicates that the Spirit's ministry confirms the believers status as co heir with Christ, conditional upon the believer's identification with the death and life of Christ.

The future participation in the glorification with Christ envisioned in the final clause of v. 17 closes the section of vv. 12-17 with a glance at the Spirit's place in a futuristic eschatology. This theme had also closed the section of vv. 1-11 with the use of the future tense, zoopoiesei. The emphasis on the future is more pronounced in vv. 12-17 since it appears in both v. 13 and v. 17 and thus forms somewhat of a parenthesis enclosing the section. The primary thrust of vv. 12-17 is still the present ministry of the Spirit internalizing the believer's status as son. However, the bracketing of the section with future references points to the development of a more futuristic concern in the following verses.

Vv. 12-17 make the transition in chap. 8 from an emphasis on the indwelling life of the Spirit in contrast to a life lived according to the flesh to the concept of the future expectation of the sons of God, the subject to be developed in the subsequent section. The concept of sonship is the major key in this transition paragraph. The paragraph focuses attention on the Spirit's ministry of internalizing the believer's status as son. This is done by connecting the Spirit to Christ and to both realized and futuristic aspects of eschatology.

The Spirit and Hope in Rom. 8:18-39

The number of references to the Spirit in Rom.8:18-39 shows that Paul's train of thought has passed from a major concern with the Spirit on to the consideration of hope in the Christian life. Spirit appears only four times in this section, once in v. 23 and three times in vv. 26-27. This reduced number of uses of the word does not mean that Paul is no longer interested in the Spirit, but his treatment of the future is not as intensely related to the Spirit as had been his treatment of the present life in the Spirit in the first seventeen verses of chap. 8.

The general thrust of vv. 18-25 is clearly shaped by the use of the following words: v. 18 — about to be revealed, v. 19 — eager expectation, revelation, eagerly expecting, v. 20 — hope (as a noun), v. 23 — eagerly expecting, v. 24 — hope (three times as a noun, once as a verb), v. 25 — hope (as a verb), eagerly expecting. When the future tense, eleutherothesetai, in v.21 is combined with the above mentioned vocabulary the strong future thrust of the section is inescapable.

In v. 23 Paul describes the expectation of final salvation as having the aparche of the Spirit. The future orientation of the context is sufficient to suggest that Oke's idea of translating aparche as "birth certificate," based on examples of such usage in the papyri, is incorrect. Both the context and the Pauline and New Testament use of the word confirm that the usual meaning of "first fruit" is correct. This word had a background in both the Old Testament and Hellenistic sacrificial language. The presentation of the first fruit was a pledge that the remainder would be given later. The use of first fruit here in v. 23 regards the present as an anticipation of a greater, future event.38

The genitive, "of the Spirit," in v. 23 is not partitive — the believer has part of the Spirit now and will receive Him in entirety at the end — but epexegetical, explaining that the Spirit is now possessed as a pledge of the future consummation of final salvation.39 The relation of the participial phrase, "having the first fruit of the Spirit," to the main verb, "we are groaning," is also important. The emphatic nature of the sentence is attested by the double kai autoi and the emphatic hemeis following the participle. The ou monon de, which begins the sentence, sets it in a parallel relation to v. 22 where all creation groans. In v. 23 the believers groan.

The progression of thought moves from the groaning of creation to the groaning of believers. In v. 19 creation is said to be eagerly expecting the revelation of the sons of God. In v. 23 believers eagerly expect huiothesia as they groan. The first fruit of the Spirit characterizes the groaning of the believers in a way that has no parallel in creation. Käsemann correctly identifies the participle, "having," as concessive — we groan also, like the creation, even though we have the first fruit of the Spirit in a way that creation does not have.40

The two participial phrases, "having the first fruit of the Spirit" and "eagerly expecting sonship," stand in a parallel relationship with each other.41 Swetnam's suggestion that apehdechesthai does not have its regular meaning of "expect," but rather means "to infer" is strained and does not recognize the tension, characteristic especially in Rom. 8, between the present possession and future full appropriation of the Spirit.42 Although the believer has received the Spirit of sonship, according to v. 15, now sonship is still future, being eagerly expected, and that future aspect is true even though we have the first fruit of the Spirit. Though sonship is a present possession according to v. 15, that sonship will be "unassailable and complete only in the apolutrosis tou somatos."43 This tension between present sonship in v. 15 and future sonship in v.23 reflects the tension between present and future understandings of the Spirit by Paul throughout the chapter. A futuristic view of the Spirit had emerged in v. 11, v. 13 and v. 17 in the midst of a context focusing on the present work of the Spirit. It should not be unexpected to find a more powerful statement of a future understanding of the Spirit and of sonship in v. 23 even though it creates some tension with the concept of present sonship in v. 15.

Though the reference to sonship in v. 23 stands in some tension with the reference of v. 15, it gives a basic christological perspective to this section. There is no explicit mention of Christ from 8:17 to 8:34, which is somewhat unusual in Paul. The christological orientation of sonship in v. 15 will provide a context for recognizing Christ as still the model for the future sonship envisioned in v. 23.

The connection of the Spirit to the groaning of the believer provides the flow of thought from v. 23 to vv. 26-27. In v. 22 creation groans — in v. 23 the believers groan and in v. 26 the Spirit groans in a similar way, interceding with stenagmois alaletois. This means that for Paul the foundational clause is, "the Spirit himself intercedes with stenagmois alaletois," and the other clauses should be interpreted in relation to it. Though Käsemann has suggested that stenagmois alaletois refers to glossalalia, v. 26 does not say that believers use stenagmois alaletois but that the Spirit uses them in his intercession for believers.44 This is important. The question of whether the groanings are "unspoken or unspeakable" is of little significance if it is the Spirit who does the groaning. To try to determine the content and phonetics of the stenagmois alaletois fails to recognize that these groans are metaphorically based on the parallel with the groanings of creation and of the believers. The intercessory work of the Spirit here is the way in which the Spirit "helps" as mentioned in the first part of v. 26. The sun prefix in the verb sunantzlambanomai appears to be intensive, rather than indicating that the Spirit helps along with the believer's help; Paul's purpose is not to stress the believer's cooperation with the Spirit but the Spirit's ministry to the believer.45

Though the word pneuma does not appear after v. 27 in Rom. 8 it is likely that Paul intended it as the subject of v. 28. The subject of this verse has long been a problem for exegetes, but generally only two alternatives have been suggested. The alternatives, "God" or "all things" as subject of the verb "cooperate," have been present in the textual tradition from at least the fourth century. Recently, however, the suggestion has been put forward that the subject should be understood as the Spirit, which was the predominant subject in vv. 26-27.46 The chief objection has been that it would create a difficult change of subject between v.28 and vv. 29-30 without any indication of subject change given in the text.47 It is true that a difficult subject change would be required since God is obviously the subject of vv. 29-30, as the reference to "his son" in v. 29 indicates. However, the subject change from the Spirit of God will be difficult whether it is between v. 27 and v. 28 or between v. 28 and v. 29 since there is no indication of change until v. 29. To make the subject change after v. 28 solves the problem of the two unacceptable alternatives for the subject of v. 28 and makes the Spirit the consistent subject of vv. 26-28. To make the subject change after v. 27 perpetuates the problem of the subject of v. 28.

In light of this it seems that Paul intends the Spirit to be understood as the subject of v. 28. In this way he understands the Spirit as active in the lives of believers in bringing good from all things. The "all things" reaches back to v. 18, "the sufferings of the present time," and forward to vv. 35-39, where they are listed in some detail. The Spirit again functions in its internalized role as the one who encounters the difficulties of the eschaton and enables the believer to find good.

Though no further references to the Spirit occur in vv. 29-39, Paul's understanding of the Spirit is still at work in these verses. V. 34 describes Christ as interceding for the believers and the same verb is used as appeared in v. 27 with the Spirit as subject. In this way Christ and the Spirit are again brought together performing similar functions. However, the intercession of Christ is from the right hand of God and thus quite external to the believer. On the other hand, the Spirit intercedes for the believer in the moment of prayer and thus is a much more internal reality. This is consistent with the pattern of the work of the Spirit in chap. 8 as internalizing the objective work of Christ.

Rom. 8 consistently presents the Spirit in relationship to christology and to eschatology. The Spirit takes the objective, external work of Christ and internalizes it in the believer. The Spirit makes the life of Christ real in the life of the believer. The Spirit can possess the Torah and internalize it so that the righteous requirement of the Law can be fulfilled. The Spirit gives witness to sonship for believers. The ability to cry abba is by means of the Spirit. For the most part Rom. 8 presents the work of the Spirit as a present work. Those who are in the age of the Spirit, now realized, experience the life of Christ made real in them. But Paul also holds out a future work of the Spirit. Even the present sonship vouchsafed by the Spirit awaits a future consummation. The Spirit is the first fruit, the present proof of the work of God yet to be accomplished at the end of the age.
 

Conclusion

Rom. 8 provides a rich resource for the development of a doctrine of the Spirit. It suggests that any doctrine of the Spirit may not be separated from christology. The Spirit is consistently portrayed in Rom. 8 as internalizing in the life of the believers the objective work of Christ. The Spirit may be the connecting link between christology and Christian Life or Ecclesiology. The fact that Paul makes the presentation of the Spirit that he does in Rom. 8, his most detailed treatment of the Spirit, to a church experiencing serious disunity is especially significant. Paul's pneumatology in Rom. 8 also impinges on eschatology. Though his eschatology is typical of the New Testament rather than unique, his emphasis on the present age and work of the Spirit could provide a needed corrective to some contemporary eschatological enthusiasm. The Spirit as first fruit provides an appropriate balance for relating realized and futuristic eschatology.  

Notes
 

1See especially Karl P. Donfried, (ed.), The Romans Debate (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977). J. Christian Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,1980), pp.59-61, provides a summary of the difficulties in treating Romans as an "occasional" letter.

2Mention of partition theories for Romans should distinguish between those dealing with the ending of the epistle, especially chap. 16, and those seeing Romans as a compilation of two or more original documents. The most complete recent treatment of the ending of Romans is Harry Gamble, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977). In a summary of recent interpretation of Romans W. S. Campbell, "The Romans Debate," The Journal for the Study of the New Testament 10 (January 1981): 24, notes that "the majority of recent writers . . . regard the original letter as comprising all of chapters 1-16." Compilation theories have been proposed by Junji Kinoshita, "Romans-Two Writings Combined: A New Interpretation of the Body of Romans," Novum Testamentum (1965) 258-277, and by Robin Scroggs, "Paul as Rhetorician. Two Homilies in Romans i-xi," Jews, Greeks, and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity, Essays in Honour of W. D. Davies, ed. R. Hammerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pp. 270-297. However, the difficulties of these proposals are greater than the benefits and they are rightly rejected.

3T. W. Manson, "St. Paul's Letter to the Romans-and Others," The Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 31 (1948): 224-240, reprinted in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. Matthew Black, Manchester,1962, pp.225-241, and in Donfried, Debate, pp. 1-16.

4See Johannes Munck, Christ and Israel: An Interpretation of Romans 9-11, trans. Ingeborg Nixon (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), pp. 8-13 and idem, Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, trans. Frank Clarke (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1959), pp. 196-209.

5Gunther Bornkamm, "The Letter to the Romans as Paul's Last Will and Testament," in Donfried, Debate, pp. 17-31. Robert J. Karris, "Romans 14:1 - 15:13 and the Occasion of Romans," in Donfried, Debate, pp. 75-99, similarly argues that the paraenesis of Romans 14-15 does not arise from a situation in the Roman church, but is simply generalized paraenesis in a letter that sums up Paul's missionary theology.

6Jacob Jervell, "The Letter to Jerusalem," in Donfried, Debate, pp. 61-74. Jervell builds on the suggestion of Ernst Fuchs, Hermeneutic (Bad Cannstatt: R. Mullerschon, 1954), p. 191, that the "secret address" of Romans is Jerusalem.

7Campbell, "The Romans Debate," p. 28. Evidence of the correctness of this analysis can be seen in Ernst Kasemann, Commentary on Romans trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), pp. 402-406; Beker, pp. 71-93; A. J. M. Wedderburn, "The Purpose and Occasion of Romans Again," The Expository Times 90, 5, (February 1979): 137-141; W. S. Campbell, "Why Did Paul Write Romans?" The Expository Times 85, 9, (June 1974): 268-269; and to some degree in C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans 2 vols. The International Critical Commentary, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark Limited, 1975, 1979), II: pp. 814-816.

8The question of whether the seemingly Jewish Christian positions are in fact the positions of Gentile Christians who are fascinated or otherwise influenced by Judaism does not contradict this point. It should be granted that Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity are not antithetical positions of legalism and libertinism respectively. They both contained persons widely spaced along the spectrum of total adherence and total disregard for the Mosaic Law. Nevertheless, the terms Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian provide approximate indications of the direction of the emphasis on the Law rather than being a simple equation of ethnicity and theology.

9See, for example, Scroggs, pp. 275-281, for details of the basic Jewish methodology of argument in Romans 1-4 and 9-11. Romans 7:1 indicates a basically Jewish audience while 1:5-6 and 1:13 indicate a Gentile audience.

10Beker, p. 74.

11The fact that Paul S. Minear, The Obedience of Faith: The Purpose of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1971), goes beyond the evidence in trying to identify five different groups-house churches-in Rome should not prevent us from recognizing that two different groups in the Roman church are addressed.

12See Beker, pp. 83-86, and Scroggs, pp. 281-289, for differing but complementary descriptions of the way chaps. 5-8 differ in character from the rest of Romans.

13Most writers identify vv. 1-11 as the first major section of the chapter. A notable exception is Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Romer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), pp. 60-159, who treats vv. 1-13 as the first paragraph of the chapter. Vv. 12-30 are treated as the second unit of the chapter by Matthew Black, Romans, New Century Bible (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1973) pp. 113-117, and C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1957), pp. 160-171. Cranfield, I, p. 404, makes vv. 12-16 the second paragraph, but vv. 12-17 are more commonly recognized as the second unit.

14Henning Paulsen, Uberlieferung und Auslegung in Romer 8 (Dusseldorf: Neu Kirchener Verlag, 1975), p. 42.

15Osten-Sacken, p. 145.

16Hans Dieter Betz, Galatians: A Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Churches in Galatia, Hermeneia-A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 208.

17Cranfield, I, p. 385.

18See Eduard Lohse, "o nomos tou pneumatos tes zoes Exegetische Anunerkungen zu Rom.8.2," in Neu Testament und christliche Existenz Festschrift fur Herbert Braun zum 70, ed. Hans Dieter Betz and Luise Schottroff (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1973), pp. 270-287. For an argument for multiple meanings of nomos in Rom. 7:21 - 8:4 see Heikki Raisanen, "Das 'Gesetz des Glaubens' (Rom.3.27) und das 'Gesetz des Geistes' (Rom.8.2)," New Testament Studies 20, 1, (October 1979): 101-117.

19Otto Michel, Der Brief an die Romer, Ubersetzt und erklart, 5th ed. (Gottingen: Vandenhoech und Ruprecht, 1978), p. 249.

20William Sanday and Arthur Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, The International Critical Commentary, 5th ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), p. 196.

2lCranfield, I, p. 387.

22Kasemann, p. 220.

23Ibid, p. 222.

24Alfred Wikenhauser, Pauline Mysticism: Christ in the Mystical Teaching of St. Paul, trans. Joseph Cunningham (New York: Herder and Herder, 1960) pp. 54 and 87.

25The closest Paul comes to associating flesh with death is Gal. 5:24: Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh. He associates body with death or mortality in Rom.6:6; 7:4.24; 8:11. 13; I Cor. 13:3 and II Cor.4:10.

26Robert T. Fortna, "Romans 8:10 and Paul's Doctrine of the Spirit," Anglican Theological Review XLI, 2, (April 1959): 77-84, Barrett, p. 159, and Cranfield, I, p. 390.

27Neill Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in Paul, Scottish Journal of Theology Occasional Papers No. 6, (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd Ltd., 1957), p. 3.

28Cranfield, II, p. 843.

29For example, Sanday and Headlam, p. 202; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), p. 165; C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, The Moffatt New Testament Commentary (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, 1932), p. 128, and Black, p. 118.

30Sanday and Headlam, and Black.

3lBruce and Dodd.

32Barrett, p. 163, and Cranfield, I, p. 396.

33Eduard Schweizer, "huiothesia," Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. VIII, ed. Gerhard Friedrich, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972): 399.

34Cranfield, I, p. 398. Contra Barrett, p. 163, who argues that sonship is future here in Rom. 8:15.

35Joachim Jeremias, New Testament Theology, Vol. I, The Proclamation of Jesus, trans. John Bowden (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), pp. 63-67.

36Cranfield, I, p. 402. Contra Kasemann, p. 229 and Barrett, p. 164.

37H. Strathmann, "martus, martureo, marturia, marturion, epimartureo, summartureo, sunepimartureo, katamartureo, marturomai diamarturomai, promarturomai, pseudomartus, pseudomartureo, pseudomarturia, " Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. IV, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967): 508-509.

38C. Clarke Oke, "A Suggestion with Regard to Romans 8:23," Interpretation 11, 4, (October 1957): 458. See instead Cranfield, I, pp. 417-418, Michel, p. 270 and Barrett, p. 167.

39Kasemann, p. 237. The explanation of Cranfield, I, p. 418, that the genitive is both appositive and possessive is unnecessarily obscure.

40Kasemann, p. 237.

41The suggestion by Pierre Benoit, " 'Nous gemissions, attendant la deliverance de notre corps' (Rom. VIII, 23)," Melanges Jules Lebreton, I (Paris, 1951), 267-280, and especially p. 275, that huiothesia was not part of the original text is untenable. The external support for the omission is primarily in the Western text and the insertion creates an embarrassing tension with v. 15.

42James Swetnam, "On Romans 8, 23 and the 'Expectation of Sonship,' " Biblica 48, (No. 1): 104-106.

43Käsemann, p. 237.

44Käsemann, p. 241, and especially in Ernst Käsemann, "The Cry for Liberty in the Worship of the Church," Perspectives on Paul, trans. Margaret Kohl (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), pp.122-137. Contra George W. MacRae, "Romans 8:26-27," Interpretation 34, 3, (July 1980): 290.

45Cranfield, I, p. 421.

46See especially M. Black, "The interpretation of Romans viii 28," in Neotestamentica et Patristica Eine Freundesgabe, Herrn Professor Dr. Oscar Cullmann zu seinen 60 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), pp.166-172. The NEB also understands the Spirit to be the subject of v. 28.

47Cranfield, I, pp. 425-426, and in more detail in C. E. B. Cranfield, "Romans 8.28," Scottish Journal of Theology 19, 2, (June 1966): 206-208.

Edited by Jason Gingerich and Michael Mattei for the
Wesley Center for Applied Theology
at Northwest Nazarene University
© Copyright 2000 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology

Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes, provided the notice below the horizontal line is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.