THE MASTER’S SEMINARY

A RHETORICAL STUDY OF ROMANS 8:18–22

AS PROOF OF THE COSMOLOGICAL WITNESS OF CREATION
FOR THE GLORIFICATION OF THE BELIEVER

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF THEOLOGY
IN THE DIVISION OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

RUBEN VIDEIRA-SOENGAS

SUN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA

APRIL 2014
Accepted by the Faculty of The Master’s Seminary
in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree
Master of Theology in New Testament Studies

Adviser

Adviser
 ABSTRACT

Title: A RHETORICAL STUDY OF ROMANS 8:18–22 AS PROOF OF THE

COSMOLOGICAL WITNESS OF CREATION FOR THE
GLORIFICATION OF THE BELIEVER
Author: Ruben Videira-Soengas
Degree: Master of Theology in New Testament Studies
Date: April, 2014
Advisers: Dr. Kelly Osborne, Dr. Michael Vlach

Contemporary studies have the tendency to see the Savior’s work in terms of his
earthly life, disassociating redemption from the cosmos, which inevitably results in a
secular scientific approach to creation. Consequently, the theological connection between
creation and the ratification of the believer’s justification is crippled.
In answer to this problem Romans 8:18–22 is offered as one of the passages that
better harmonizes the concepts of creation and redemption in light of Christ’s work.
Several methodologies applied to the study of this passage are, however, deficient to
some extent. This thesis will focus on Paul’s rhetoric as a complement to literary,
historical and background considerations. This approach underlines the logical argument
of the apostle throughout the letter to the Romans, aiding the interpretation of Romans
8:18–22 in its eschatological context.
The first chapter outlines the eschatological background to Romans 8:18–22 by
analyzing the place of Romans 8 in the letter. The rhetorical methodology demonstrates
that Romans 8–11 is part of the same argument initiated with the propositio in Romans
8:1–30. This leads the apostle to clarify how creation, though innocent, suffers the same
effects of the fall as mankind. So the conclusion is that a guiltless entity may suffer
without implying that it is being judicially punished for incurred guilt.
The second chapter unfolds the theology behind the term κτίσις, showing the
numerous points of contact between Romans 8:18–22 and the Old Testament, and Jewish
non-canonical apocalyptic literature. The apostle concentrates on the corruption and
redemption of creation to highlight the cosmic extent of the term κτίσις. This distinction
becomes extremely important later when Paul argues for the security of the believer’s
glorification in light of creation.
Chapters three and four deal in detail with Romans 8:18–22. Romans 8:18
functions as the thesis for the subpropositio in Romans 8:19–22. These verses are the
answer to possible objections to Romans 8:1. Such objection seems to portray the linear
principle of Deuteronomic retribution, but Paul is paving the way to give his final proof
for his thesis in Romans 8:1 and 8:18, which is that the restoration of the entire cosmos
becomes the anchor for the believer’s glory, becoming the frame to interpret Romans
8:19–22.
The solidarity of humanity and the created order is especially affirmed in this
passage. Both, humanity and creation are objects of God’s redemptive work.
Cosmological non-human creation as a whole will be delivered from the bondage to
corruption.
iv
 CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................... viii

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
The Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 1
The Relevance of the Study ..................................................................................... 4
The Method of the Study ......................................................................................... 5
The Scope of the Study .......................................................................................... 11
The Limitations of the Study ................................................................................. 11
The Structure of the Study ..................................................................................... 13

CHAPTER ONE: ROMANS 8:18–27 IN LIGHT OF ITS CONTEXT .......................... 15

Romans 9–11: An Integral Part of the Letter ........................................................ 17
Romans 8 Connected to Romans 9–11 .................................................................. 24
Romans 8 Connected to Romans 5–7 .................................................................... 32
Summary ................................................................................................................ 36

CHAPTER TWO: KΤΊΣΙΣ IN ROMANS 8:18–27 ......................................................... 38

The Meaning of κτίσις ........................................................................................... 39
The Background of κτίσις...................................................................................... 50
The Theology of κτίσις .......................................................................................... 60
Summary ................................................................................................................ 63

CHAPTER THREE: THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE PRESENT SUFFERINGS

AND COSMOLOGICAL FUTURE GLORY IN ROMANS 8:18 ................................... 68
Romans 8:18–27: Its Theme and Structure ........................................................... 69
Romans 8:18–22: Its Jewish Apocalyptic Background ......................................... 74
Romans 8:18: The Cosmic Battle .......................................................................... 77
Summary .............................................................................................................. 100

CHAPTER FOUR: THE ABSURDITY OF CREATION IN CONTRAST TO THE

PRINCIPLE OF LINEAR RETRIBUTION IN ROMANS 8:19–22 .............................. 103
Romans 8:19: The Proof for No Condemnation .................................................. 105
Romans 8:20: τῇ µαταιότητι ἡ κτίσις .................................................................. 115
Romans 8:21: τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς .............................................................. 125
Romans 8:22: πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει ............................................................. 134
Summary .............................................................................................................. 143

v
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 145

BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 154

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1 Rhetorical Structure of Romans 27

Table 1.2 Old Testament Quotations in Romans Probationes 28

Table 1.3 Rhetorical Structure of Romans 8–11 30

Table 1.4 Rhetorical Substructure of Romans 9:1–11:36 31

Table 1.5 Chiastic Structure of Romans 5–8 35

Table 3.1 Occurrences of οὐκ ἄξια πρός in Ancient Greek

Literature Relevant to Romans 8:18 81

vii
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AnBib Analecta biblica

ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers

AUSS Andrews University Seminary Studies

BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Edited by K. Elliger and W. Rudolph.

Stuttgart, 1984

BBR Bulleting for Biblical Research

BDAG Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. Greek-English

Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3d
ed. Chicago, 1999

BDB Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon
of the Old Testament. Oxford, 1907

BEvT Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie

Bsac Bibliotheca Sacra

BZNW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

ConBNT Coniectanea neotestamentica or Coniectanea biblica: New Testament

Series

DPL Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Edited by G. F. Hawthorne and R. P.

Martin. Downers Grove, 1993

EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H. Balz, G.

Schneider. Grand Rapids, 1990–1993

ExAud Ex auditu

ExpTim Expository Times

FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments

viii
HALOT Koehler, L., and W. Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of
the Old Testament. Revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob
Stamm. Study edition, translated and edited under the supervision of
M.E.J. Richardson. 2 vols. Leiden, 2001.

ICC International Critical Commentary

Int Interpretation

IRT Issues in Religion and Theology

JTC Journal for Theology and the Church

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JQR Jewish Quarterly Review

JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series

JSS Journal of Semitic Studies

LCL Loeb Classical Library

MNTC Moffatt New Testament Commentary

NAC New American Commentary

NIB The New Interpreter’s Bible

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NPNF1 Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1

NovT Novum Testamentum

NovTSup Supplements to Novum Testamentum

NTS New Testament Studies

OtSt Oudtestamentische Studiën

Presb Presbyterion

ix
PSB Princeton Seminary Bulletin

RevExp Review and Expositor

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SP Sacra Pagina

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G. Kittel and G.

Friedrich. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids. 1964–
1976

Them Themelios

TJ Trinity Journal

TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Edited by E. Jenni, with

assistance from C. Westermann. Translated by M. E. Biddle. 3 vols.
Peabody, MA., 1997

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

WBC World Biblical Commentary

WTJ Westminster Theological Journal

ZNW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der
älteren Kirche

x
To Jennifer Videira
ἡ ἠγαπηµένη µου

xi
 INTRODUCTION

The Statement of the Problem

The relation between creation and redemption has been problematic for some time

in theology and biblical interpretation.1 Speaking about this issue, Otto Piper observes the

tendency to concentrate on the person of Christ to the detriment of contemplating his

work:

The Fathers of the early centuries studied and restudied their Bible from cover to
cover to find out the due honor to be ascribed to the Saviour and to make him
perfectly relevant, by pointing out how completely he identified himself with our
human nature and existence, and yet how absolutely he was above ourselves as
the Son of the Eternal God. The work of the Saviour, however, has never been
studied with the same care and passion.2

Inevitably, this one-sided approach to Christ has resulted in the tendency to see

the Savior’s work in terms of his earthly life, to the extent that European and North

1
W. Dantine, “Creation and Redemption: Attempt at a Theological Interpretation in Light of the
Contemporary Understanding of the World,” SJT 18, no. 2 (June 1965): 129, James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-
8, WBC, ed. by Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard, and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Books, 1988),
469, C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Introduction
and Commentary on Romans I-VIII, ICC, eds., G. I. Davies, C. M. Tuckett, J. A. Emerton and C. E. B.
Cranfield (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 411–12, John G. Gibbs, Creation and Redemption: A Study in
Pauline Theology, NovTSup 26, ed., W. C. van Unnik (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1971), 40, Robert Jewett, and
Roy David Kotansky, Romans, Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary of the Bible, ed., Eldon
Jay Epp (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 511, Augustine, The Fathers of the Church. Vol. v. 70,
Eighty-Three Different Questions (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), 148–
57, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB (New York:
Doubleday, 1993), 506, Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1996), 513, Jürgen Moltmann, “Cosmos and Theosis: Eschatological Perspectives on the Future
of the Universe,” in The Far Future Universe: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective, ed., George F. R.
Ellis, [Radnor: Templeton Foundation Press, 2002], 250–55, H. Paul Santmire, The Travail of Nature: The
Ambiguous Ecological Promise of Christian Theology, Theology and the Sciences (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1985), 1–7.
2
Otto A. Piper, “The Saviour’s Eternal Work. An Exegesis of Colossians 1:9–29,” Int 3, no. 3
(July 1949): 286.

1
 2

American churches have produced a growing dissociation of Christ’s redemption from

creation, as if they were unable to deal with biblical texts concerning Christ’s mediatory

work for creation.3 This fact is bound up with the current emphasis on individual faith,

underlining the inward aspect of man’s own subjective experience of Christ as the

summing up of his mediatory work.4

At the same time, this detachment from creation is also one of the results of the

historical baggage of the interpretation of Romans 8:18–22. This passage has been read

almost entirely from the standpoint of the believer’s assurance of salvation by grace

through faith, but not in light of its eschatological background.5

Furthermore, to confess Jesus as Lord is to also confess God as Creator. For

Western Christianity, however, this merely implies a feeling of dependency on the

Creator, and yet Scripture portrays a work of Christ in creation of cosmological

dimensions that goes far beyond a mere sense of dependence (Isa 11:1–9, 65:17–25, John

1:3, Rom 11:36, 1 Cor 8:6, Eph 1:10, 20–21, Col 1:13–20, 1 Thess 4:13–5:11, 2 Pet

3:10–13, Rev 21:1–8).6

3
Ibid.
4
Dantine, “Creation and Redemption,” 129–31.
5
Joseph Lee Nelson, “The Groaning of Creation: An Exegetical Study of Romans 8:18–27,” (ThD
diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1969), 2.
6
Greg K. Beale, “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology,” in Eschatology in
Bible & Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New Millennium, ed., Kent E. Brower and Mark
W. Elliott (Downers Grove, IL.: IVP, 1997), 18–28, 32–34.
 3

Typically, a secular view of the world is the most common approach to creation.

Nevertheless, there is some dialogue between science and religion, but often to the

detriment of the latter. Much of it has been focused on the methodologies of science and

has concentrated on issues such as origins and anthropology.7 Since the year 2000, a few

publications have addressed the question of creation and redemption, especially in light

of eschatology,8 but none of these works engage with the biblical data in depth, which

consequently leads to a lack of interest in Christ’s work in creation. But the work of

Christ in the universe is too important to be either ignored or simply left to the field of

natural science.

In the midst of this scientific approach to the world, John Durant has stated that

human beings are “mere fragments in a world that appears to be neither about us nor for

us.”9 This view, however, is clearly opposed to the biblical evidence. It must be

rejected—God is indeed concerned about humans and their cosmological environment.

Both elements, mankind and creation, are two sides of the same coin. So, Christ’s

redemptive work must not be limited to either one. It applies to both.

7
For a list of some publications that engage with the methodologies of science and theology see
David Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe (New York: T&T Clark International,
2010), 5–6.
8
For some examples see, Arnold Benz, The Future of the Universe: Chance Chaos Or God?
(London: Continuum, 2000), and, George F. R. Ellis, ed. The Far Future Universe: Eschatology from a
Cosmic Perspective (Radnor: Templeton Foundation Press, 2002), especially chapters 10 (Simon Conway
Morris, “Does Biology Have an Eschatology, and if so does It Have Cosmological Implications?” in The
Future of the Universe: Chance Chaos Or God?, ed., Arnold Benz, [London: Continuum, 2000], 158–74)
and 16 (Moltmann, “Cosmos and Theosis,” 249–65).
9
John Durant, Darwinism and Divinity: Essays on Evolution and Religious Belief (Oxford:
Blackwell, 1985), 9.
 4

The Relevance of the Study

Romans 8:18–27 is one of the most important passages that harmonize the

concepts of creation and redemption in light of Christ’s work. It has a long history of

interpretation because of its uniqueness, especially in the density of its theological

content,10 and is, therefore, not easy to interpret.

Most interpreters do not relate it to the physical reality of the cosmos. This

changes, however, if the passage is seen both in its context in Romans and in light of

Paul’s eschatology, which is influenced by Jewish apocalyptic theology. It does not mean

that Paul’s theology is rooted in apocalypticism,11 but rather that it shows apocalyptic

characteristics.12 This is confirmed by the theology contained in Paul’s use of κτίσις, and

the place of Romans 8 in the overall structure of the letter as well. This apocalyptic

10
For some examples see Andrzej Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30 “Suffering Does Not Thwart the
Future Glory,” University of South Florida: International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999), 87–88, The Epistle to the Romans, 508, Olle Christoffersson, The Earnest
Expectation of the Creature: The Flood-Tradition As Matrix of Romans 8: 18-27, ConBNT 23 (Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990), 141, Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, 404, H. P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans
(Minneapolis: James and Klock Christian Publishing, 1977), 134, Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on
Romans, ed., by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1980), 231, R. C. H. Lenski,
The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis: Ausgburg Publishing, 1961), 528.
11
The word apocalypticism is used in reference to sociological ideology, a product of the
combination of apocalyptic literature and eschatology (Harry Alan Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption
of Creation: Nature in Romans 8.19-22 and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, Library of New Testament
Studies 336, ed. Mark Goodacre [New York: T&T Clark, 2006], 7). Paul’s thinking in Romans has
elements of apocalyptic theology but the literary genre of the letter to the Romans is not apocalyptic (see
John Joseph Collins, “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre,” Semeia 14 [1979]: 3). This
apocalyptic theology highlights the idea of near expectation of the parousia, and the world of concepts
which comes to expression in this expectation as the result of Jewish and Hellenistic-oriental syncretism
(Ernst Käsemann, “On the Topic of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” JTC 6 [1969], 100, Hans Dieter Betz,
“On the Problem of the Religio-Historical Understanding of Apocalypticism,” JTC 6 [1969], 135, 138).
12
According to Johan Christiaan Beker this is one of the clearest confessions of the apocalyptic
triumph of God in Paul’s letters (Christiaan Beker, Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and
Thought [Philadelphia: Fortress Publishers, 1980], 363–66).
 5

perspective shows a clear relationship between creation and redemption (Isa 40:12–31,

42:5–9, Ezek 34:25–26). Paul’s thinking displays the direct Jewish apocalyptic

theological connection of Creation and redemption, as two entities that are held together

theologically (Rom 8:18–22, cf., 1 En 31–71, 4 Ezra, and 2 Bar). Creation becomes the

framework of God’s redemptive history, and everything revolves around the person and

work of Christ, who will transform not only the believer but also the cosmos (Col 1:13–

20).

The Method of the Study

Various interpretive methodologies applied to the study of the book of Romans

ignoring the eschatological framework of Romans 8:18–22 have produced such diversity

that a dissociation of creation and redemption has resulted. Käsemann’s methodology, for

example, interprets Romans in light of Paul’s opponents.13 So the circumstances of the

apostle’s enemies become the interpretative frame for the letter.14 According to

Käsemann, Paul writes Romans 8:18 and the following verses to counteract what he calls

the “Gentile-Christian enthusiastic radically realized eschatology.”15 This means that

believers, under the influence of distorted teachings, thought of themselves as already

glorified, which was remarkably connected with the ecstatic events during Christian

13
This approach is known as Mirror-Reading (See J. M. G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical
Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 [1987]: 73–74).
14
Käsemann, Romans, 230–45.
15
Ibid., 232.
 6

worship. Thus, the apostle presents the present sufferings versus the future glory, to

demonstrate that the consummation of the glorification is yet to happen.

The main problem with this methodology is its dependence on an external

element to interpret the text, making interpretation a difficult task. If the only element

present for the understanding of Romans is its conflictive background, it would be easy to

assume that it is the main theme and then to impose it on the rest of the letter. It is clear,

however, that Paul is addressing the Romans and not his enemies. Therefore it is not

necessary to use their worldview as the key to “unlock” the Roman mysteries.

Furthermore, the language that Paul uses in Romans 8:18–27 is the language of personal

conviction. He is expressing his beliefs, not what his enemies claim. A final weakness of

this methodology is its dissociation from the historical and linguistic contexts of the

epistle. To assert that Paul wrote this letter in response to hostility is to ignore the

evidence of a context friendly towards the apostle. In short, some other approach is

necessary since “mirror-reading” in itself is deficient for interpreting the apostle’s

argument.16

Another methodology applied to the study of Romans is Redaction Criticism

(Redaktionsgeschichte). This methodology has been common among European scholars,

especially in the 1970s, and aimed to isolate the traditional material prior to the formation

of the text in order to establish their relationship and understand the final shape of the

16
For a more detailed explanation of the weaknesses present in this methodology, see Barclay,
“Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter,” 73–93.
 7

work as a whole.17 Peter von der Osten Sacken serves as a good example of this

inconsistent approach.18 He isolates what he believes are the “festen Traditionsstücken”

(fixed traces of tradition) behind Romans 8, and then interprets this passage together with

Paul’s own additions. Most of this tradition is assumed to be baptismal and catechetical.19

Nevertheless, the weakness of this methodology is the difficulty in identifying the theme

and extent of the background tradition.20 The passage in Romans 8 is without extensive

comparative material in the Corpus Paulinum. Therefore, it is unlikely that the material,

which Paul is speculated to have borrowed, can be properly identified. This passage is too

brief to allow for the application of Redaktionsgeschichte, which thus seems to be a failed

experiment. Linguistic and stylistic features are not enough to differentiate between

Paul’s supposed added material and the traditional material.21

In the end, the Redaktionsgeschichte methodology is inadequate, since even if the

apostle borrowed some traditional material, it is certainly for the purpose of developing

17
Norman Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism? Edited by Dan O. Via (Eugene, OR: Wipf and
Stock Publishers, 1969), 1.
18
Peter von der Osten Sacken, Römer 8 als Beispiel Paulinischer Soteriologie, FRLANT
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975), 112, 124–28.
19
Ibid., 67–73.
20
Osten-Sacken believes that Paul uses some specific words when he is quoting traditional
material for which he finds support in ἀπολύτρωσις (Rom 8:23) and ὡσαύτως (Rom 8:26), because he
claims that these belong to apocalyptic language (Osten Sacken, Römer 8, 80–82). The problem is that
Osten himself cannot even trace these fixed traditions, ranging from catechetical to apocalyptic traditions.
Ulrich Wilckens, instead, traces this fixed tradition to Jewish apocalyptic material and Hellenistic tradition
(Ulrich Wilckens, La Carta a los Romanos: Rom 6-16, Biblioteca de Estudios Bíblicos, 62, 2nd ed., trans.,
by Víctor A. Martínez de Lapera and Manuel Olasagasti (Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2006), 2:188,
Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, 184–85).
21
Wilckens, La Carta a los Romanos, 186.
 8

his own argument. The apostle did not give priority to this tradition over his own intent.

So, there is no need to correct Paul’s, because of this presumed borrowing of traditional

material.

A third methodology interprets Romans 8 in light of “the religio-historical

background of the motives involved in the text [contemporary to Paul]. Consequently, as

long as the background of the motives is not made clear, the text will remain

enigmatic.”22 For instance, Olle Christoffersson has proposed a radical approach to

Romans 8:18–27, according to which, this passage must be interpreted through the Flood-

tradition—a particular background that is not easily recognized.23 Another representative

of this approach is N.T. Wright, who asserts that the themes of Torah, covenant and

Creator are key for interpreting Romans 8:12–39.24 These themes represent the world of

Judaism focused on temple, law, land, and racial identity, establishing the narrative

framework for the book of Romans. This theological matrix from which the apostle Paul

begins his reasoning intertwines with the argument of Romans and is the key to unfolding

its true meaning.25 The implication of such a proposal is that if one is unaware of this

Jewish theological matrix, he cannot truly understand the apostle’s argument in Romans.

22
Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, 138.
23
Ibid., 18.
24
N. T. Wright, Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2013), 113–14.
25
For a detailed description of the problems of N.T. Wright’s approach, see John Piper, The
Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007), 33–38, 133–44.
 9

The problem with this methodology is that it makes Romans 8:18–27 more

enigmatic than ever, whether following Wright or Christoffersson’s perspective.

Christoffersson’s background is so specific and particular that he himself recognizes its

difficulty, admitting that the apostle does not allude to the Flood with words easily

identifiable.26 The question is obvious, why would Paul write such an enigmatic letter to

a group of people that he did not know? It defiles the purpose of his writing. Can it be

said that Paul wrote to the Romans and that he did it obscurely so that they could not

understand him?

N. T. Wright, on the other hand, proposes a more broad and common background

to understanding Paul, but to an extent that downplays the role of the author. Paul, in

Wright’s framework, becomes a mere copyist of various sources who borrows his

theology from a worldview often distorted and detached from Scriptures. The theological

motifs implied in the text receive their function from the argument in which they appear,

rather than determining the argument. Subsequently, when the argument is established

the background motifs may be identified, as well as their respective functions.

This leads to the proposed approach which Wilhelm H. Wuellner has named “the

argumentative situation.”27 This methodology underlines the nature of Paul’s

argumentation in Romans, without eliminating literary, historical and background

considerations. This approach prioritizes the development of the logical argument within

26
Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, 138.
27
Wilhelm H. Wuellner, “Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the
Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans,” CBQ 38, no. 3 (July 1976): 330.
 10

the framework of the letter. Therefore, the key element consists of a set of thesis

statements, which the apostle establishes in order to persuade the Roman audience. Thus,

before proceeding with investigating Romans 8:18–22, one must understand the

development of Paul’s argumentation in the letter preceding this passage. This

methodology does not suffer from the weaknesses of the others approaches, it respects

historical-grammatical hermeneutics, recognizes the various backgrounds, and considers

the letter as a whole and specifically how Romans 8:18–22 fits into this framework.

“The argumentative situation” approach is used in conjunction with the

historical28 and grammatical method to exegete Romans 8:18–22. These methodologies

are based on the assumption that the Scripture is divinely inspired and thus inerrant (2

Tim 3:15–17, 2 Pet 3:14–17), essential for the life and understanding of the church (John

17:17, 1 Tim 3:15, Heb 4:12), and used by the Spirit to work in the hearts of God’s

people (John 14:16–17, 16:8, 1 Cor 2:10–13, Eph 1:17). Therefore, to understand

correctly the biblical text is to have the very Word of God. For this reason exegesis takes

priority throughout this thesis. Hence, the original languages are crucial, as the means by

which the author’s meaning is set forth.29 This appeals to the usage of sound

hermeneutics which deal with the text’s vocabulary, grammar, history, literary genre,

28
This term manifests the assumption of “the principle of a personal historical scientific research
which sincerely approaches the subject studied from an objective scientific viewpoint and, while doing so,
realizes that there is something out there that really factually happened in the past” (W. Harold Mare,
“Guiding Principles for Historical Grammatical Exegesis,” Grace Journal 14, no. 3 [Fall 1973]: 16).
29
Darrell L. Bock, “Opening Questions: Definition and Philosophy of Exegesis,” in Interpreting
the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis, eds., Darrell L. Bock and Buist
M. Fanning (Wheaton, IL.: Crossway Books, 2006), 24.
 11

social context, and theological scope.30 This historical-grammatical hermeneutics is

essential for eliciting the message of the text and for offering arguments to support such

an understanding.

The Scope of the Study

This last observation about the proper methodology hints at the scope of the

present study—from the larger to the more specific, that is, from the theological

background of Pauline writings to the theology of Romans, from the whole epistle to

chapter 8, and finally from Romans 8:18–27 to the brief section to be investigated in the

present study—verses 18–22. It will be necessary, however, from time to time to review

how the current argument fits into the overall context of the letter’s background and the

text of the epistle itself, which precedes the limited passage of chapter 8:18–22.

The Limitations of the Study

On the other hand, the scope is limited by the proposed methodology. In other

words, the exegesis of these verses will especially emphasize those terms and concepts

relevant to the development of the apostle’s argumentation. This approach will be

followed in order to solve the problem of the dissociation of Christ’s redemption from

creation. Due to space constrictions, however, the definition of the theological nature of

the relationship between Creation and Redemption will not be the purpose of this thesis,

but rather to show how Paul’s argument in Romans 8 demonstrates that such a

30
Ibid., 25.
 12

relationship is present. Hence, when elaborating the doctrine of divine redemption it is

necessary to include a consideration of how this affects, or is affected by, the rest of

creation.

The assumed relationship between creation and redemption is cosmological

instead of anthropocentric, that is, God’s redemptive history evolves around Christ and

his exaltation above all of creation, rather than merely the salvation of man. This

relationship must be represented by a tension between continuity and discontinuity, as is

modeled by Christ’s resurrection. Therefore, transformation is the means by which this

creation is redeemed, as the believer is also transformed in his glorification. Albert M.

Wolters explains this relationship as follows, “Redemption means restoration, that is, the

return to the goodness of an originally unscathed creation and not merely the addition of

something supracreational…. This restoration affects the whole of creational life and not

merely some limited area within it.”31 God’s work in redemption becomes the theological

frame to define the relationship between creation and redemption.32 “All creation

participates in the drama of man’s fall and ultimate liberation in Christ.”33

31
Albert M. Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, 2nd ed.,
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2005), 69, cf., Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An
Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester: IVP, 2007), 1160–61.
32
Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe, 185–87.
33
Wolters, Creation Regained, 56.
 13

The Structure of the Study

The first chapter presents Romans 8:18–22 in the context of the book of Romans.

It is argued that chapter 8 must be read together with chapters 9–11. If so, then Romans 8

carries eschatological implications which connect it to Old Testament eschatology, as

will be examined in chapter two. This placement in the letter of Romans 8:18–22

evidences the relevance of creation in Paul’s doctrine of redemption as he develops it in

chapters 1–11. A second chapter traces the meaning of the word κτίσις in the Old

Testament and Jewish apocalyptic literature to provide the larger context for the effects

of redemption. This discussion shows the cosmological scope of the idea. In other words,

when Paul thinks of κτίσις in Romans 8:18–22 he is not limiting it to non-human nature

on earth,34 instead he expands it to the entirety of the universe, excluding those beings

excluded from salvation. This is followed by two chapters with a more detailed exegesis

of Romans 8:18–22 and an explanation of Paul’s propositio,35 following the

argumentative situation approach. Chapter three explains how Romans 8:19–22 is the

answer to a possible objection, based on the Deuteronomic principle of retribution, to

Paul’s thesis statement in Romans 8:1—”there is now no condemnation.” Finally, chapter

four presents how the apostle paves the way for the final proof of his thesis statement in

Romans 8:1 and 8:18. His surmounting argument conquers any possible doubt. It is in

this argument that the restoration of the entire cosmos becomes the anchor for the

34
As will be shown in chapter two, some have argued that κτίσις in Romans 8:18–22 refers to
nature on earth, excluding human beings. But that chapter will demonstrate how Paul’s usage of κτίσις in
this passage is broader than the earth.
35
The propositio is the presentation of the argument’s thesis (Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30, 9–11).
 14

believer’s glory, which is the frame for interpreting Romans 8:18–22. Paul challenges the

notion that the Deuteronomic principle of retribution is universal. He does this by noting

that creation, though innocent, groans and suffers birth pangs indicating that creation’s

future glory will not be frustrated. To be sure, Paul argues primarily for the certainty of

the believer’s future salvation, but he presents the relationship between Creation and

Redemption as an undeniable proof of this. Thus, if the cross has a redemptive effect on

non-human cosmological creation, it must likewise on the believer. The solidarity of

humanity and the created order is especially affirmed in this passage. Both, humanity and

creation are objects of God’s redemptive work.

 CHAPTER ONE:
ROMANS 8:18–27 IN LIGHT OF ITS CONTEXT

Romans 8:18–27 focuses on the present sufferings and future glory for God’s

children. The two, sufferings and future glory, are not to be compared but contrasted, and

it is in such a contrast that hope is granted to the believer in the midst of physical

distress.1 Paul presents a cosmological setting that encompasses cosmic creation and the

sons of God, being both mutually interdependent entities. The restoration of the children

of God will inevitably affect creation. “As nature has shared in man’s curse…, [and] now

shares in man’s tribulation, so it will come to share in man’s glory.”2

The place of this passage in the overall structure of the book of Romans is

important in order to establish the type of hope in Paul’s argument. If Romans 8:18–27

belongs to the section of chapters 5–8,3 then the apostle places these verses within the

theological framework of the results of justification. Thus, the role of the Spirit focuses

1
John R. W. Stott, Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8 (Downers Grove, IL.:
InterVarsity Press, 1966), 94.
2
Ibid.
3
It is beyond the scope of this study to determine where this section begins. Regarding this issue,
three main positions are held: Romans 5:1 begins a new section; Romans 5:1–21 becomes the climax of
Romans 1:81–5:21; and hence Romans 6:1 constitutes another beginning for the following section. Finally,
there is a middle position that splits chapter 5 in two sections, verses 1–11 are the conclusion to that which
precedes (1:18–5:11), and verses 12–21 introduce the new section, so Romans 5:12 is understood as
another beginning (for a more in detail discussion see Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30, 15–39; and Charles
Davison Myers “Chiastic Inversion in the Argument of Romans 3–8,” NovT 35, no. 1 [January 1993]: 30–
47). Since to determine the precise beginning of this section in chapter 5 is not the direct object of the
present investigation, the beginning to this section will be referred to simply as Chapter 5, leaving room for
ambiguity and allowing the reader to impose his own perspective on this issue. The author’s view,
however, as is shown later on the proposed rhetorical structure, is that Romans 5:1 begins a new section
within the book.

15
 16

on the believer, and not necessarily the extent of κτίσις. On the other hand, if these verses

are to be read together with Romans 9–11, then the apostle presents κτίσις in an

eschatological and spiritual context. In other words, if the Spirit is present in the believer,

the last days have begun, opening up the door to an eschatology of hope of cosmological

proportions.

In order to interpret this section correctly, it is indispensable to understand how

Romans 8:18–27 fits into the macro-structure of the epistle, as well as the meaning and

scope of the word κτίσις. The general consensus sees Romans 5–8 as one logical unit.4

Nonetheless, it can be argued that Romans 5–11 constitutes an interdependent section

within the argument of the apostle,5 and thus, the theological scope that defines Romans 8

goes beyond chapters 5–7. If this is the case, then κτίσις in Romans 8:18–27 inherits

4
Cranfield, Romans, 1:28–29, 251–54, Dunn, Romans 1-8, 301–303, 412, Leon Morris, The
Epistle to the Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1988), 19, 33–34, 243–44, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 33–34, 293–94, Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans,
Baker Exegetical Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 26, 245, Jewett,
and Kotansky, Romans, 344, Robert H. Mounce, Romans, NAC (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995),
57, 147, William Hendriksen, and Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, New
Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1981), 244, and Colin G. Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the
Romans, The Pillar New Testament Commentary, ed., D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
2012), 322. It is necessary to say that Kruse may seem to be ambivalent regarding the structure of these
chapters. He divides the letter in five main sections (Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 13–14), placing
chapter 8 under the section “Exposition and Defense of the Gospel 1:18–11:36 (see, 82); thus, one may
conclude that he does not see either chapters 8–11 or 5–8 as an unit. But, when he introduces chapter 8 he
links it back to chapters 6 and 7 (see, 322), and presents chapters 9–11 as the next major unit of the book or
Romans (see, 366).
5
This position does not imply that chapter 8 should be detached from its previous context. In fact,
chapters 5–7 are foundational to this chapter. But, the emphasis is often placed on the unity of 5–8 apart
from 9–11, but, as it will be argued, chapter 8 becomes a transition point connecting both of the sections
which precede and follow it. So, while clear connections are present between sections 5–7 and 8, the
rhetoric of the apostle also presents chapter 8 in connection with 9–11 to the point that the thematic
emphasis concludes that chapter 8 joins with the following chapters.
 17

some of the eschatological nuances found in Romans 9–11, as hinted at in the discussion

about the theology behind the word κτίσις.

Romans 9–11: An Integral Part of the Letter

In contemporary studies on Romans there is overwhelming agreement regarding

the overall integrity6 of the letter and its division7 into two major sections: chapters 1–11,

and 12–15:13. The former establishes the foundational theology for the praxis of the

latter. The issue, however, becomes more complex when subdividing the theological

section of the letter. Recent discussion has focused on the placement and purpose of

Romans 9–11.

Scholars used to think of these chapters as an excursus, to the point that one could

ignore them and still make sense of Paul’s linear thought,8 almost as though chapter 8

were directly connected to Romans 12. In light of this, and the fact that Romans 12

commences the second larger unit of the letter, the logical conclusion would be that

Romans 8 belongs with its preceding chapters. C. H. Dodd illustrates this:

Chapters 9–11 form a unity in themselves. They can be read and understood
independently, and equally without them the epistle could be read through without
any sense of a gap in the sequence of thought. It is probable that they represent a

6
Moo, after examining the structure of the letter, concludes “the letter Paul wrote to Rome
contained all sixteen chapters found in modern texts and translations” (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 9,
cf., 5–8).
7
Cranfield, Romans, 1:27–28, and Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30, 14.
8
For example, David Martyn Lloyd-Jones saw these chapters as “kind of postscript.” David
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Final Perseverance of the Saints: Exposition of Chapter 8:17-39 (Edinburgh:
Banner of Truth, 1975), 367.
 18

sermon or tract on the subject of the Rejection of Israel which Paul had composed
earlier, and may have used frequently when he had to discuss that subject.9

These chapters are assumed to be so much a Pauline afterthought appended to the

main body of the letter that they have been virtually ignored.10 The reader can go from

Romans 8:39 to 12:1, skipping Romans 9–11, without any structural or thematic break,

limiting the main doctrinal section only to chapters 1–8, hence, the inclusion of chapter 8

with the preceding section, since it obviously does not belong to the second major

division of the letter.

Nonetheless, most commentators today see chapters 9–11 as an integral part to

Romans, especially since Paul is writing to a mixed congregation of Jews and Gentiles.11

Joseph A. Fitzmyer, for example, sees Romans 9–11 as the pinnacle of the first eleven

chapters of the epistle. According to Fitzmyer, Paul’s purpose is to explain how national

Israel plays a part in the new phase of God’s redemptive history. Therefore, the divine

grace introduced and described in the first eight chapters is not only manifested towards

the Gentiles but also the Jews, and this hinges on Romans 9–11.12 For Krister Stendahl,

9
C.H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, rev. ed., MNTC (London: Collins, 1959), xxx.
See also Beare, who asserts, “We have left out of consideration three chapters (9-11) of this letter because
they do not form an integral part of the main argument. They are a kind of supplement in which Paul
struggles with the problems of the failures of his own nation, the people of God, to respond in faith to the
gospel of Christ” (F. W. Beare, St. Paul and His Letters [New York: Abingdon, 1962], 103).
10
Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, translated K. Grobel (London: SCM, 1952),
2:132
11
The letter repeatedly mentions both ethnic groups (1:16, 2:9–10, 3:9, 29, 9:24, 30–31, 10:12,
11:25, 15:10). Also there are abundant references to Gentiles alone (1:5, 13, 2:14, 24, 4:17, 11:11, 13,
15:9–12, 16, 18, 17, 16:4, 26), and only Jews (2:17, 28–29, 3:1, 29).
12
Fitzmyer, Romans, 539–43.
 19

chapters 9–11 are the “real center of gravity” in the letter.13 It is in this section where the

relation between Jews and Gentiles is presented as it had been revealed to Paul.14

According to Leon Morris, “in the ‘thesis’ of this letter Paul not only spoke of the gospel

as ‘the power of God for salvation’ but also said it was ‘to the Jew first’ (1:16–17).”15

The apostle does not show what this means, however, until chapters 9–11. If they were

absent, key questions presented throughout the letter would be left unanswered. This

section is crucial to understand that, just as salvation comes from the Jews, it also is for

them. Moreover, just as God remains faithful to his national people, so will he be faithful

to his church.16 John Murray also sees these chapters as the vindication of the thesis of

the book introduced in Romans 1:16. If this division of the epistle were absent, there

would be confusion as to whether Israel’s salvation is superseded by Christian salvation

or not.17 Karl Kertelge believes that chapters 9–11 are not a digression at all. Instead they

sum up the development of the gospel for Jews and Gentiles.18

N.T. Wright is another author who agrees with the unity of Romans 9–11 as an

integral part of the letter. He writes, “to treat these chapters as marginal, is to

13
Krister Stendahl, Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1976), 28.
14
Ibid.
15
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 343.
16
Ibid.
17
John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and
Notes, NICNT, ed., F. F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1977), 1:xii.
18
Karl Kertelge, The Epistles to the Romans and Galatians (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1977),
101.
 20

misunderstand the whole, the letter will simply not work without them.”19 Brendan Byrne

agrees with N.T. Wright when he says that, “there is almost universal recognition that

chapters 9–11 form an integral and necessary element of Paul’s total project in

Romans.”20

Paul’s proclamation of the gospel in Romans intrinsically depends on the solution

of the apparent paradox of the gospel, that is, its success in saving gentiles in contrast

with its supposed failure with Israel. The apostle’s message in Romans 1–8 argues for the

inclusion of the gentiles, but such inclusion does not exclude the people to whom the

original promises were made. Hence, Romans 9–11 becomes pivotal for the rest of the

letter.21 C.E.B. Cranfield identifies the relation of Romans 9–11 to the rest of the book as

a “stubborn problem.”22 Nonetheless he asserts that many features in Romans 1–8 cannot

be comprehended until they are seen in light of Romans 9–11.23 Moreover, the issue of

19
N.T. Wright, “The Letter to the Romans,” in NIB, ed., Leander E. Keck (Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 2000), 626, see also N. T. Wright, The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline
Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 234.
20
Brendan Byrne, Romans, SP, ed., Daniel J. Harrington (Collegeville, PA.: Liturgical Press,
1996), 282.
21
Ibid., 293.
22
Cranfield, Romans, 2:445.
23
It can be argued that if the letter was meant to be read to its recipients then it is hard to conceive
how the apostle speaks of something that will not be fully realized until later in the epistle. But, Cranfield
himself shows how this happens in other passages in the epistle. In Romans 1:16–17, Paul describes the
gospel as the power of God for salvation and as the revelation of God’s righteousness. But this gospel
cannot be understood apart from Romans 1:1–4 where it is defined as God’s message concerning his Son,
who was born of David according to the flesh. Thus, the message of the gospel must be understood in
connection with Israel. Moreover, this gospel was promised in the Old Testament, which was initially given
to Israel. The gospel does not make sense apart from a literal historical and grammatical interpretation of
the Old Testament, and thus, even to grasp the full scope of the implications of verses like Romans 1:1–4,
16–17, Romans 9–11 is necessary (Cranfield, Romans, 2:445–57).
 21

Jew and Gentile introduced in 1:16 is relevant to the entire letter. Even in chapters 5–8

where those groups are not explicitly mentioned, Paul is still dealing with the issues of

salvation, the church and the Lord for both Jew and Gentile. Thus the tension between

Jew and Gentile is so consistent throughout the letter that Romans 9–11 becomes

essential to the argument—Gentile salvation does not imply Israel’s damnation. This

detailed discussion of Israel’s role in God’s redemptive history is the “final resolution of

a tension inherent in the letter from the very statement of its theme”24 in 1:16. God still is

impartial and faithful to Israel. Despite the transition between chapters 9–11 and the

previous section, whether it truly ends in chapter 8 or not, the continuity of the argument

is demonstrated throughout the letter. While this apparent dialogue with Judaism aids one

to see the connection of Romans 9–11 with the rest of the letter, it is not the primary

reason for the occasion of the epistle. Christian Beker argues that Paul aims to portray

Israel’s role in God’s redemptive history. Thus, he limits the letter to a mere dialogue

with Jews, even when the apostle does not address the Jews directly in Romans 5–8 as he

does in 1:18–4:25. According to Beker, the letter still presents the Jewish debate in the

background.25

The letter is directed to “all who are beloved in Rome” (Rom 1:7), and although

this phrase is reminiscent of the expression “those who love God,” a reference to Israel

24
E. Elizabeth Johnson, The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9-11.
Dissertation series (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1989), 120. See pages 116–122 for a fuller
discussion.
25
Beker, Paul the Apostle, 86–87.
 22

often used in the Old Testament,26 there is no evidence that in the New Testament it

applies only to Israelites. In fact, this terminology is also used in 1 Corinthians,

Ephesians, and 1 John,27 which are letters written to gentile communities. Hence, it seems

that “those who loved God” is a reference to the people of God, who through the work of

Christ are comprised of both Jew and Gentile (Eph 2:11–16, 3:6). While it is difficult to

determine the precise composition of the Roman church at the time when Paul wrote the

letter, it is usually believed that there was a strong gentile component.28 On the other

hand, it is true that the letter presents evidence that Paul had Jewish believers in mind as

he greets the Jewish-believers Priscilla and Aquila and his countrymen, Andronicus,

Junia, and Herodion (Rom 16:3, 7, 11). Also, the apostle directly addresses Jews in

chapter 2:17.

Additionally, at times he speaks of his readers as those who were associated with

the Mosaic Law (Rom 6:14, 7:1, 4). The fact that he calls Abraham “our forefather

according to the flesh” (Rom 4:1) also indicates a Jewish audience. Finally, the apostle

continuously deals with issues of special interest to the Jewish people, such as, the Jewish

presumption for divine favor (Rom 2:1–3:8), their failure of their law (Rom 3:19–20, 27–

31, 4:12–15, 5:13–14, 20, 6:14, 7, 8:2–4, 9:30–10:8), the significance of Abraham (Rom

4), and their place in God’s redemptive history (Rom 9–11).

26
Exod 20:6, Deut 5:10, 7:9, Judg 5:31, Neh 1:5, Ps 5:11, Dan 9:4, Tob 13:15, 14:7, Bel 38
(LXX).
27
1 Cor 2:9, 8:3, Eph 6:23, and 1 John 2:21, 5:21.
28
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 9, Dunn, Romans 1–8, xiv, and Morris, The Epistle to the
Romans, 5.
 23

There are, however, enough indications to conclude that the audience included

gentile believers. For example, he addresses his letter to the believers who are in Rome,

among whom gentiles were present (Rom 1:5–6, 13, 15:14–21). In addition, when Paul

develops his argument for the role of national Israel in God’s plan, he does it in direct

connection “to you the gentiles” (Rom 11:13, cf., also 11:14–24). Lastly, the apostle’s

command in Romans 15:7 to “receive one another” seems to be intended for gentile

believers (Rom 15:8–9).29

There is no reason, therefore, to assume that the letter is directly and uniquely

addressed to Jews. Indeed, if that were the case, the apparent tension between Jew and

Gentile would be pointless. The evidence does not support Beker’s suggestion.30

Nevertheless, the fact that Beker fails to accept a gentile audience for the letter does not

mean that Paul is detaching Romans’ message from its Jewish roots. So the Jew-Gentile

salvation paradox is still present throughout the letter. In light of this, Romans 9–11

becomes a key element to understand the unity of the letter as a whole.

It is difficult, then, to conceive how such an elaborate passage could ever have not

been one of the keys for understanding Paul’s theology in Romans. But if chapters 9–11

are an integral part of the letter, then other problems arise, especially concerning how

these chapters connect to other sections of the epistle, particularly to Romans 8.

29
Ibid., 9–10.
30
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 28.
 24

Romans 8 Connected to Romans 9–11

The general consensus, as previously seen, is that Romans 9–11 is part of Paul’s

argument to demonstrate how God saves his people. Therefore, it is important to

understand that the first eleven chapters of Romans are a unity. Paul does not proceed to

a new and unrelated subject in chapter 9.31 Romans 1–11 is thus mainly devoted to a key

question behind most of Paul’s troubles in ministry, namely, is it possible to be saved

without Judaism? But as T. W. Manson states, the real question is “can one be a good

[genuine] Jew without embracing Christianity?”32 Paul masterfully argues that

justification by faith preceded the Law (Rom 4), but this inclusion of the gentiles by faith

without the Law does not thwart God’s purposes for national Israel (Rom 9–11). The

connection between chapters 1–8 and 9–11 is much closer than is sometimes believed.

Barrett well portrays this when he states:

For chapters 1–8 are not so much concerned with an “experience of salvation” as
with the character and deeds of God who is the source of salvation, and chapters
9–11 are not at all concerned with Paul’s patriotic sentiments but with the
character and deeds of God who elected the Jews and now calls the Gentiles. In
the second as in the first half of the epistle Paul writes about God and his strange
mercy in offering to men justification on the basis of faith alone, but his portrayal

31
Ibid, 334.
32
T. W. Manson, “St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans—and Others,” in Studies in The Gospels and
Epistles, ed., Matthew Black (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1962), 226. Manson thought that
Paul wrote Romans 1–15, and that chapter 16 was a brief letter addressed to the Ephesians (Manson, “St.
Paul’s Letter to the Romans,” 225–42). Manson’s arguments have not been found compelling, since the
textual evidence overwhelmingly favors the inclusion of Chapter 16 in the letter (A. Andrews Das, Solving
the Romans Debate [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007], 17–23). Nonetheless, his misconception of the
structure should not be taken as an indicator to discard every insight he had regarding Romans’ structure, as
for instance, the unity of chapters 1–11, and the driving question behind this entire section of the epistle,
“can one be a good [genuine] Jew without embracing Christianity?” (Manson, “St. Paul’s Letter to the
Romans,” 225–26).
 25

of divine freedom and grace is determined by the different contexts in which it is

set.33

The apostle in an agonizing confession recognizes that Israel, despite her

privileges as God’s chosen nation, has rejected the gospel he preached with apostolic

authority. This fact is basic for setting chapters 9–11 in motion. Paul steps into the

heavenlies and gazes on God’s glorious salvation, which leaves the apostle in awe of

God’s love freely bestowed upon sinful men elected before the foundation of the world,

and kept invincibly in Christ unto glory (Rom 8:29–39). This reflection pierces the

apostle’s soul and forces him to look at his countrymen (Rom 9:1–5), who so eagerly

awaited their savior and yet did not receive God’s Savior. This becomes important

because it sets Israel’s salvation in the eschatological context which lies behind the

relationship between Romans 8 and Romans 9–11.

These chapters, including Romans 8:18–39, deal with the ultimate fate of Israel in

relation to the future for the gentiles and the entire world, and at the center of this

expectation for the revelation of the sons of God (Rom 8:18–23), the Spirit is present.

The role of the Spirit, at first introduced in contrast with Romans 7:14–25, may appear to

be limited only to his action in the life of the believer (Rom 8:1–17). This is meant,

however, to prepare the reader for the eschatological context into which Romans 8:18–

11:36 is merged. Physical resurrection is mentioned in Romans 8:1 together with the final

life that comes only through the Spirit (Rom 8:13), and terms, such as “sons of God”

33
C. K. Barrett, A Commentary on The Epistle to The Romans, 2nd., ed., (London: A&C Black
Publishers, 1991), 164. Although Barrett speaks in terms of “second” and “first halves” notice how he sees
the theme consistently the same—God’s character and deeds portrayed in his work of justification (Barrett,
A Commentary on The Epistle to The Romans, 163–65).
 26

(υἱοὶ θεοῦ, Rom 8:14), “adoption” (υἱοθεσίας, Rom 8:15), “fellow heirs”

(συγκληρονόµοι, Rom 8:17), “which all have eschatological orientation,”34 redirect the

reader to the same subject—eschatology. Romans 8:17 portrays this when the apostle

links the present sufferings with the future glory. Therefore, eschatology is the thread

interweaving and uniting these chapters. This unity is supported by the rhetorical

structure of the book.35 The apostle creates a series of parallels as he unfolds his logic all

throughout the letter, organizing his reasoning between the exordium36 (Rom 1:1–17) and

34
Thomas H. Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Context: The Argument of Romans (Peabody, MA.:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 255. Furthermore, the immediate context shows this eschatological reality.
For instance, Romans 8:23 presents υἱοθεσίας in apposition to τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώµατος ἡµῶν,
showing that even the present state of the adoption is not final, since the redemption of the body is still a
future event. So then, the believer awaits for the eschatological manifestation of the adoption. The word
συγκληρονόµοι in Romans 8:17 is used in connection with Christ, indicating that the inheritance of the υἱοὶ
θεοῦ (Rom 8:14, 19 [τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ]) is in association with Christ’s inheritance, which is presented in
an eschatological context (see, Rom 8:19), an idea confirmed by the Old Testament background for the
term συγκληρονόµοι. This word is never used in the LXX, however, the concept is present in passages like
Amos 9:12–14, where the gentiles (see the parallelism of Edom with the nations here and in Isa 63:1–6,
24:1–8, Obad 15–21) will also possess (inherit) the land with the Second Coming of the Messiah (Walter C.
Kaiser, “The Davidic Promise and the Inclusion of the Gentiles [Amos 9:9–15 and Acts 15:13–18]: A Test
Passage for Theological Systems,” JETS 20 no. 2 [1977]: 103Barry E. Horner, Future Israel: Why
Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged, ed. E. Ray Clendenen [Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007],
198, Gerhard F. Hasel, The Remnant: the History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from Genesis to Isaiah
[Berrien Springs, MI.: Andrews University Press, 1974], 339–94, Julian Morgenstern, “The Rest of The
Nations,” JSS 2, no. 3 [July 1957]: 225–27).
35
There is considerable debate about the rhetorical classification of Romans (see, Christopher
Bryan, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in Its Literary and Cultural Setting [Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000], 18–28), and because delimiting its classification is beyond the scope of this thesis,
it will be treated as Paraenesis, that is, Romans is a combination of deliberative and epideictic rhetoric.
This means that it presents elements characteristic of persuasive rhetoric, such as, advice, persuasion, and
dissuasion, and elements of praising or blaming rhetoric as well. Moreover, these two styles rely both on
one another and judicial rhetoric, which is concerned with accusation and defense, particularly in the legal
setting, as Romans 1–3 illustrates. Therefore, the Romans oratory is complementary because what
deliberative rhetoric advises and dissuades, epideictic rhetoric praises and blames, which at the same time,
is reminiscent of accusations and defenses, characteristic of judicial rhetoric. Hence the Paraenesis
classification (Duane F. Watson, “The Three Species of Rhetoric and the Study of the Pauline Epistles,” in
Paul and Rhetoric, eds., J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe [New York: T&T Clark, 2010], 26, 34–35).
36
This is the introductory part of the oration in which the speaker must define himself and his
problem (Wuellner, “Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans,” 336).
 27

the peroratio of the letter (Rom 15:14–16:27).37 Each one of these parallels becomes an

argumentative unit which also presents a kind of rhetorical propositio followed at times

by several subpropositiones, a conclusio and, in between, the probatio.38 Thus, the

rhetorical parallel structure of the letter is as follows:39

Table 1.1. Rhetorical Structure of Romans

Argu- Argu- Argument
Intro Praxis Closure
ment A ment B C
Exordium 1:1–17
Propositio 1:18–32 3:21–26 5:1–21 8:1–30
Probatio 2:1–3:18 3:27–4:22 6:1–7:20 8:31–11:32
Conclusio 3:19–20 4:23–25 7:21–25 11:33–36
Paranesis 12:1–15:13
Peroratio 15:14–16:27

These divisions show that Romans 8–11 also shares other elements in common

with the other sections of the letter, supporting the unity of Romans 8:1–11:36 as an

argumentative unit. Romans 8:1–30, like the other propositiones of the letter (Rom 1:18–

21, 3:21–26 and 5:1–21) resumes the issue of the previous sections, and introduces a new

thesis subordinated to the main argument of the letter. This movement from one argument

to another is marked by the words νυνί in 3:21, οὖν in 5:1, and oὐδὲν ἄρα in 8:1.

Moreover there are rhetorical parallelisms within each propositio. In presenting his thesis

37
The peroratio is the recapitulatory closing element of the oration. In Romans 15:14–16:27 Paul
reiterates his obligation to serve the gospel (Rom 15:16), and the empowering of the Spirit (Rom 15:17–
20), recapitulating what he already presented in the exordium (see, Rom 1:13–14, 1:16). The difference is
that while in the exordium Paul zoomed in from a wide view of his apostolic call towards a sharp focus on
his goal among the Romans, in the peroratio his view moves outward, including his desire to go beyond
Rome (Rom 15:28) (Elliott Neil, The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and
Paul’s Dialogue with Judaism, JSNTSup 45, eds., David Hill and David E. Orton [Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1990], 86–87).
38
The probatio aims to define, explain, substantiate and justify the thesis, and the conclusio closes
the argumentative unit (Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30, 9–11).
39
This table is adapted from Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Context, 255.
 28

the apostle often relates his argument to material familiar to the audience. For instance, in

Romans 3:24–26 and 5:6–9 he shows what God has done in Christ on behalf of the

believer, as he also does in Romans 8:3–4. In the same manner he compares past and

future realities in Romans 5:12–21 (Adam and Christ) and 8:18–30 (present and future

creation).40 Similarities are also found in the probationes. Each one contains a number of

quotations from the Old Testament essential to the development of the argument, as also

occurs in Romans 8:31–11:35:

Table 1.2. Old Testament Quotations in Romans Probationes

First probation 2:1–3:18 Second probation 3:27–4:22 Third probation 8:31–11:35
OT Reference Romans OT Reference Romans OT Reference Romans
Isa 52:4 2:24 Gen 15:6 4:3, 9, 22 Ps 44:22 8:36
Ps 51:4 3:4 Ps 32:1–2 4:7–8 Gen 21:12 9:7
Ps 14:2–3 3:10–12 Gen 17:4 4:17 Gen 18:10 9:9
Ps 5:9 3:13a Gen 15:15 4:18 Gen 25:23 9:12
Ps 140:3 3:13b Mal 1:3 9:13
Ps 10:7 3:14 Exod 33:19 9:15
Isa 59:7–8 3:15–17 Exod 9:16 9:17
Ps 36:1 3:18 Isa 45:9 9:20
Hos 2:23 9:25
Hos 1:9–10 9:26
Isa 10:22–23 9:27–28
Isa 1:9 9:29
Isa 8:14, 28:16 9:33
Lev 18:5 10:5
Deut 30:11–14 10:6–8
Isa 28:16 10:11
Joel 2:32 10:13
Isa 52:7 10:15
Isa 53:1 10:16
Ps 19:4 10:18
Deut 32:21 10:19
Isa 65:1–2 10:20–21
1 Kg 18:4 11:3
1 Kg 19:18 11:4
Isa 29:10 11:8
Ps 69:22–23 11:9–10
Isa 59:20–21 11:26–27
Isa 40:13 11:34

40
Ibid., 255–56.
 29

The relevant distinction is that no propositio quotes any passage from the Old

Testament, already marking a contrast between propositio and probatio. These general

rhetorical similarities support the unity of Romans 8–11. If one was to create a new

section from Romans 9:1 to 11:36, then several rhetorical incongruences arise. First,

Romans 9 lacks a propositio. There is not a resumption of a previous theme or new

thesis, instead it continues with another subprobatio of the same propositio, presented in

Romans 8:1–30. The argument developed in Romans 9:1–4 still aims to prove that God

will deliver his people and creation from sin and death.41

Furthermore, there is no particle to indicate the transition from one theme to

another, as in Romans 3:21, 5:1 and 8:1.42 Paul’s argumentation in these verses is

defensive and argumentative. So, he continues to defend the Romans 8:1–30 propositio.

Thus Romans 9:1–11:36 is part of the same probatio that began in Romans 8:31.

Moreover, the parallelism between probationes together with the contrast between

propositio and probatio shows how Romans 9:1ff does not follow the propositio pattern.

Instead it parallels the other probationes of the letter.

It is important, then, to realize that these chapters are not an excursus, but an

integral part of a longer section beginning with Romans 8. The end of this chapter,

Romans 8:31–39, functions as a “grand finale” to offer the first proof of Paul’s thesis

portrayed in Romans 8:1–10—God will deliver his people from sin and death because He

41
This is not to say that Paul is not dealing with the role of the Spirit, or to diminish the work of
Christ. Instead the reversal of sin in creation will be possible because of Christ, and the Spirit becomes the
proof of such a work, as stated in Romans 8:1–30.
42
See above.
 30

is for them. But if gentile believers are now God’s elect, as Paul asserts in his probatio

(Rom 8:31–11:36), this, unquestionably, prompts the question about the relationship

between Gentiles and Jews, and becomes a problem for Romans 8 propositio (Rom 8:1–

30). Thus, the apostle is forced to answer this issue, which becomes a second argument

within his probatio (Rom 9:1–11:36).

To detach Romans 9:1–11:36 from Romans 8:31–39 nullifies Paul’s argument

stated in Romans 8:1–30. His “grand finale” becomes irrelevant to the propositio because

God also was for Israel, and yet He “was not able” to reverse the effects of sin among his

chosen nation.43 Rhetorical analysis, therefore, demonstrates that Romans 9–11 belongs

together with chapter 8. Otherwise, the conclusio of this argument would be untrue. Each

argumentative element builds on the previous one in order to arrive at an affirmative

conclusio:

Table 1.2. Rhetorical Structure of Romans 8–11

1. Propositio: 8:1–30 — God will deliver his people from sin and death
2. Probatio 1: 8:31–39 — If He is for us his elect then it will come to pass
3. Discusio: Implied — But was not Israel also elected and yet gentiles
“inherit” their salvation?
4. Probatio 2: 9:1–11:36 — True, although God’s deliverance for
Israel will come through Gentile
Salvation by faith
5. Conclusio: Implied — Therefore, God will deliver his
people, Jew and Gentile, from sin
and death

The substructure Probatio 2 is rhetorically outlined as follows:44

43
John G. Lodge, Romans 9–11: A Reader-Response Analysis, University of South Florida:
International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 36–38.
44
Complete outline borrowed from: J.G. Panjikaran, Paul’s Concept of Mission: An Exegetical
and Theological Study of Romans 10:8–17 (Delhi: ISPCK, 2009), 93–94.
 31

Table 1.3. Rhetorical Substructure of Romans 9:1–11:36

A. 9:1–29 Probatio A Righteousness of divine election
9:1-5 Exordium The predicament of the chosen Israel
9:6a Subpropositio The word of God has not failed
9:6b–29 Subprobatio Current failure of Israel is not the result of a fault in the
plan of salvation
B. 9:30–10:21 Probatio B Salvation is to all through faith in Jesus Christ
9:30–10:3 Exordium The faith which brings salvation is faith in Jesus Christ.
10:4 Subpropositio Israel’s failure to obtain salvation is due to their
disbelief, and Gentiles received it through faith.
10:5–21 Subprobatio Salvation through faith means acceptance and
confession of the proclaimed “word”
Israel’s election remains, Gentiles only grafted;
C. 11:1–36 Probatio C
salvation to both only through faith
11:1 Subpropositio God will not exclude Israel from salvation
11:2–32 Subprobatio Israel and Gentiles saved through faith
11:33–36 Peroratio The unsearchable wisdom of God (in his saving plan)

In short, Romans 8 is the way in which Paul sets the scene for the discussion of

chapters 9–11. “He deliberately evokes traditional Jewish motifs..., [because] he clearly

intends his readers to understand that the blessings they are inheriting are Israel’s.”45 That

is the key issue. The Romans 8 propositio leaves Israel out of the picture. In order to

solve the dilemma Paul needs to continue the same theme of adoption46 (9:4, cf., 8:14–17,

45
Dunn, Romans 1-8, 467.
46
“The sonship of believers in Romans 8:14–17 forms an important thematic link with Romans 9.
The honorific title ‘sons of God’ denoted Israel’s special status before God as people of the covenant, that
is, the people of God. In verse 14 the title is applied to all (Jews and Gentiles) in Christ who are led by the
Spirit. By using this status title and also the title “children of God” and the term “adoption,” Paul redefines
those who make up the people of God. This new community, the church, is composed of both Jews and
Gentiles in Christ. The new status of being “in Christ” is attested experientially as Jewish and Gentile
believers cry by the Spirit, “Abba, Father” (v. 15), and the Spirit testifies to the spirit of believers that they
are “children of God” (v. 16). This new inclusive understanding of sonship, that is, the people of God, is
confirmed by prophecy (Hos. 1:10, 2:23, Isa. 10:22–23) to which Paul refers in Romans 9:25–29. Paul
argues in Romans 9:6–9 that God has been faithful to Israel in the narrow sense of providing a remnant.
God’s faithfulness to Israel in the wider sense must be maintained, since sonship is a natural privilege of
Israel (v. 4). Therefore in the scheme of salvation history this new community, the church, brought about
by God’s calling can be appropriately understood only in view of Israel’s future restoration (11:26). The
end result is that God’s covenant reliability is vindicated” (George C. Gianoulis, “Is Sonship in Romans
8:14–17 a Link with Romans 9?” BSac 166, no. 661 [January 2009]: 83. See also all the article, 70–83).
 32

23, 29), and God’s eternal purposes (9:11, cf., 8:29–30) only now specifically applied to

Israel. This is the “genius and one of the too little appreciated strengths of Paul’s

theology,”47 that is, his cosmological presentation of the gospel in which God will restore

creation, save the Gentiles and fulfill his purposes for Israel—each one of them a facet of

the same interwoven reality.

Romans 8 Connected to Romans 5–7

On the other hand, Romans 8 does not constitute an independent literary unity

with chapters 9–11. Instead it introduces a new propositio related to the previous section

of the book (Rom 5:1–7:25).48 Paul begins Romans 8 explaining how the vicarious death

of Christ was foundational to salvation. Due to his sacrifice, he asserts that oὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν

κατάκριµα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (Rom 8:1). The reason for such a claim is stated in

verse 2, ὁ γὰρ νόµος τοῦ πνεύµατος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἠλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ

νόµου τῆς ἁµαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτο (“For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has

set you free from the law of sin and of death”). Verse 3 explains verse 2 and verse 4 sets

the result of the previous three verses.49

47
Ibid.
48
Both propositiones are linked together: If there is new life in the Spirit as the divine
confirmation for the consummation of salvation (Rom 8:1–30), it is only because of Christ’s justifying
work on behalf of those who are in him (Rom 5:1–21).
49
The postpositive particle γάρ introduces verse 3 as an explanatory argument. Then, verse 4
begins with a ἵνα particle indicating the result of Romans 8:1–3.
 33

These verses introduce the theme of the newness of life in the Spirit,50 as proof of

the believer’s deliverance from sin and death (cf., Rom 8:1–30). The backdrop for this is

Romans 7:14–25, where Paul describes the Christian struggle51 by showing the

relationship between the law and death.

The apostle demonstrates that sin exploits the law and brings death, and sadly this

same law is incapable of offering a way to overcome sin.52 This passage emphasizes that

this struggle is an ongoing state.53 The believer is living in a transitional stage between

the new and the old ages. He indeed is not a slave of sin, since his παλαιὸς ἄνθρωπος has

been crucified (“old man,” Rom 6:6). Nevertheless, because salvation is a process, the

τοῦ σώµατος τοῦ θανάτου (“the body of death,” Rom 7:24) is still causing problems in

the life of the believer. Thus, those who are in Christ Jesus, while not condemned, await

the consummation of the present assurance of full deliverance from sin.54

50
Jonathan R. Pratt, “The Relationship Between Justification and Spiritual Fruit in Romans 5–8,”
Them 34, no. 2 (July 2009): 167, and C. Clifton Black, “Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5–8,”
JBL 103, no. 3 (September 1984): 426.
51
While a detailed discussion on why Romans 7:14–25 should be interpreted as a post-conversion
description is outside the scope of this thesis, see the following for a detailed discussion: Moo, The Epistle
to the Romans, 423–67, Mounce, Romans, 163–72, Hendriksen and Kistemaker, Exposition of Paul’s
Epistle to the Romans, 228, Cranfield, Romans, 1:347, and Stott, Men Made New, 72–74.
52
Pratt, “The Relationship Between Justification and Spiritual Fruit in Romans 5–8,” 167.
53
See all the present tenses throughout this section, ἐστιν, εἰµι πεπραµένος (Rom 7:14).
Κατεργάζοµαι, γινώσκω, θέλω, πράσσω, µισῶ, ποιῶ (Rom 7:15). Θέλω, ποιῶ, σύµφηµι (Rom 7:16).
Κατεργάζοµαι, οἰκοῦσα (Rom 7:17). Οἰκεῖ, ἔστιν, παράκειταί (Rom 7:18). Θέλω, ποιῶ, θέλω, πράσσω
(Rom 7:19). Θέλω, ποιῶ, κατεργάζοµαι, οἰκοῦσα (Rom 7:20). Εὑρίσκω, θέλοντι, παράκειται (Rom 7:21).
Συνήδοµαι (Rom 7:22). Βλέπω, ἀντιστρατευόµενον, αἰχµαλωτίζοντά, ὄντι (Rom 7:23), and δουλεύω (Rom
7:25).
54
Dunn, Romans 1-8, 474–76, and Lance T. Beauchamp, “The Old and New Man in Ephesians
4:17–24,” Faith and Mission 24, no. 3 (Summer 2007): 41.
 34

The word κατάκριµα (“condemnation”) in Romans 8:1 becomes crucial to

examine this present struggle for the Christian. This very same word is used previously in

Romans 5:18, where it is said that all men are under κατάκριµα, in contrast to Romans

8:1. The former is due to Adam’s sinful act, while the latter is due to Christ’s righteous

obedience.

Nonetheless, these two verses state the same reality, although from opposite

perspectives. This is not insignificant, since it is an indication that the apostle “picks up

and builds on the conclusion of his argument just prior to 5:20–7:25.”55 There are several

features which lead to this conclusion: first, the structural parallelism. Romans 5:18

carries climactic connotations within Romans 5:1–21, and Romans 8:1 likewise occurs as

a forceful pinnacle after the explanation of the relationship between the law and sin in the

life of the believer. Paul is reasserting in this first paragraph of Romans 8, “the

triumphant conclusion of 5:12–21: that for those who are ‘in Christ; eternal life replaces

the condemnation and death that were the lot of everybody in Adam.”56 These features

present a chiastic inversion creating a close relationship between Romans 5 and 8,

concentrically organized around Romans 6:1–7:25:57

55
Myers, “Chiastic Inversion in the Argument of Romans 3–8,” 42.
56
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 471.
57
For a detailed defense of Romans’ chiastic structure see Myers, “Chiastic Inversion in the
Argument of Romans 3–8,” 30–47. The chiasm does not contradict the rhetoric outline of this section (see
above). These are two complementary ways of organizing the same information. The former focuses on
themes, while the latter on Paul’s logic. Nonetheless, the combination of both shows how Paul’s
argumentative units are interrelated to one another, as he picks up themes said in previous propositiones.
 35

Table 1.4. Chiastic Structure of Romans 5–8

A 5:1–11 — Past and present salvation
B 5:12–21 — Adam’s condemnation versus Christ’s righteousness
C 6:1–7:25 — Relationship between Law and death
B’ 8:1–17— Law’s condemnation versus the Spirit’s life
A’ 8:18–30— Future salvation

The second feature is that some ideas and terms used in Romans 5 are repeated in

Romans 8. For instance, the word δικαίωµα appears in Romans 5:18, and 8:4 as well, or

are repeated thematic references to the death of Christ (Rom 5:18, 8:3). Also the implied

parallelism between the dichotomy πνεῦµα–σάρξ in Romans 8, and Ἀδάµ–Χριστός in

chapter 5 is not coincidental. Both elements are mutually exclusive—one is either in

Adam and living in the flesh, or in Christ and living by the Spirit.

The benefits or detriments of either living by the Spirit or in the flesh are also

parallel in both passages. In Romans 5 θάνατος is introduced as the reality for those who

are in Adam (Rom 5:12, 17), likewise the same end awaits the individuals who live in the

flesh (Rom 8:6, 13). On the other hand, ζωή is promised to those who are in Christ (Rom

5:17, 18) and live by the Spirit (Rom 8:6).

Furthermore, this type of thematic resumption in chapter 8 is also common to

chapters 6 and 7. As the Spirit becomes the main character in Romans 8, the apostle has

prepared his audience for this in the two previous chapters. For instance, the newness of

life explained in Romans 8 is mentioned in Romans 7:6 (ἐν καινότητι πνεύµατος).

Moreover, as Romans 6 and 7 speak of captivity to sin and death,58 Romans 8 declares

the victory of the newness of life in the Spirit over those areas. The Spirit battles against

58
Romans 6:6, 10–11, 13, 6:12, 13, 16, 21, 23, 7:5, 9–11, 13, and 24.
 36

the flesh conquering its power and hostility (Rom 8:11, 12–13, 14). “Thus Paul weaves

together various threads from chaps. 6–7 in a new argument [in Romans 8] for the

assurance of eternal life that the believer may have in Christ.”59 Clearly, the Spirit is

identified as the agent by whom a believer comes to participate in the work of Christ

mentioned in chapter 5.60

The third feature showing the connection between Romans 8 and 5–7 is the

construction ἄρα νῦν in Romans 8:1.”The two particles together strengthen each other

and indicate a conclusion or corollary drawn with immediate force from what has just

been said.”61 This emphatic structure marks what follows as a significant conclusion,

logically linking Romans 8 with the preceding section.62 Consequently, Romans 8 is not

independent from its prior context.

Summary

The previous study suggests that Romans 8 is not an independent unit from

chapters 9–11 and 5–7. This section contains several interwoven subdivisions as Paul

advances his argument at times in a linear fashion and other times resumptively. He

moves his argument backward as well as forward, but in doing this he does not allow the

audience to limit the scope of Romans 8 to only the section of Romans 5–7. Enough

59
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 472, and Dunn, 414–15.
60
Myers, “Chiastic Inversion in the Argument of Romans 3–8,” 42.
61
Dunn, Romans 1-8, 415.
62
See Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 300, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 472.
 37

arguments were given to see how Romans 8 relates to chapters 9–11, and the implications

for this are that it sets the passage under study, Romans 8:18–27, in an eschatological

framework. The newness of the life of the Spirit speaks of the transition between ages,

and how, in that transition, the hope of the believer is based in Old Testament

eschatology. Romans 8, thus, does not only speak of the certainty of glorification for the

individual who believes, but also it indicates that the justification presented in chapter 5,

becomes the grounds for the eschatological restoration of chapter 8. If the believer is

going to be glorified, this cannot be detached from creation itself, since it has likewise

been subjected to futility. To deny this is to reject the probatio given by Paul to defend

his propositio—Christ has conquered sin and death.

Romans 5 through 11 belong together because of its rhetorical structure and

thematic pattern,63 that is, “the eschatological concerns that span all four chapters [Rom

8–11].”64 If God is the cosmological savior, then his salvation must not only include Jew

and Gentile but also universalistic elements, such as, vanquishing death in all of creation.

The fate of each group is closely related to and inseparable from the renewal of Creation.

The cross accomplishes more than individual redemption. It is the means by which Christ

is vindicated as the Son of God, and thus, exalted far beyond everything that has been

created, bringing the entire cosmos in subjection under his feet.

63
This does not imply that there are no subdivisions, but the emphasis is in that Romans 8 cannot
be detached from chapters 9–11.
64
Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Context, 272.
 CHAPTER TWO:
KΤΊΣΙΣ IN ROMANS 8:18–27

Throughout history several degrees to which the meaning of κτίσις extends have

been proposed, such as universal, cosmic, anthropological, cosmo-anthropological, and

angelogical,1 which has become a great interpretative difficulty in Romans 8:18–27.2

Moreover, the influence of Plato found its way throughout Church History to the

present day.3 He believed in a dualism of the spiritual and physical worlds, in such a way

that it was a disservice to the philosopher to think of the spiritual realm in physical terms.

Plato considered the body a hindrance which limited the soul, because the soul has to

acknowledge everything in company with the body, which will try to deceive the mind.4

Origen, following Platonism, asserted that human intellect was weakened by its

contact with matter.5 He was also opposed to a physical bodily resurrection.6 Thus, he

believed in the dissolution of physical matter subjected to correction. For him it could not

have eternality—a reality that exists only for the spiritual.7

1
These will be later discussed in this chapter (see section Kτίσις Proposed Meanings, 38).
2
Douglas J. Moo, “Nature In The New Creation: New Testament Eschatology And The
Environment,” JETS 49, no. 3 (September 2006): 459.
3
Randy Alcorn, Heaven (Carol Stream, IL.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004), 459–60.
4
Plato Phaedo, 65b.
5
Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary
History, vol. 1, From Paul to the Age of Constantine (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 286.
6
Ibid., 288.
7
Ibid., 287.
38
 39

This perspective made inroads into Christian theology, causing a disinterest in the

material realm.8 Therefore, a passage like Romans 8:18–27 that speaks of the redemption

of creation may result in some difficulties.

This disinterest, however, in the material realm needs to be challenged in light of

Pauline eschatology, which highlights the glorious impact of the cross in the physical

cosmos, dependent upon the Creator.

The Meaning of κτίσις

One of the words crucial to determine the interpretation of Romans 8:18ff is

κτίσις. It appears four times in a brief section, verses 19–22,9 and carries tremendous

theological implications since it shares in the ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώµατος ἡµῶν (Rom

8:23). For this is the reason patristic writers and modern scholars have offered a wide

range of interpretations of this passage.10

8
Gary R. Habermas observes that Plato’s concept of forms, together with his cosmology and his
views on the immortality of the soul probably have the greatest influence on Christianity (Gary R.
Habermas, “Plato, Platonism,” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2nd ed., ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2007], 928–29), Michael J. Vlach, Platonism’s Influence on Christian Eschatology.
http://theologicalstudies.org/files/resources/Platonism_and_Eschatology_article_(PDF).pdf (accessed
March 13, 2014).
9
Romans 8:19, 20, 21, and 22.
10
Ken Gnanakan, God’s World: A Theology of The Environment, Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge International Study Guide 36, (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1999),
83–98. Gnanakan argues that the early Church was immersed in a transition from a Hebrew to a Greek
worldview. Thus, under platonic influences the New Testament Church lost the Hebrew hope of a
physically restored earth, to give way to the idea of escaping the present world as the final step for human
salvation. This philosophy influenced Augustine, who impacted both Thomas Aquinas and Calvin, who
built on Augustine’s belief to pave the way for human engagement in the world. In summary, creation
became the Christian’s disdain. Creation was submitted to the secular scientific and industrialized world,
and hence, religion became a separate entity from the natural world and confined to an individual
experience detached from its cosmic implications (Gnanakan, God’s World, 84–85, 95).
 40

Proposed Understandings of κτίσις

The proposed meanings fall into five distinct categories:11 (1) Universal: this view

understands κτίσις to include all creation.12 (2) Cosmic: this is probably the most

widespread view, it refers to non-human creation, both animate and inanimate.13 (3)

Anthropological: a third position limits κτίσις to humanity14 or unbelievers.15 (4) Cosmo-

anthropological: another interpretation takes κτίσις to refer to both the non-human

creation and unbelieving humanity.16 (5) Angelogical: a final view makes it refer

exclusively to angels.17 It is evident that there is a wide variety of understandings as to

the scope of κτίσις.

In order to grasp Paul’s usage of this word, it is necessary to examine its use in

Classical Greek, the LXX, Jewish apocalyptic literature, New Testament, and the

immediate context of Romans 8.

11
The classification names are taken from Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, 33–36.
12
John G. Gibbs, “Pauline Cosmic Christology and Ecological Crisis,” JBL 90, no. 4 (December,
1971): 471. See also Werner Foerster, “κτίζω, κτίσις, κτίσµα, κτίστης,” in TDNT, 3:1031.
13
R. J. Berry, The Care of Creation: Focusing Concern and Action (Leicester, England:
InterVarsity Press, 2000), 180–81, John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the
Romans, trans. and ed. John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1847), 303–05, and. Dunn, Romans 1-8,
469–70.
14
Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiœ Catholiœ 13.23, and Augustine, De Fide et Symbolo 10.23.
15
John J. Gager, “Functional Diversity in the Use of Paul’s End Time Language,” JBL 89, no. 3
(1970): 329.
16
Foerster, “κτίζω, κτίσις, κτίσµα, κτίστης,” in TDNT, 3:1031.
17
Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 178, and Wilkinson, Christian
Eschatology and the Physical Universe, 78.
 41

κτίσις in Classical Greek

In classical Greek this word does not have a theological connotation. Its basic

meaning is “framing, founding,” and connotes the act of the will or decision.18 It could

be used to refer to the establishment or founding of a city or colony. For example,

Diodorus Siculus uses it in relation to a city, ἀµφισβητεῖται δʼ ἡ κτίσις τῆς πόλεως ταύτης

ουʼ µόνον παρὰ τοῖς συγγραφεῦσιν19 (but the foundation of this city is not only disputed

by the historians),20 or Strabo refers to the establishment of Cyrene, τῆς Κυρήνης κτίσις

ἐν χρόνοις φέρεται µνηµονευοµένοις (the foundation of the Cyrene was brought forth at

the appointed time),21 or the Romans, αὕτη µὲν οὖν ἡ µάλιστα πιστευοµένη τῆς Ῥώµης

κτίσις ἐστίν22 (this is believed to be the greatest foundation of Rome).23

κτίσις in the LXX

In the LXX the verbal form κτίζω appears 61 times, the noun κτίσις only fourteen

times,24 and mainly in the Apocrypha and Psalms.25 The related terms κτίσµα and κτίστης

18
Harold K. Moulton, “κτίζω,” in The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 1978), 242, and G. Petzke, “κτίζω,” in EDNT, 2:325.
19
Diodorus Siculus 1.15.2.
20
Author’s translation.
21
Ibid.
22
Strabo 1.3.15, 5.3.3.
23
Author’s translation.
24
Jdt 9:12, 16:14, Tob 8:5 [2], 3 Macc 2:2 [2], 6:2, Wis 2:6, 5:17, 16:24, 19:6, Sir 16:17, 43:25,
49:16.
25
Gen 14:19, 22, Exod 9:18, Lev 16:16, Deut 4:32, 32:6, 1 Esd 4:53, 6:12, Jdt 13:18, 3 Macc 2:3,
9, Ps 32:9, 50:12, 88:13, 48, 101:19, 103:30, 148:5, Prov 8:22, Eccle 12:1, Wis 1:14, 2:23, 10:1, 11:17,
 42

appear 6 and 7 times respectively.26 This scarce usage confirms the lack of an original

theological significance. In fact, neither the noun or verb form appears in the creation

account of Genesis.27 Therefore, the theological connotation of κτίσις and κτίζω seems to

be a later development than the translation of the Pentateuch.28 According to Foerster the

word κτίσις simply means “creature,”29 although there are passages in the LXX that also

use it in reference to the totality of created things (Tob 8:5, 15, Jdt 16:14, Sir 43:25).

Nonetheless, the usage of this term in the LXX appears not to restrict its scope to

the human creature or any other creature. Overall, κτίσις in the LXX points toward the

idea of God’s creation in its totality. For example, 3 Maccabees 2:2, Κύριε κύριε,

βασιλεῦ τῶν οὐρανῶν καὶ δέσποτα πάσης κτίσεως (O Lord, Lord, King of the heavens,

and Ruler of the whole creation), and 2:7, ἐπὶ σοὶ τῷ τῆς ἁπάσης κτίσεως δυναστεύοντι

(the Lord of the whole creation) clearly refer to God’s power and reign over the entirety

of Creation.

At first sight Tobias 8:5 appears to limit the semantic scope of κτίσις,

εὐλογησάτωσάν σε οἱ οὐρανοὶ καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ κτίσεις σου (let the heavens bless thee, and

13:3, Sir 1:4, 9, 7:15, 10:18, 17:1, 18:1, 23:20, 24:8, 9, 31:13, 27, 33:10, 38:1, 4, 12, 21, 39:25, 28, 29,
40:1, 10, 44:2, 49:14, Hos 13:4, Amos 4:13, Hag 2:9, Mal 2:10, Isa 22:11, 45:7, 8, 46:11, 54:16, Jer 38:22,
Ezek 28:13, 15, Bel 5. All the occurrences in the LXX are included as lexical references, understanding that
the Apocripha is not inspired.
26
κτίσµα Wis 9:2, 13:5, 14:11, Sir 36:20, 38:34, 3 Macc 5:11, and κτίστης 2 Kgdms 22:32, Jdt
9:12, Sir 24:8, 2 Macc 1:24, 7:23, 4 Macc 5:25, 11:5.
27
It uses ποιέω instead.
28
Werner Foerster, “κτίζω, κτίσις, κτίσµα, κτίστης,” in TDNT, 3:1027.
29
Ibid., 3:1028.
 43

all thy creatures) to that which is rational. Since it is evident that inanimate creation

cannot εὐλογησάτωσάν σε. Tobias 8:5–8, however, contain features characteristic of

poetic literature.30 It is a praising passage which personalizes κτίσις, limiting it to

rational beings, but only for the sake of artistic literacy, and not as a means to portray its

true meaning. As demonstrated by the words οἱ οὐρανοί, which also refer to irrational

elements of creation. In fact, such rationalization and personalization of creation indicates

the opposite. It shows that the term is all-inclusive. The Creator is worthy of praise and

honor from all creation, not just a part of it. It suggests that both animate and inanimate

creation play a role in worship.

Wisdom of Solomon 16:24, ἡ γὰρ κτίσις σοι τῷ ποιήσαντι ὑπηρετοῦσα

ἐπιτείνεται εἰς κόλασιν κατὰ τῶν ἀδίκων, καὶ ἀνίεται εἰς εὐεργεσίαν ὑπὲρ τῶν εἰς σὲ

πεποιθότων (For the creature that serveth thee, who art the Maker, increaseth his strength

against the unrighteous for their punishment, and abateth his strength for the benefit of

such as put their trust in thee), and 19:6, ὅλη γὰρ ἡ κτίσις ἐν ἰδίῳ γένει πάλιν ἄνωθεν

διετυποῦτο, ὑπηρετοῦσα ταῖς ἰδίαις ἐπιταγαῖς, ἵνα οἱ σοὶ παῖδες φυλαχθῶσιν ἀβλαβεῖς

(For the whole creature in his proper kind was fashioned again anew, serving the peculiar

commandments that were given unto them, that thy children might be kept without hurt),

both support this interpretation. These verses assert that creation serves the purpose

established by its maker, complying with God’s commands.

30
According to Roger Aubrey Bullard and Howard A. Hatton, these verses “though in Greek,
reflects the patterns of Hebrew poetry, and all modern versions set it up as poetry” (Roger Aubrey Bullard,
and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Tobit, UBS Handbook Series, [New York: United Bible Societies,
2001], 140).
 44

Therefore to limit the range of κτίσις in 3 Maccabees 2:2, 7, Tobias 8:5, and

Wisdom of Solomon 16:24 and 19:6 is to limit their true meaning. The LXX refers to

Creation as a unit, and as such, suggests its Maker’s purposes in their totality.

κτίσις in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature

Beker argues that Jewish apocalyptic theology, that is, “the hope of the dawning

victory of God and the imminent redemption of the created order, which he has

inaugurated in Christ,”31 is at the core of Paul’s theology.32 Thus, the parallelisms to

Romans 8:18–27, and other Jewish apocalyptic writings carry more theological

implications than literary. Hence, κτίσις in Jewish apocalypic literature will be examined

later in this chapter under the heading Kτίσις and Jewish Apocalyptic Theology.33

κτίσις in the New Testament

In the Greek New Testament κτίσις has a broad semantic range, starting from the

sum total of everything created to individual creatures, either human or animal. Overall, it

consistently refers to God’s act of creating or to his creation and creatures.34 But these

31
Beker, Paul the Apostle, ix.
32
The genre of Romans 8:18–22 is not apocalypse, but the presuppositions behind it and many
expressions contained in it are very similar to those found in Jewish apocalyptic works (Hahne, The
Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 3). Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between apocalypse as a
literary genre, and apocalyptic theology as a religious perspective (Collins, “Introduction,” 1–19).
33
See page 57.
34
The word κτίσις means the “act of creating” (Rom 1:20) or, more often, “that which has been
created,” either as an individual thing or being—“creature” (Rom 8:39, 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15, Col 1:23)—or
in the most general sense as the sum of everything created—the “creation” (Mark 10:6, 13:19, Rom 1:25,
Col 1:15, Heb 4:13, 9:11, 2 Pet 3, 1 Thess 4, Rev 3:14). In 1 Peter 2:13, it has the unusual meaning
 45

two broad definitions do not necessarily clarify the meaning of κτίσις in Romans 8:18–

27. The New Testament usage of κτίσις is similar to that of the LXX. The verb κτίζω

appears 15 times,35 and often expresses a creative action that is unique to God and his

purposes.36 The noun κτίσις occurs 19 times, and most commonly has the collective sense

as the sum of all created things.37 It is also used in reference to an individual creature,

either an animal or a human.38 In Romans 8:39 and Hebrews 4:13 the meaning seems to

be comprehensive—any created thing. Only two instances limit the term to humanity.39 1

Peter 2:13 presents the only secular usage in the New Testament where it refers to a

ruling organization established by people.40

Finally, in Galatians 6:15 and 2 Corinthians 5:17, κτίσις appears to refer to a new

or transformed creation. Regarding these two passages it is necessary to mention that

external influences, such as Augustine’s concern for man and Jerome’s translation of

“established authority” that refers to a system, like a governance system. BDAG, “κτίσις,” 573, Petzke,
“κτίζω,” in EDNT, 2:326.
35
Matt 19:4, Mark 13:19, Rom 1:25, 1 Cor 11:9, Eph 2:10, 15, 3:9, 4:24, Col 1:16 (2), 3:10, 1 Tim
4:3, Rev 4:11 (2), 10:6.
36
BDAG, “κτίσις,” 573, Petzke, “κτίζω,” in EDNT, 2:326.
37
For occurrence of κτίσις see, Mark 10:6, 13:19, 16:15, Rom 1:20, 25, 8:19, 20, 21, 22, 39, 2 Cor
5:17, Gal 6:15, Col 1:15, 23, Heb 4:13, 9:11, 1 Pet 2:13, 2 Pet 3:4, Rev 3:14. Examples of the collective
usage are: Mark 10:6, 13:19, Col 1:15, 23, Heb 4:13, 9:11, 2 Pet 3:4, Rev 3:14. Some exceptions: Mark
16:15, Rom 1:20, 25, 2 Cor 5:17, Gal 6:15,1 Pet 2:13.
38
Rom 1:25.
39
Mar 16:15, Col 1:23.
40
BDAG, “κτίσις,” 573.
 46

κτίσις by creatura,41 influenced the history of interpretation of the term so that its

meaning was limited to the idea of “creature,” and more specifically, human beings.42

κτίσις in Romans 8

In the New Testament Paul uses this word the most, and Romans 8 contains the

highest concentration of the term κτίσις. In this context, the phrase πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις in verse

22 appears to suggest that Paul has the entire created order in mind, fitting the universal

category best.43

Paul may have intended a comprehensive definition without aiming to exclude

any category, but the universal view is still not conclusive.44 In both the LXX and the

New Testament, this expression can refer to a subset of creation or to a specific class of

creation, such as, animals or humankind (Mk 16:15, Col 1:23). To limit κτίσις to the class

of humankind (Anthropological view) may be, at first sight, attractive since humans

“unwillingly” fell on account of the will of Adam. Yet, this is problematic for several

reasons: first, the phrase διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα (Rom 8:20) refers to God rather than Adam,

because the preposition διά in this context denotes agency rather than cause.45 If this is

41
The Vulgate reads Romans 8:19 as follows, “nam expectatio creaturae [emphasis added]
revelationem filiorum Dei expectat.”
42
Augustine De Moribus Ecclesiœ Catholiœ 13.23, and De Fide et Symbolo 10.23.
43
The Anthropological, Cosmo-anthropological, Angelogical and Universal categories must be
rejected as will be shown below, see pages 46–49.
44
Harry Alan Hahne, “The Whole Creation Has Been Groaning,” in Apocalyptic Vision, ed.
Robert B. Kruschwitz, (Waco: The Center for Christian Ethics, 2010), 20.
45
BDAG, “διά,” 181.
 47

the case, then the agent must be God, since the word ὑποτάξαντα (subjection) implies an

authority that does not fit with the tragic consequences of Adam’s sin in which subjection

was lost rather than gained. Only God had the authority to accomplish such an action.46

Second, Paul’s vocabulary in verse 20 appears to exclude all people.47 And finally, the

personification of nature does not demand a reference to human beings.

Furthermore, πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις in Romans 8:22 can be used to indicate

comprehensiveness within a specific subset of the creation, instead of within the scope of

the whole creation,48 because several contextual aspects are incompatible with the

universal understanding of κτίσις. First, angels are excluded since holy angels, either

because of human sin or their own actions, have not been subjected to futility or

corruption (Rom 8:20–21). Second, demons will not be redeemed (Rom 8:21).49 Third,

heaven is not included since it does not need deliverance from the bondage of turpitude

(Rom 8:20–21), for it already enjoys the liberty of the children of God.50 Fourth,

unbelievers must be excluded from the meaning of κτίσις since they do not eagerly wait

for the revealing of the children of God (Rom 8:19). If Paul had included them, this

46
Schreiner, Romans, 435.
47
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 513.
48
Grammatically speaking it seems clear that πᾶς with an articular noun means “the whole of,” as
opposed to its use with an anarthrous noun, in which it has a distributive force (“every, each”). But, the
argument here is semantic and theological. Thus, even understanding πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις as “the whole of
creation” is possible to see as a reference to all of non-human creation. See Moo, The Epistle to the
Romans, 518.
49
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 320–21.
50
William S. Plumer, Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans with an Introduction of the
Life, Times, Writings and Character of Paul (Edinburgh: W. Oliphant and company, 1870), 404.
 48

would have meant all people ever born would be released from the consequences of sin

(Rom 8:21).51 John G. Gager argues for this view. He believes the cosmic dimension

contained in the word κτίσις in Pauline literature has been limited to an anthropological

category, especially to the unbeliever. But, Gager creates a false parallel between

Romans 1 and 8 in order to support his view. He sees God as the actor who accomplishes

the subjection in both Romans 1 and 8. Therefore, if Romans 1 speaks of the Gentiles

being subjected, then Romans 8, according to Gager, must at least include humanity since

its terminology is similar. Moreover, Gager sees Romans 8:19 as parallel to 2 Corinthians

5:17 and Galatians 6:15 where the word κτίσις refers to believers. Thus, in Romans 8

κτίσις needs to have a further limited scope (unbelievers) since believers are not subject

to futility. The context of Romans 8, however, shows Gager’s view to be inadequate.

Romans 8:22 qualifies the creation as “the whole creation,” ergo it is not limited only to

the nonbelieving human. Finally, Gager is guilty of the classic hermeneutical error of

trying to explain a word’s meaning as identical in all its occurrences despite its different

contexts. Romans 1 and 8 are speaking of two different issues, hence Paul is not

obligated to maintain the same meaning for κτίσις in Romans 1 and 8.52

A fifth contextual factor demonstrates that believers are not contained within the

usage of κτίσις in Romans 8:22. Verses 22 and 23 differentiate between two groups who

groan: the creation and the believer. The former illustrates the groaning of the latter

51
The New Testament use of κόσµος would seem a more suitable word than κτίσις to refer to
unbelievers. See Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 180.
52
John J. Gager, “Functional Diversity in the Use of Paul’s End Time Language,” 329.
 49

(πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει, Rom 8:22). If angels, demons, humanity and

heaven are excluded, then one must conclude that κτίσις in Romans 8:18–27 is used to

refer to the non-human material creation (cosmic category).53

Nonetheless, there is another feature affecting the meaning of κτίσις namely, its

personification in Romans 8:18–27. The use of emotional and volitional language in this

passage, similar to the frequent personification of nature in the Old Testament and Jewish

apocalyptic literature,54 helps the writer to expand the scope of the meaning of κτίσις

beyond planet earth.55 Paul’s description indicates “that each part of the nature order was

created capable of its own response to its Creator and Upholder.”56

53
So Schreiner, Romans, 435, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 514, and Morris, The Epistle to the
Romans, 320.
54
Douglas J. Moo, “Creation and New Creation,” BBR 20, no. 1 (January 2010): 44–45. Cry of
pain and sorrow due to sin: Gen 4:11, Isa 24:4, 7, Jer 4:28, 12:4. Joy: Ps 65:12ff, 98:4, 7–9, Isa 14:7–8, 1
En 7:6, 9:2, 87:1, 88:2, 4 Ezra 6:14–16, 7:55–56, 8:2–3, 10:9, 11:46, 12:43, Apoc. Mos. 29:14, fear in
God’s presence: Ps 77:16, 97:4–5, 114:3–8, fear of eschatological disasters: 1 En 1:6, 4 Ezra 6:14–16, joy
when the righteous are in the messianic kingdom: Isa 55:12, consciousness, intellectual understanding: Isa
1:2, see Lk 19:40 (stones cry out Jesus’ identity), hope of eschatological deliverance: 4 Ezra 11:46,
obedience to God: 1 En 5:2–3, 75:2, 101:6–7, 2 Bar 21:4, 48:8–10, 46 (See Hahne, The Corruption and
Redemption of Creation, 181).
55
In Romans 8:19–22 Paul appears to follow Jewish apocalyptic thought in that the apostle
stresses the transformation of the existing creation with the removal of the damage of sin and the perfection
of creation to share the glory and freedoms of the glorified children of God. This is relevant because Paul
and Jewish apocalyptic thought share some functions. The literary device of personification in such a genre,
when connected with nature, is used to highlight the vast extension of creation beyond planet earth. If one
questions the relevance of Jewish apocalyptic tradition in Paul’s thought, he should realize that for
apocalyptists and Old Testament prophets alike, history is the sphere of divine revelation. The apocalyptists
differ from the prophets in their interpretation of the end of history, but basically they express the same
beliefs and share the same tradition, finding the ultimate meaning of history in the working out of the
divine purpose. David S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 B.C.-A.D. 100
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964), 205, and Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 221.
56
David M. Russell, The “New Heavens and New Earth.” Hope for the Creation in Jewish
Apocalyptic and the New Testament, Studies in Biblical Apocalyptic Literature 1 (Philadelphia: Visionary
Press, 1996), 162.
 50

Thus, it cannot be considered as purely anthropomorphic. The suffering of the

natural world due to human sin should not be demythologized. Paul’s personification of

this non-human creation “conveys a sense of cosmic significance.”57 By applying this

language to creation, Paul is saying that creation points toward the glory of the Creator58

and presents a Christological eschatology. This means that the eschatological hope is not

only for the redemption of God’s children, but also the restoration of the glory of God in

creation. Creation itself will be redeemed rather than human beings simply being

redeemed from creation. Thus, κτίσις has a universal nuance in Romans 8:18–27, though

it is limited to the physical world of nature, which is not equivalent to planet earth.

Eschatology is neither anthropocentric nor earth bound but centered in God who comes to

indwell his whole creation (2 Pet 3:10, 1 Cor 15:28). The physical universe is part of

God’s creation and must be included in his redemptive work. Therefore, κτίσις in

Romans 8:18–27 specifically refers to cosmic non-human material creation.

The Background of κτίσις

Romans 8:20 hints that this understanding of κτίσις is not a foreign concept in

either Old Testament or Jewish Apocalyptic literature.59

57
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 514.
58
Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe, 79.
59
Leo Baeck makes the striking statement that “Gnosticism is Christianity without Judaism” (Leo
Baeck, Judaism and Christianity, trans., Walter Kaufmann [Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication, 1960],
250). This statement, although an over simplification, is relevant for the present discussion because it
introduces the reality of Gnosticism into the understanding of κτίσις. Gnosticism assumed that material
existence was illusory and evil. Only the Old Testament material background to New Testament
eschatology protects the believer from a gnostic understanding of this term. The theology of the Old
Testament, often neglected by present Christianity, is the warp and woof of New Testament, and, in that
 51

κτίσις and Old Testament Eschatology

Creation waits for the revelation of the sons of God because it has been subjected

to futility60 and not by its own choice.61 “The aorist tense of the verb [ὑπετάγη] looks to a

single occasion, which is not likely to be creation. Rather, it is the fall which Paul sees as

cosmic in its effects.”62 Regarding this, Cranfield explains:

And, if the question is asked, “What sense can there be in saying that the sub-
human creation—the Jungfrau, for example, or the Matterhorn, or the planet
Venus—suffers frustration by being prevented from properly fulfilling the
purpose of its existence?” the answer must surely be that the whole magnificent
theatre of the universe, together with all its splendid properties and all the varied
chorus of sub-human life, created for God’s glory, is cheated of its true fulfillment
so long as man, the chief actor in the great drama of God’s praise, fails to
contribute his rational part.63

This futility applies to the entire universe. Cranfield understands κτίσις as a

sense, when Christianity is separated from the Old Testament the door to Gnosticism is opened. Bernhard
W. Anderson, From Creation to New Creation, Old Testament Perspectives (Eugene, OR.: Wipf & Stock
Publishers, 1994), 235.
60
The word µαταιότης is found three times only in the New Testament, but 37 times in the LXX
of Ecclesiastes. Its meaning is “emptiness, futility, purposelessness, transitoriness” (see BAGD,
“µαταιότης,” 621). In the LXX it usually translates ‫הבל‬, which BDB define as “vapour, breath,” and go on
to say is used “fig. of what is evanescent, unsubstantial, worthless” (See BDB, “‫הבל‬,” 211). Thus µάταιος is
the very opposite of τέλειος, immature versus mature, probably denoting the “frustration” occasioned by
creation’s being unable to attain the ends for which it was made. See Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 515.
61
The subjection was done by God’s own choice. Scripture never assigns the power to bring about
such a far-reaching subjection to Adam or to Satan. Hence, it must refer to God (cf., Gen 3:17). And this
accords with the note of hope on which the verse ends. There is no reason to think of Adam or of Satan
acting in hope for the future of the race, but hope is characteristic of God. See Morris, The Epistle to the
Romans, 321–22.
62
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 321.
63
Cranfield, “Some observations on Romans 8: 19–21,” in Reconciliation and Hope: New
Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L. Morris on his 60th birthday, ed.
Robert Banks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1974), 227.
 52

reference to the non-human creation but with a cosmic extent.64 This vocabulary in

Romans 8:20 is an obvious reference to Genesis 3:17–18, and God’s judgment

pronounced on Adam, presented in contrast to Genesis 1:31 and God’s pronouncement

that all was very good.65 There is a fundamental goodness to all of God’s material

creation,66 but the rebellion of humanity caused the entire universe to fall under the

weight of sin.67 Likewise, the subjection of non-human creation is not restricted to planet

earth alone. One must understand this to grasp the cosmic implications of κτίσις. At

creation, the trees or animals were good, so were Mars, Pluto, the Solar System, Milky

Way, etc. Thus, the extent of non-human creation in this passage ought to be cosmic also.

Old Testament eschatology presents a redemptive picture which reaches beyond

spiritual salvation, and is certainly part of the deliverance of creation in Romans 8:18–27.

In fact the vocabulary of these verses is not strange to the Old Testament. For example,

Ezekiel 34:25–26 speaks of Israel’s deliverance in terms of nature. The covenant of peace

which the Lord will make with his people will affect the land, animals and nations. This

concept is supported by the prophet Hosea who declares God’s promise of salvation and

also presents this restoration in the form of a covenant with animals.68 Moreover, Old

64
This expression is used to emphasize that the extent of κτίσις does not only go beyond the earth,
but reaches to the end of the universe.
65
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 515.
66
Mark P. Surburg, “Good Stuff! The Material Creation and the Christian faith,” Concordia
Journal 36, no. 3 (June 2010): 246.
67
Alcorn, 87.
68
“In that day I will also make a covenant for them,
with the beasts of the field,
 53

Testament eschatology hinges on the Messianic rule, which will also impact nature.69 The

relevance of such a statement is that the eschatological hope is linked to creation and

physical fruitfulness. The restoration of the Davidic dynasty is also presented in terms of

blessings in the realm of nature.70

The prophet Isaiah, whose terminology clearly predates Paul’s creation language

in Romans 8:18–27, speaks of a restoration of creation at a cosmological level, a theme

which dominates his eschatological message. Man’s salvation harmonizes with nature’s

restoration, and this is initiated with the millennial kingdom.71 Isaiah was written “to

stimulate hope among exilic Israel by reminding them of the creative power of God,”72

and the prophet profoundly grasps the interrelation of creation and history. At one level,

the power of God in creating heaven and earth is the rationale for the proclamation of

divine redemption (Isa 40:12–31, 42:5–9).73 At another level, confidence in God, the

cosmic creator, leads the prophet to envisage ultimate deliverance, which extends beyond

the people and land of Israel to include the entire cosmos—“new heavens and new

the birds of the sky,

and the creeping things of the ground.
And I will abolish the bow, the sword and war from the land,
and will make them lie down in safety” (Hos 2:18).
69
For example, Isa 11:6–9.
70
Isa 32:15–17, Amos 9:13–15, and Joel 3:18.
71
Isa 65:17–25, 66:22.
72
Moo, “Creation and New Creation,” 45.
73
Anderson, From Creation to New Creation, 37.
 54

earth.”74 In the mind of the prophet, even the cosmos will be marvelously transformed

(41:17–20, 43:18–21) when it takes up a “new” beginning in the history of God with his

people and with the creation.

This eschatological understanding was a recurring theme to Israel’s prophets, who

taught that, after the Day of the Lord, God would restore his people to a place of

prominence. When humankind enters this new phase of human history, the non-human

creatures will also be quickened and transformed. “Thus prophetic eschatology moves

toward the vision of the new creation.”75 In fact, it moves toward a cosmological vision.

The phrase “new heavens and new earth,” central to Old Testament eschatology,

anticipates the consummation, fulfilling creation’s original design. Therefore, if in the

beginning God created the heavens and the earth, which is a reference to the entire

universe,76 then in the end, when He makes the “new heavens and new earth,” this

undoubtedly also refers to the entire cosmos (Gen 1:1, Ps 33:6, Is 42:5, 66:22, Ez 47:1-

12, Hos 2:18, Joel 3:17–18, Zech 14:8-11).77 God displays his glory in the marvelous

74
See Carroll Stuhlmueller, Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah (Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1970), 44–48.
75
Anderson, From Creation to New Creation, 37.
76
The antithetical formula “heavens and earth” is a widespread phenomenon in the ancient Near
East denoting the totality of the universe. H. H. Schmid, “‫ ֶא ֶרץ‬,” in TLOT, ed., Ernst Jenni and Claus
Westermann (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 174.
77
It is true that some of these passages refer to the millennial kingdom. Nonetheless, this is no
more than a previous phase to the eternal state. It is clear, then, that when one reads the Old Testament, the
reader is led to expect an earthly future home. The Old Testament does not scorn, ignore, or abandon the
kind of life which human beings experience in this world in favor of speculation concerning some other
better place or form of existence to be hoped for after death. Donald E. Gowan, Eschatology in the Old
Testament (London: T & T Clark, 2000), 122, Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical
Universe, 60, and Surburg, “Good Stuff!” 255–56.
 55

order of the entire universe, not any unique part of it. God is continuously involved in

creation. He is preserving and maintaining the order of the cosmos (Ps 104). His deeds

are portrayed, especially in Isaiah, as creative acts (Isa 43:12, 19, 45:7–8).78 “Creation is

an act of the eternal God relating to the universe in its entire process, in its history

throughout its time.”79 The Old Testament depicts the wholeness of God’s expected work

of redemption.80 This creation motif throughout the Old Testament81 suggests a direct

connection with the belief in a cosmological creation construed by God,82 and is the

context for first century A.D. Judaism, including Paul, which believed “in the renewal of

the whole created order. Israel would be restored within a restored cosmos.”83 As Russell

comments:

The redemption which God will bring about will involve not only man himself
and not only the nation of Israel, but also the whole created universe. The usurped
creation will be restored; the corrupted universe will be cleansed; the created
world will be recreated. Thus, throughout these writings [Old Testament
prophesies], there is a close relationship between God’s act of creation and his act
of redemption.84

Therefore, the evidence shows that when Paul uses the term κτίσις in Romans 8

78
Anderson, From Creation to New Creation, 242.
79
Wolfhart Pannenberg, “Theology and Science,” PSB 13 (1992): 302.
80
Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament, 114.
81
Gen 14:19, 22, Ps 115:15, 121:2, 124:8, 134:3.
82
Stefan Paas, Creation and Judgment: Creation Texts in Some Eight Century Prophets, OtSt 47,
ed. Johannes C. Moor (Boston: Brill, 2003), 83.
83
N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Christian Origins and the Question of
God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992),1:332.
84
Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 280.
 56

he is alluding to cosmic Old Testament eschatological expectations. But, while

acknowledging the cosmological sense of κτίσις, one must still understand what this

word says about human transformation. Jeremiah and Ezekiel, for instance, connect this

cosmic restoration with human regeneration (Jer 31–33, Eze 27).85

It is necessary to understand that “the non-human cosmos is not an indifferent

appendage to the human existence. It is given to man by the continual goodness of God

as a place in which to live. Therefore, the resurrection hope is also a hope of a

regenerated world.”86 So then, the meaning of κτίσις in Romans 8:18–27 can be further

qualified as the cosmic non-human material creation where men subsist, which points

forward to creation as the cosmological and physical realm where the resurrected will

dwell.

These two are interdependent and interrelated, if a person believes in the

resurrection of the physical body, he must also believe in the cosmic restoration of the

material creation.

Creation, at a cosmic level, will be set free from slavery to corruption and will

share the freedom and the glory of the children of God. This corresponds with Judaism’s

expectation of a renewal and transformation of nature87 and suggests solidarity between

humanity and creation. “Yet Paul describes this suffering of the natural world in the

85
Moo, “Creation and New Creation,” 46–47.
86
Regin Prenter, Creation and Redemption (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967), 578.
87
Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe, 79.
 57

context of great eschatological hope for both believers and nature.”88 Paul’s vision for

redemption has a cosmic scope and is not limited merely to the salvation of individual

humans or even to the Church as the new community of redeemed humanity.89

κτίσις and Jewish Apocalyptic Theology

Furthermore, if this cosmic idea of creation, which permeates the Old Testament,

is understood together with Jewish apocalyptic literature, Paul’s cosmological and

physical eschatology becomes evident.90

The main themes in Pauline eschatology reminiscent of apocalyptic literature are

the following: (1) creation and consummation are held together,91 (2) the link between

creation and consummation is messianic,92 and (3) creation will be transformed into new

creation.93

According to Sanday and Headlam, removing Paul from under this influence of

Jewish apocalyptic literature is to take him out “of the mental surroundings in which he

88
Surburg, “Good Stuff!” 248.
89
Hahne, “The Whole Creation Has Been Groaning,” 22.
90
Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe, 76.
91
N. A. Dahl, “Christ, Creation and the Church,” in The Background of the New Testament and Its
Eschatology: Studies in Honour of C.H. Dodd, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1964), 422–43.
92
Ibid., 429.
93
Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe, 77.
 58

moved than placed in them.”94 In Jewish writings “this idea of renovation of Nature, the

creation of new heavens and a new earth is common, as part of the Messianic

expectation.”95 Parallel passages to Romans 8:18–27, for example, 1 Enoch 31–71, 4

Ezra,96 and 2 Baruch97 exhibit the same themes.

The second parable of 1 Enoch (45–57) speaks of the restoration of both heavens

and earth,98 for the purpose of giving a renewed place for the righteous to dwell. 1 Enoch

69 explains how the sins of the angelic Watchers99 have deeply affected and corrupted the

entire creation—in a cosmological sense.100 Creation in its totality no longer functions as

God originally intended. If it will be restored, therefore, the removal of sin will require a

cosmological extension. Large portions of 1 Enoch (58–69) deal with the harmonious

functioning of the cosmos.

4 Ezra frequently refers to the corruption of creation, a term that encompasses

94
William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle
of the Romans, ICC, 5th ed., eds. Charles Augustus Briggs, Samuel Rolles Driver and Alfred Plummer
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1902), 207.
95
Ibid., 210.
96
For instance, 4 Ezra 3:9, 18, 34, 4:2, 11, 24, 4:28–29, 5:1–12, 24, 44, 49, 6:1–2, 20–25, 55, 7:11,
12, 13, 21, 7:113–114, 123, 8:1, 2, 5, 41, 50, 53–54, 9:2–6, 10:8, 45, 11:32, 39.
97
For example 2 Bar 73:2–3, 6, 14:13, 15:7–8, 12.
98
“And I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal blessing and light. And I will transform
the earth and make it a blessing,” 1 En 45:4b–5.
99
The Aramaic term watchers (‫ )עִיר‬is also used three times in the book of Daniel (4:10, 14, 20
[BHS versification]) and refers to angels, like in 1 Enoch (Ludwig Koehler, and Walter Baumgartner,
“‫עִיר‬,” in HALOT, 2:1946).
100
1 En 69:16–21.
 59

material creation and extends to the entire created physical order.101 The corruption of

this material created order causes it to pass away, and the end of this realm will include

cosmic disasters,102 and there will be chaos among the animals.103 Therefore, the

restoration of creation will reach as far as corruption did, which implies a cosmological

paradise, in which nature will be a physical reality prepared for Israel to dwell in.104

2 Baruch also speaks of a transformation of animals and plants, to the effect that

wild beasts will become docile and tame. Nature’s production will be more than

abundant. This world will be filled with righteousness and joy.105

These passages illustrate a great sympathy for a cosmological and physical

understanding of creation. Its corruption extends to its entirety, likewise the renewal or

restoration of the created domain. A great difference between Paul’s eschatology and

Jewish apocalyptic literature, however, is that the latter concerns itself mainly with the

glorification of Israel, while the former has a God-centered approach to the eschaton,

without neglecting the impact of God’s deliverance in nature and the universe.106

This brief overview of Jewish apocalyptic literature suggests that Romans 8:18–

101
4 Ezra 3:9, 18, 34, 4:2, 11, 24, 5:24, 44, 49, 6:1, 25, 55, 7:11, 12, 13, 21, 8:1, 2, 5, 41, 50, 9:2,
3, 5, 10:8, 45, 11:32, 39.
102
4 Ezra 4:28–29, 5:1–12, 6:20–24, 9:2–6.
103
4 Ezra 5:4–9, 9:2–3.
104
4 Ezra 6:2, 7:113–114, 123, 8:53–54.
105
2 Bar 73:2–3, 6, 14:13, 15:7–8, 12.
106
See Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 210–12, and Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of
Creation, 25.
 60

27 has a similar theological perspective and thus forms at least part of the background of

Paul’s thought-frame.

Nevertheless, it must be added that Jewish apocalyptic literature is not the

determining element for interpreting Romans 8. Paul did not submit his theology to men

but God. It does, however, illustrate the eschatological Jewish understanding of Paul’s

contemporaries, and to some extent suggests a cosmological physical interpretation for

the term κτίσις.

The Theology of κτίσις

This previous discussion already suggested that the concept of creation is a

theological category.107 This is essential to Paul’s usage of κτίσις in Romans 8. To speak

of creation is “to state that the cosmos does not simply exist, [but that] it was created by

God.”108 Thus, creation cannot be limited to the beginning.109 It must be understood in a

more comprehensive way and encompasses the work of originating, continuing, and

107
Dennis J. McCarthy, “‘Creation’ Motifs in Ancient Hebrew Poetry,” in Creation in the Old
Testament, IRT 6, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 75. The language of
theological category indicates that the definition of creation must be assigned to the biblical text itself. It
cannot be a matter of proposing to limit the definition to some prior convention, according to which
creation may only refer to an absolute beginning, but refers to how and to what end the Bible speaks of God
the creator. The Scriptures present that for God creation and providence are the same action. God works all
things by a single, most unified will, which allows them to exist, remain in existence and work. Thus, for
instance, creation in Psalm 104 is a process of past and present. The poetry does not set neat distinctions
between these temporal dimensions or between creation and providence. Both are part of the same
theological category—God is the creator. Patrick D. Miller, “The Poetry of Creation: Psalm 104,” in The
Way of the Lord. Essays in Old Testament Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), 187.
108
Terence E. Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation.
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 4.
109
McCarthy states that creation is a technical term that is only related to the absolute beginning
of the world (see McCarthy, “‘Creation’ Motifs in Ancient Hebrew Poetry,” 79). Nevertheless the term
creation in itself does not entail ex nihilo (see Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament, 5).
 61

completing, as the very definition of the word expresses.110 Creation is not simply viewed

as a matter of divine activity at the beginning of time. To make that assertion “is virtually

to deny the possibility of speaking of creation with respect to the Bible.”111

The Old Testament also uses the language of creation for divine activity and

God’s originating work. In fact, the Hebrew verb “to create” (‫)ברא‬, so central to speaking

of creation in Genesis 1, is used elsewhere in the Old Testament for God’s continuing

activity throughout redemptive history (cf. Is 45:8, 54:16).112 While creation involves

making something out of nothing, it does not exclude making something out of

something (Gen 1:21, 27). In reality, only a few activities can be considered creation ex

nihilo in Genesis 1. The rest is simply a reorganizing of that which already exists,

resulting “in something genuinely new and hence properly termed creation.”113

Clearly, a new creation does not demand a total annihilation of the previous one.

Instead, there is continuous divine action between creation and new creation. Therefore,

creation and providence must be considered together.114 If creation is thus linked to

God’s providential activity through the present creation, then creation itself is not merely

110
Kτίσις could refer not only to the source of creation (God), but also to the beginning, or to the
results, see BDAG “Kτίσις,” 572–73.
111
Ben C. Ollenburger, “Isaiah’s creation theology,” ExAud 3, (January 1, 1987): 60.
112
Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation (London: SCM,
1985), 206–14.
113
Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament, 5.
114
They are certainly held together in the book of Isaiah. In this respect, Isaiah sees the
providential action of God the creator on behalf of and with respect to Israel and Zion in the presence of the
startled nations and witnessed by nature. Ollenburger, “Isaiah’s creation theology,” 69.
 62

“the beginning” but the process which will complete that which God has begun.

Since the Old Testament shows that it is not viable to disconnect creation from

new creation, it follows that God’s new creation is the culmination of Genesis 1, and the

reason why Paul asserts that the present creation is groaning, awaiting for the restoration

of all things, dependent on the fact that God is the ultimate source of creation.

The creation account, as elaborated throughout the Old Testament, does not

merely speak of a past creative act but of an ongoing creative action of God which gives

life to every creature. From this perspective, Genesis 1 and 2 have to do “with the

subsistence of the world and of mankind, not with the intellectual question of the

origin.”115 This broader understanding of creation shows that God did not cease to be the

creator when the work of Genesis 1 was completed. God, as Creator, has continued to

have an ongoing relationship with the world,116 which leads to his involvement with

creation through time and space, until the cosmos emerges to the new reality of a

glorified creation.117 Thus, the Old Testament theology of creation carries tremendous

eschatological implications.

God will bring a new heaven and earth into being only because He is the creator

of the present heaven and earth (Isa 65:17–25, Rev 21:1–5). Completing creation

115
Claus Westermann, Creation, trans. John J. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974), 120. Paul
Tillich also agrees with Westermann and declares that the doctrine of creation is not the story of an event
which took place “once upon a time.” It is the basic description of the relation between God and the world,
see Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 1:252.
116
Fretheim, God and World in the Old Testament, 7–8.
117
Moltmann, God in Creation, 209.
 63

indicates that there is an element of incompleteness to the present creation, even prior to

the fall. At the same time, the new creation is not a return to the original pre-fallen state,

nor merely a rearrangement of that which has existed. Something completely new will

emerge from the present physical realm: a new domain where sin will no longer exist, a

new heaven and a new earth, a new heart and a new spirit.118 Such creative acts

characterize God’s eschatological creative work.

Therefore, one must conclude that when Paul wrote Romans 8:18–27, he was

following the Old Testament theological understanding of creation. In light of this,

creator and creation go hand in hand. This is why the cosmic non-human material

creation is essential to Paul’s eschatology. The redemption of believers must be clearly

linked to the restoration of creation, because God’s ability to totally and fully overcome

sin and its effects is at stake.

Summary

The previous discussion has confirmed what the main bulk of this chapter aims to

accomplish, and that is to show the interdependency between Old Testament eschatology,

especially Isaiah, and Pauline eschatology. It also has explained the usage of κτίσις in its

background in Romans 8:18–27, to show its cosmic nuances and its reference to non-

human physical creation. The devastation and chaos of sin is cosmic and earthly. All

creation suffers under the weight of its divine subjection. The Old Testament background

to Romans 8 vividly, pictures a withering earth acutely exhausted and impotent as it

118
Isa 65:17, 66:22, Eze 11:19–20, 35:26–27.
 64

languishes under the weight of human sin.119 Humanity and non-human creation relate

and depend on each other. Thus, the revelation of the sons of God implies the restoration

of creation, which in turn is rooted in the Old Testament theology of creation. The first

words in the Bible, “in the beginning,” have the prophetic expectation “in the end” as

their counterpart.120 The acts of God at the beginning and end conform to one another.121

The Old Testament underscores the universal character of God’s work of redemption,

namely that a redeemed humanity is not envisioned apart from a correspondingly

redeemed world.122 The natural order is not overthrown but vindicated. These are the Old

Testament roots from which Paul draws his eschatology. His thought is governed by the

Old Testament teaching that creation and salvation correlate.123 For him, the new heaven

and new earth are not discontinuous with the old. The connecting link is to be found in

the God who is both Creator and Consummator. For Paul, “the end is what brings the

final realization of what from the beginning was the will of God the Creator,”124 brought

together in the Messiah.125 He is the unifying principle, giving both coherence and

119
John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1–33, WBC, rev.ed., ed., Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and
Glenn W. Barker (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 377–78.
120
Russell, “The New Heavens and New Earth,” 62.
121
Francis Bridger, “Ecology and Eschatology: A Neglected Dimension,” TynBul 41, no. 2
(1990): 297.
122
Gowan, Eschatology in the Old Testament, 118.
123
See full discussion in Dahl, “Christ, Creation and the Church,” 422–43.
124
Ibid., 429.
125
Romans 8:19–22 echoes the language of Romans 4 and 5. In Romans 5 Paul contrasts Adam
with Christ, showing that the curse of Genesis 3:17–18 resulting from Adam’s disobedience is lifted by the
 65

continuity, and this connection aids in understanding the implications of Romans 8.

The usage of the word κτίσις in Romans 8:18–20 demonstrates the centrality of

cosmological non-human creation to new creation. Christian eschatology is not about

“the end,” but about the new creation of all things. This understanding is built on God’s

work as the creator. He is constantly at work sustaining the universe. This hope of

Romans 8:20 is that God, as creator, will act. Whatever the circumstances may be

creation is not limited to its inherent possibilities. If that were true, God’s ability to

overcome sin would have to be questioned.

Therefore, creation and new creation are mutually interdependent, the one cannot

be separated from the other, making the new creation a transformation and renewal of the

present cosmic creation rather than a total annihilation. These two creations relate to each

other following a pattern of continuity/discontinuity.

obedience of the second Adam. The obedience of Christ is the key element to the deliverance of creation
from the bondage of sin and the subjection to futility. In Romans 4 (4:24) Paul depicts the believer’s trust
in the promises of reversing fallen humanity’s refusal to worship God as creator (Rom 1:18–23), and of
bringing about a new, restored relationship to God as creator (Rom 4:17–21) by means of the Messianic
work. In Paul’s thought, the hope of a renewed world also ensures the cosmic and public character of the
coming consummation of the Messiah’s reign as the vindication of God, his people, and his truth (Rom
2:3–11, 14:9–12, 2 Thess 1:3–12). In Romans 8, Paul, based on Romans 4:13, describes the inheritance of
believers as the entire creation, in its physicality and materiality, liberated from decay and death, renewed
and transformed by the creator God, who indeed created it for this very purpose (8:18–21, cf., Mt 19:28–
29, Acts 3:20–21, Heb 2:5, 2 Pet 3:13, Rev 21–22). Drawing on the language of the exodus, Paul affirms
that the creation itself will be liberated from its slavery to decay (Rom 8:21), which also echoes the exodus
language of chapters three and six earlier (see 3:24–25, 6:17–18), thus identifying creation’s final liberation
as the consummation of the new creation inaugurated in Jesus’ death and resurrection (2 Cor 5:17, Gal
6:15, Jas 1:18). As he did in chapter four, Paul then turns, in the context of this cosmic hope of the renewal
of all nature, to the personal hope of the resurrection from the dead (8:22–23) continuing the exodus
imagery used in verse 21 to depict the renewal of the whole created order. Thus Paul brings the reader back
full circle to chapter four, where Paul describes the Christian faith as faith in the creator who raises the
dead (4:17–25), and the promise of inheriting the entire renewed earth (4:13). Hence, in Paul’s teaching,
the hope of the resurrection is tied together to the renewal of all creation. See James P. Ware, “Paul’s hope
and ours: recovering Paul’s hope of the renewed creation,” Concordia Journal 35, no. 2 (March 2009):
130–33. Also see Bridger, “Ecology and Eschatology,” 297–98.
 66

Pauline eschatology asserts that the future of God’s work for all of the physical

creation is bound up with new creation, and central to this lies the person and work of the

Messiah. This touches on a significant issue: the resurrection, not only of Christ but also

of his saints. Paul bases his eschatology on the firm belief that Jesus was raised from the

dead. While, at first sight this may seem irrelevant to the present issue, it is central to a

cosmological renewal of physical creation.

The resurrection needs to be understood in its cosmological setting rather than as

a simple picture of an individual survivor. It can be strongly argued that the resurrection

demonstrates the transformation rather than the replacement of the physical body, and

therefore by implication, God intends for the material world to be transformed, not

discarded. The resurrection is God’s vindication of creation, as O’Donovan says:

It might have been possible, we could say, before Christ rose from the dead, for
someone to wonder whether creation was a lost cause. If the creature consistently
acted to uncreate itself, and with itself to uncreate the rest of creation, did this not
mean that God’s handiwork was flawed beyond hope of repair? It might have
been possible before Christ rose from the dead to answer in good faith, yes.
Before God raised Jesus from the dead, the hope that we call “gnostic,” the hope
for redemption from creation rather than for the redemption of creation, might
have appeared to be the only possible hope. “But in fact Christ has been raised
from the dead…” (15:20). That fact rules out those other possibilities.126

“The resurrection reminds us that God acts in this creation for its renewal and

transformation.”127 Pauline eschatology indicates a dynamic cosmic process. This means

that the eschatological process has already begun. The new creation was inaugurated by

126
Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics
(Leicester, England: Eerdmans Publishing, 1986), 14.
127
Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe, 104.
 67

the resurrection of Christ, and the consummation will come when God makes all things

new and establishes a new heaven and earth. The relevancy, following Pauline

terminology, is that the present physical cosmos is another phase towards the

consummation of God’s cosmological plan and was established with the first creation. In

one sense, the present physical creation is in the divine womb waiting to be born into a

new cosmological creation.

 CHAPTER THREE:
THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE PRESENT SUFFERINGS AND
COSMOLOGICAL FUTURE GLORY IN ROMANS 8:18

The theme of Romans 8:18–271 focuses on the greatness of the coming glory in

contrast with the present sufferings as one dual-sided theme.2 Although believers should

expect to suffer with Christ in the present age (Rom 8:17), their suffering is nothing in

comparison with the eternal glory (Rom 8:18). Christians are groaning as they anticipate

the redemption of their bodies (Rom 8:23), even as the non-human3 creation groans

because of the corruption that resulted from the Fall (Rom 8:20–22). But there is hope

(Rom 8:23–25) and assurance (Rom 8:28–30) for the suffering believer. He will be

glorified together with Christ, just as also the non-human creation will be set free and

renewed (Rom 8:19, 21). In the midst of this process the Spirit intercedes for the believer,

aiding him through the present age of suffering (Rom 8:26–27).

1
This passage is usually seen as part of a larger structure (Rom 8:18–30). See Gieniusz, Romans
8:18–30, 87–88. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 508, believes that the word δόξα in verse 18 and 30
delimits the frame of this section, Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, 141, Cranfield, Romans, 1:404,
Liddon, 134, Käsemann, Romans, 231.
2
See Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, 139.
3
Most will speak of sub-human creation, but this term in itself limits its extent to non-rational
creation in nature. On the other hand non-human refers to all of creation that is non-human, including that
which is beyond planet earth. For some examples of non-human language see, L. H. Osborn, “Creation,” in
New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, eds., T. Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner (Downers Grove,
IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 434, Philip W. Comfort, “Futility,” in DPL, 322, Gianoulis, 74, Moo, The
Epistle to the Romans, 510, Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 345, 347, Douglas J. Moo “Romans,” in
New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, eds., D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer and G. J.
Wenham, (Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 1141, Hendriksen and Kistemaker, Exposition of
Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 266, and Cranfield, Romans, 1:411.

68
 69

Romans 8:18–27: Its Theme and Structure

The contrast between suffering and hope is highlighted by a threefold groaning:

(1) the groaning of non-human creation (Rom 8:19–22, cf., συστενάζει v. 22), (2) the

groaning of the children of God (Rom 8:23–25, cf., στενάζοµεν v. 23), and (3) the

groaning of the Spirit (Rom 8:25–27, στεναγµοῖς ἀλαλήτοις, v. 26).4 These three sections

correlate to suffering, glory and the Spirit respectively. Obviously the groaning of the

Spirit is different from that of the creation and believers. The Spirit groans as He

intercedes for God’s children, which is positive, while creation (ἡ κτίσις

ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς εἰς τὴν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων

τοῦ θεοῦ, Rom 8:21) and the children of God (ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοὶ τὴν ἀπαρχὴν τοῦ

πνεύµατος ἔχοντες, ἡµεῖς καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς στενάζοµεν υἱοθεσίαν ἀπεκδεχόµενοι, τὴν

ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώµατος ἡµῶν, Rom 8:23) groan as they anxiously wait for their final

redemption.5 Nevertheless, all three groanings are similar in that they are temporally

attached to the inherent weaknesses caused by the sin in the present creation. Creation,

believers and the Spirit will cease their groanings as soon as the revelation of the children

of God takes place (Rom 8:21, 23, 26).

4
Theodor Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament (Leipzig:
Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1910), 400, and Anders Nygren. Commentary on Romans, trans., Carl
C. Rasmussen (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 949), 331–35.
5
Redemption here is used in its broadest sense, meaning the deliverance from the effects of sin.
 70

Romans 8:17 functions as both a transition and foundation for these verses.6 The

future glory eagerly expected for all of creation, including believers, is based on sharing

in Christ’s suffering. This implies that suffering and glory go hand in hand, which adds to

the element of hope and anticipation, and serves to unify this passage. Paul moves back

and forth between the themes of present suffering and future glory easily because his goal

is to give assurance of future glory to believers who are in the midst of present sufferings,

especially sufferings regarding the reality of the body of death (τοῦ σώµατος τοῦ

θανάτου, Rom 7:24) in the believer. Romans 8:18–27 supports this dual-sided central

motif but extends it beyond the believer to non-human creation for the sake of the

believer’s hope. God is concerned for his creation, but, the main emphasis is on the

universal scope of redemption, and that because there is certainty of the creation’s

renewal, there is also a corresponding certainty of the believer’s final restoration. This is

discussed in verses 19–22, which depend on verse 18. Here, the apostle confirms his

statement that believers will enjoy eternal glory despite their present suffering, by

showing that the created order also suffers but will be transformed into glory. In other

words, Paul extends the scope of God’s renewing action from his children to non-human

creation, enhancing and then increasing their hope of glory.

The Christian hope of glory in eternity is verified by God’s promise of the

ultimate redemption of creation (Rom 8:19–22). This text provides evidence that

suffering with Christ results in glorification with him and so it grants motivation to

6
J. Christiaan Beker, “Vision of Hope for a Suffering World: Romans 8:17–30,” PSB 3 (1994):
30.
 71

believers to live as debtors to the Holy Spirit (cf., Rom 8:12–13).7 The evidence for this

is the γάρ which links verse 19 to the previous verses.8 God purposes that the non-human

creation will be restored to its proper action, resulting in the achievement of its initial

purpose. This movement from suffering to glory in all of creation attests to the reality of

the future glorious transformation of the believer.9 Therefore, creation eagerly awaits the

appearance of the sons of God with Christ in glory (Rom 8:19), because at that time

creation will also be delivered from its current state of futility owed to its present

subjection (Rom 8:21). “If God is going to deliver the natural world from the damage of

sin and death, he can also be trusted to redeem the material bodies of his children and to

glorify them with Christ.”10 To speak of Christian hope as an entity limited to spiritual

redemption of the elect is to present an incomplete picture that does not encompass all of

creation. Human bodies will be redeemed because God’s redeeming action also affects

the material world. To say otherwise is to affirm that Christ did not conquer death and

decay in creation.

The suffering of this present world strengthens the reality and hope of the new life

in Christ. This strengthening does not depend on the struggling and groaning Christian

but on the efficacy of the work of God, who in Christ Jesus will restore the entire cosmos.

7
Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the
Romans, eds., William P. Dickson, trans., John C. Moore and Edwin Johnson (New York: Funk &
Wagnalls, 1884), 68, 83, and 87.
8
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 511.
9
John Gibbs, Creation and Redemption, 37.
10
Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 172.
 72

The undeniable fact is that these present sufferings are an overwhelming evidence of

God’s love for his children (Rom 5:3–5; 8:31, 37, 39). The gift of the Holy Spirit is not

merely a down payment for future glory but a channel to bestow divine love directly in

the life of the believer as he struggles to do God’s will (Rom 7:13–25), while putting the

deeds of the flesh to death (Rom 8:13).

Sufferings become a normal part of the Christian life. Believers’ participation in

Christ’s sufferings will result in their sharing in Christ’s glory. To be sure, believers’

suffering is related to the corruption of creation. They both are mutually interdependent.

As long as man, the chief actor in the drama of God’s creation, groans and suffers, the

whole creation is prevented from being fully that which it was created to be. This divine

drama must be played out as a magnificent whole. Each part is interconnected as a living

organism. So if man’s part is missing due to sin, creation will suffer, “just as all the other

players in a concerto would be frustrated of their purpose if the soloist were to fail to play

his part.”11 By this means, Adam’s rebellious deed not only brought sin and death to all

his descendants, but also put the entire non-human creation under death and futility.

This movement from the individual to the cosmic in Romans 8 is also supported

by the chiastic structure found in Romans 5–8,12 which carries implications for seeing the

11
Cranfield, “Some Observations on Romans 8:19–21,” 227.
12
The proposed chiasm is as follows:

A 5:1–11 — Past and present salvation

B 5:12–21 — Adam’s condemnation versus Christ’s righteousness
C 6:1–7:25 — Relationship between Law and death
B’ 8:1–17— Law’s condemnation versus the Spirit’s life
A’ 8:18–30— Future salvation
 73

cosmological extent of Adam’s sin. In Romans 5:1–21 Paul presents the movement from

the individual to the cosmic concerning sin and death, while likewise the mirroring end of

this chiastic structure (Rom 8:18–30) reflects the same type of movement. Both are

formulated within the eschatological polarity of present assurance and ultimate victory, as

well as present suffering and future glory.13

Nevertheless, there is hope in the midst of such futility. Not only the inherent

hope to the promise of complete redemption—even of the material cosmos—but also the

hope that comes through the eyes of faith which interpret the present sufferings in light of

God’s operation. These are the birth pangs which lead to a new world, not to a dying

creation. Just as a pregnant woman during birth pangs eagerly awaits the delivery of new

life, believers also endure patiently understanding that in God’s grand scheme sufferings

precede glory—a newborn creation, in which both the non-human creation and believers

will experience a glorious and sinless freedom.14 Unquestionably, “glory and the

redemption of bodies of believers will be part of the new world, which both the material

creation and believers eagerly await.”15

In this passage, then, the apostle is focusing on the larger vision of God and his

redemptive purposes for Creation. Romans 8:18–27 comprises the fullness of eschatology

applied to Christian living, becoming the “peak-passage of the epistle.”16 It is the

13
Russell, The “New Heavens and New Earth,” 164.
14
Romans 8:19, 21, 23, 29–30.
15
Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 173.
16
Gwilym O. Griffith, St. Paul’s Gospel to the Romans (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1949), 28.
 74

completion of a holistic redemption that is expected at every level of creation. For the

apostle, a redemption that does not affect non-human creation is an incomplete picture.

But it is only because of the groaning of creation that the apostle can confidently assert

that God’s children will also be delivered from their present state, and consequently, he

boldly asserts, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to

those who love God…” (Rom 8:28). This verse is not an isolated treasure, but the

confirmation and result of the hope transpired through every verse of Romans 8:18–27.17

Romans 8:18–22: Its Jewish Apocalyptic Background

Verse 18 is not only an introductory statement but also the presentation of the

theme of this section. Paul is linking the suffering of the believer with the assimilation to

the suffering and death of Christ.18 This claim expands on 8:17 and establishes the

framework for Romans 8:18–27. To understand Paul’s argument in this section it is

necessary to realize how the apostle uses traditional apocalyptic images while

reinterpreting them for his own purposes.19 The clear contrast between present suffering

and future glory, which constitutes the framework for this passage, was common in

Jewish apocalyptic literature,20 as well as in early Christianity.21 The connection between

17
Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans with an Introductory Essay by Maico Michielin,
Barth Studies, ed., by Maico M. Michielin, trans., D. H. van Daalen (Burlington, MA.: Ashgate, 2007), 61–
63. According to Barth this climactic passage explains how God turns the groaning into true worship that
pleases him, preventing his children from ever losing hope no matter how strenuous their circumstances are
(ibid., 64).
18
2 Cor 4:7–14, 6:1–10, 7:3, 13:3–4, Gal 2:19–20, Phil 3:4–11, 20–21, 1Thess 4:13–18, 5:10.
19
Tobin, Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Context, 289.
20
For instance Dan 7:17–27, Wis 2–5, 2 Macc 7, 1 En 102–104, 2 Bar 15:8.
 75

the fate of human beings and the fate of creation is also characteristic of apocalyptic

literature,22 to the point of carrying a messianic nuance23 in the sense that the work of the

Perfect Human will result in the restoration of creation.24 This human-creation connection

is presented in light of the curse on the earth because of Adam,25 and is also connected to

the new creation.26 Since Paul has already linked present sufferings to the sin of Adam

(Rom 5:12–21), Romans 8 echoes this type of Jewish text that expresses that creation’s

futility is the consequence of Adam’s deed.

On the other hand, it is in association with the second Adam that God will renew

this creation. A third motif found in Romans 8, stemming from Jewish apocalyptic

literature, is the sense of final vindication and salvation that will be preceded by a time of

great distress.27 Such an idea lies behind the concept of ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ

συνωδίνει.28 It allows Paul “to view the sufferings of the present time, not as a threat to

salvation, but as a sign that the longed for deliverance is actually close at hand.”29

21
2 Cor 4:17, 1 Pet 4:13, 5:10.
22
Fitzmyer, Romans, 505, and Byrne, Romans, 256.
23
In Jewish writings the idea of renovation of Nature, creation of new heavens and a new earth is
commonly presented as part of the Messianic expectation (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 210).
24
Dahl, “Christ, Creation and the Church,” 429.
25
Compare Gen 3:17–19, 5:29 with Jub 4:26, 2 Bar 56:5–7, 4 Ezra 7:10–15.
26
Compare Isa 65:17, 66:22 with 1 En 45:4–5, 91:15–16, Jub 1:29, 23:23–31, 2 Bar 31:5–32:6.
27
Wilkinson, Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe, 78.
28
Dan 7:21–22, 25–27, 12:1–3, 4 Ezra 5:1–13, 6:13–24, 9:1–3, 2 Bar 25:2–3, 48:30–41, 70:2–10,
Sib Or 1:62–65, 2:154–173, 3:632–656, 796–806.
29
Byrne, Romans, 256.
 76

All these traditional apocalyptic motifs represent viewpoints common to Paul, but

he molds them for the sake of his own argument. The apostle speaks of slavery and

freedom, not to the law, but rather to φθορά (Rom 8:20), setting Romans 8 in an

eschatological context. Furthermore, he uses a more inclusive frame. In some apocalyptic

texts (1 En 45:4–5, 51:1–5, 58:1-6, 61–62, 4 Ezra 7:10–15, 30–44, 2 Bar 31:5–32:6,

56:5–7, 72:1–74:4), the destruction and renewal of creation are closely linked to the

disintegration and re-creation of man. This adds a conflict which becomes deeply

adversarial in nature. The righteous Jew was set over against the unrighteous Jew or

Gentile. The punishment of the latter becomes an eschatological hope, making this type

of literature vindictive in nature. In Romans 8:18–22, however, Paul presents the

redemption of the creation as its freedom from τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς (slavery to

corruption, Rom 8:21). This language is reminiscent of 1 Corinthians 15:20–28, 42–49,

50–57 where Paul writes about the eschatological resurrection of the dead. This does not

mean that freedom from τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς in Romans 8:21 is equivalent only to

the resurrection, but it is certainly one of its many facets.30 The relevancy of this

parallelism is that the enemies portrayed in 1 Corinthians 15 are not groups of peoples, as

in apocalyptic literature, but cosmic powers, the most important of which is death.31 1

Corinthians 15:40–47 contains vocabulary which the apostle uses in Romans 8:18–22,

such as, φθορά (1 Cor 15:42, 50, Rom 8:21) and δόξαν (1 Cor 15:40, 41, 43, Rom 8:18,

30
It could be argued that freedom from corruption is a facet of resurrection, but since there will be
elements of this creation that will be transformed and not resurrected, it is preferable to see human
resurrection as a facet of this freedom.
31
Rom 8:38, and Col 1:16, 2:10–15, Eph 1:21, 3:10, 6:12.
 77

21), showing how both texts connect φθορά and δόξαν. Therefore, the basic framework

found in 1 Corinthians is reminiscent of Romans 8. Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 15

reveals a deliverance from cosmic powers, particularly death and decay, into glory. This

is a radical shift from Jewish apocalyptic literature, but it hints to Paul’s inclusive

eschatology. Gentiles are not the enemies, in fact, they will become part of God’s people.

They, as a group, are no longer seen as adversaries against whom Israel will be

vindicated.

This larger eschatological framework is not unknown to Romans, as chapters 9–

11 demonstrate. Nonetheless, this very inclusiveness becomes relevant to Romans 8:18–

22 because it shows how τὴν µέλλουσαν δόξαν (the glory that is to be revealed, Rom

8:18) cannot be detached from national Israel’s restoration. This structure is expansive

and inclusive in character. The language used in Romans 8 does not preclude Israel from

inclusion, nor exclude gentiles from God’s redemption.32 Furthermore, it presents the

adversaries as cosmological forces that go beyond humanity and even the earth, but affect

creation in its totality. Hence, ἡ κτίσις ἐλευθερωθήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς

must be understood in light of this Pauline apocalyptic and eschatological framework.

Romans 8:18: The Cosmic Battle

In verse 18, Paul begins his argument with the verb λογίζοµαι indicating that he is

making a firm judgment, and not just expressing a mere conviction.33 This is to say that

32
Byrne, Romans, 272.
33
Käsemann, Romans, 232.
 78

what follows is the result of deliberate and careful examination. Romans 8:18–27 cruises

the heights and depths of cosmological redemption with poetic exhilaration, and yet the

apostle begins with the most sober term—seltem kalten Ausdrucks (a singularly cold

expression).34 This passage is not a visceral reaction but the result of profound reckoning.

The emotions interwoven with Paul’s words should not lead the reader to disregard the

cosmological implications of this section.35

The main thrust of this verse hangs on the phrase οὐκ ἄξια τὰ παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν

καιροῦ πρὸς τὴν µέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡµᾶς (“the sufferings of this

present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us”).

This poses a major difficulty: understanding the actual meaning of the idiom οὐκ ἄξια

πρός. This phrase could either imply a simple comparison or a contraposition. A simple

comparison means that both παθήµατα and δόξαν are seen in the same light.

Consequently, Romans 8:18 would be asserting that the present sufferings are less worthy

in comparison with the future glory, but they are two sides of the same experience. On

the other hand, a contraposition indicates that these two elements are contrastive, and that

πάθηµα is unworthy with regard to the τὴν µέλλουσαν δόξαν.36

34
Karl Barth speaks of λογίζοµαι as a word with a singular cold expression (Der Römerbrief:
(zweite Fassung), 1922, eds., Katja Tolstaja and Cornelis Van Der Kooi [Zürich: Theologischer Verlag,
2010], 416).
35
Hans Wolfgang Heidland, “λογίζοµαι, λογισµός,” in TDNT, 4:284.
36
These two different semantic senses come to light when the extra-biblical occurrences of this
phrase are analyzed. See below.
 79

The only biblical occurrence of οὐκ ἄξιος followed by πρός and an accusative

occurs in Romans 8:18. In most of the other instances ἄξιος is followed by an infinitive

or a genitive.37 Cranfield suggests that this idiom may be explained due perhaps to a

desire to avoid another genitive immediately after καιροῦ.38 C. F. D. Moule thinks that it

could be due to the disturbing influence of µέλλω.39

Others, like H. R. Balz believe that it is due to a rabbinical style of comparison.

He argues e silentio, since this construction is not found elsewhere in the Bible, and yet

this absence is what leads him to see it as rabbinical influence.40 There are, however,

extra-biblical occurrences of this idiom,41 which show that this expression was familiar to

Greek speakers,42 and hint that a hypothetical rabbinical parallelism may not be the best

explanation for οὐκ ἄξια πρός.43

37
Luke 15:19, 21, Acts 12:35, 1 Cor 16:4, Rev 4:11: 5:2, 4, 9, 12 for examples of ἄξιος followed
by an infinitive. For ἄξιος followed by a genitive, see Mat 3:8, 10:10, Luke 3:8, 10:7, 12:48, 23:15, Acts
13:46, 23:29, 25:11, 25, 26:20, Rom 1:32, 1 Tim 5:18.
38
Cranfield, Romans, 1:409.
39
C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed., (Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press, 1971), 169–70.
40
Balz says, “Da original griechisch formulierte Texte und selbst griechische Übersetzungen
hebräscher Vorlagen wenig wegleichbares Material anbieten, dürfen wir schiließen, daß Paulus in Röm
8,18 sich eng an den Stil rabbinischer Vergleichungen anlehnt” (Since the original Greek formulated text,
and even Greek translations of Hebrew originals offer little comparable material, we may conclude that
Paul, in Romans 8:18, closely modeled himself on the style of rabbinic comparisons, [author’s translation]),
Horst R. Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung: Strukturen der paulinischen Eschatologie nach Römer 8,
18–39, BEvT 59, ed., E. Wolf (Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1971), 95.
41
See Table 3.1 Occurrences of οὐκ ἄξια πρός in Ancient Greek Literature Relevant to Romans
8:18 on page 81.
42
Dunn, Romans 1–8, 468.
43
Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30, 93.
 80

The Idiom οὐκ ἄξια πρός in Ancient Greek Literature

Ancient Greek Literature becomes relevant for determining the meaning of this

idiom in Romans 8:18. For this a study has been conducted using the database of

Thesaurus Linguae Graece (TLG) prepared by the University of California, Irvine

(2013).44 The string used for the search was οὐ* followed by the lemma ἄξιος within a

three range word, and also followed by πρός within a 7 range word from the first word.

The symbol * indicates that any character or characters could follow after υ.

The validity of this string is found in that Romans 8:18 shows up as one of the

results. The period covered extends from the 5th century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D. and

the total number of matches obtained was 32.45

These references were subsequently examined to determine which ones were

relevant to the present study.46 Out of thirty-two, the five which most closely resembled

the expression found in Romans 8:18 were selected. The following table contains these

occurrences of οὐκ (or another negative form) ἄξια πρός:

44
See http://www.tlg.uci.edu.
45
These are: Thucydides 4.34.1, 6.64.1 (V B.C.), Xenophon Mem. 1.6.12, Oec. 7.13 (V–IV B.C.),
Plato, Apol. 23b, Gorg. 471e, Leg. 834d, 846c (V–IV B.C.), Demosthenes, Andr. 76, Pro Phorm. 39 (IV
B.C.), Aristotle, Eth. Nic. 1164b, [Mund.] 391b (IV B.C), Hyperides, Eux. Arg. 30.6 (IV B.C.), Dinarchus,
Phil. 12.3 (IV–III B.C.), Polybius, 15.11.9, 30.18.2.1 (III–II B.C.), Posidonius, fr. 127 (II–I B.C.), Diodorus
Siculus 33.28.2 (I B.C.), Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 25 (I B.C.), Strabo, Geogr. 1.2.12 (I B.C.– A.D.
I), Paul, Romans 8:18 (A.D. I), Epictetus, Diatr 2.23.45 (A.D. I–II), Dio Chrysostom, 1 Regn. 1.57, 2 Tars.
34.45 (A.D. I–II), Ignatius, Scr. Eccl. 1.2.3 (A.D. I–II), Aelius Aristides, Συµµαχικὸς αʹ , p. 479, line 23
[Jebb], Πρός Πλάτωνα ὑπὲρ τῶν τεττάρων, p. 152, line 5 [Jebb] (A.D. II), Pausanias, Perieg. 7.10.3 (A.D.
II), Ep. eccl. Lugd. et Vien., 1.6 (A.D. II), Jos. Asen. 12.6 (A.D. II), Apoc. Ap. John 21 (A.D. II), Cassius
Dio, 37.10.1 (A.D. II–III).
46
The criterion followed was to examine those occurrences with a pattern similar to Romans 8:18.
 81

Table 3.1 Occurrences of οὐκ ἄξια πρός in Ancient Greek Literature Relevant to Romans 8:18
Date Author and Work Greek Text Translation
V-IV B.C. Plato, Apol. 23b. (23b) (3) Οὗτος ὑµῶν, ὦ (23b) (3) This one of you, o
ἄνθρωποι, σοφώτατός ἐστιν men, is wisest, who like
ὅστις ὥσπερ Σωκράτης Socrates recognizes that he is
ἔγνωκεν ὅτι οὐδενὸς ἄξιός worthless, (4) in truth, in
ἐστι τῇ (4) ἀληθείᾳ πρὸς respect to wisdom.
σοφίαν.
Plato, Gorg. 471e. (471e) (7) …οὗτος δὲ ὁ (471e) (7) …But this sort of
ἔλεγχος οὐδενὸς ἄξιός ἐστιν refutation is quite worthless in
πρὸς τὴν (472.a) (1) ἀλήθειαν respect to the (472a) (1) truth.
IV B.C. Aristotle, [Mund.] (391b) (1) …ἀλλὰ πάντα (391b) (1) …But all the other
391b αὐτοῖς τὰ (2) ἄλλα µικρὰ things (2) would appear quite
κατεφαίνετο ἂν καὶ οὐδενὸς small to them and worthless,
ἄξια πρὸς τὴν (3) τούτων in contrast to (3) the
ὑπεροχήν supremacy of these.
III-II B.C. Polybius, 15.11.9. (15.11.9) (1) …ἃς οὔτε κατὰ (15.11.9) (1) …with none of
πλῆθος τῶν ἀν- (2) δρῶν οὔτε which [battles], either in
κατὰ τὰς ἀρετὰς ἀξίας εἶναι respect to the numbers of me-
συγκρίσεως (15.11.10) (1) (2) n or their excellence, was
πρὸς τὸν νῦν ἐπιφερόµενον to be compared (15.11.10) (1)
κίνδυνον the present struggle
I-II A.D. Dio Chrysostom, 1 (57) (1) οἱ γὰρ ἀνθρώπων (57) (1) For the words of men
Regn. 1.57. λόγοι καὶ τὰ πάντα (2) and all their (2) tricks are
σοφίσµατα οὐδενὸς ἄξια πρὸς worthless in contrast to the
τὴν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἐπίπνοιαν inspiration and (3) speech [2]
καὶ (3) φήµην. [from the gods]

The idiom οὐκ ἄξια πρός appearing in these five passages could be categorized

into two distinct usages: (1) simple comparison47 and (2) contraposition.48 Neither

relationship is determined by the objective nature of the elements to be compared or

contrasted. In other words, it does not depend on whether the constituents juxtaposed are

positive or negative, contrary to Brendan Byrne, who understands the phrase οὐκ ἄξια

πρός as a reference to “‘buying and selling language.”49 So, he sees the sufferings as a

47
Plato, Apol. 23b, Polybius, 15.11.9.
48
Plato, Gorg. 471e, Dio Chrysostom, 1 Regn. 1.57, and possibly Aristoteles, [Mund.] 391b.
49
Brendan Byrne, Sons of God, Seed of Abraham: A Study of The Idea of The Sonship of God of
All Christians in Paul against The Jewish Background, AnBib 83 (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979), 103.
 82

“small price, to pay in comparison with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”50 In doing

this, he claims that Paul is asserting the overwhelming superiority of the glory that is to

come versus the less overwhelming superiority of the sufferings of the present age.51

Byrne, however, fails to see the parallelisms from Plato, Gorg. 471e, and Dio

Chrysostom, 1 Regn. 1.57.

In these two instances, the juxtaposed elements could objectively be of either

nature, positive or negative, and yet clearly they are mutually and even exclusively

contrasted. Therefore, the semantic range of the two elements placed side by side does

not necessarily determine the way the idiom οὐκ ἄξια πρός functions. Instead, an analysis

of these five occurrences52 shows that their context is the key element for deducing the

mutual relationship between them. This relationship could be quantitative (simple

comparison), meaning that the difference is one of grade, or contraposition (contrastive

comparison), meaning that the difference is one of quality.

When οὐκ ἄξια πρός is categorized as a simple comparison, the nuance

communicated is of a different grade of worth with regard to the future glory.53 The

passage from Polybius, ἃς οὔτε κατὰ πλῆθος τῶν ἀνδρῶν οὔτε κατὰ τὰς ἀρετὰς ἀξίας

εἶναι συγκρίσεως πρὸς τὸν νῦν ἐπιφερόµενον κίνδυνον (with none of which [battles],

50
Ibid.
51
Ibid., 122, 103, n.94.
52
The author understands that five instances of a grammatical construction are not enough to
establish a dogmatic interpretative principle. Rather, it is a flexible implication drawn out by observation.
53
A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research
(New York: Hodder & Stoughton, 1914), 626.
 83

either in respect to the numbers of men or their excellence, was to be compared the

present struggle),54 illustrates the simple comparison. In this case the historian is

comparing struggles of different intensity.

On the other hand, οὐκ ἄξια πρός compares two elements that are placed in

contraposition, and declares the worthless quality of τὰ παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ (the

sufferings of this present time) in relation to the τὴν µέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι

(the glory that is to be revealed). The two different elements, when juxtaposed, manifest

either an intrinsic limitation or strength. The contrast highlights the strength of one of the

two elements by asserting its inability to measure up to the other.

Two occurrences from the list above belong to this pattern, presenting a

parallelism with the usage of οὐκ ἄξια πρός in Romans 8:18.55 One is Plato, Gorg. 471e.,

and the other is Dio Chrysostom, 1 Regn. 1.57. The text of Aristotle, [Mund.] 391b, is

ambiguous so it is not relevant to the discussion.

Plato’s text presents a contrastive relationship between truth and refutation. These

juxtaposed elements are not compared in a positive light, in the sense that the first

outweighs the second, making it more valuable in regard to the other element. Instead,

Plato records Socrates, one of the dialog’s interlocutors, as contrasting these two realities:

Ὦ µακάριε, ῥητορικῶς γὰρ µε ἐπιχειρεῖς ἐλέγχειν, ὥσπερ οἱ ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις

ἡγούµενοι ἐλέγχειν. καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖ οἱ ἕτεροι τοὺς ἑτέρους δοκοῦσιν ἐλέγχειν,
ἐπειδὰν τῶν λόγων ὧν ἂν λέγωσι µάρτυρας πολλοὺς παρέχωνται καὶ εὐδοκίµους,

54
15.11.9.
55
Sanday, and Headlam, Romans, 206, Byrne, Sons of God, 103, n. 94, and Balz, Heilsvertrauen
und Welterfahrung, 94.
 84

ὁ δὲ τἀναντία λέγων ἕνα τινὰ παρέχηται ἢ µηδένα. οὗτος δὲ ὁ ἔλεγχος οὐδενὸς

ἄξιός ἐστιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν· ἐνίοτε γὰρ ἂν καὶ καταψευδοµαρτυρηθείη τις ὑπὸ
πολλῶν καὶ δοκούντων εἶναί τι. καὶ νῦν περὶ ὧν σὺ λέγεις ὀλίγου σοι πάντες
συµφήσουσιν ταὐτὰ Ἀθηναῖοι καὶ οἱ ξένοι, ἐὰν βούλῃ κατ’ ἐµοῦ µάρτυρας
παρασχέσθαι ὡς οὐκ ἀληθῆ λέγω·56

The individuals mentioned in the context (οἱ ἐν τοῖς δικαστηρίοις) are contenders

in a court case who are considering how to refute (οἱ…, ἡγούµενοι ἐλέγχειν) the

arguments given by the opposition. These are not simply comparable to the truth since

they may be refutations given by false witnesses (καταψευδοµαρτυρηθείη). But,

Socrates’ point is not that these contenders are hiding the truth, rather that their

arguments, when contrasted with the truth, are useless for uncovering it. Therefore the

phrase οὗτος δὲ ὁ ἔλεγχος οὐδενὸς ἄξιός ἐστιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν refers to a contrast.

The refutations are not presented as the means to obtain the truth. In fact they are quite

worthless for getting at it. In short, refutation and truth are not considered of the same

intrinsic quality. Instead, these refutations are contrasted with Socrates’ efforts to uncover

the truth.

56
Plato, Gorg. 471e.–472a. The English translation according to the LCL is:

My gifted friend, that is because you attempt to refute me in rhetorical fashion, as they understand
refuting in the law courts. For there, one party is supposed to refute the other when they bring
forward a number of reputable witnesses to any statements they may make, whilst their opponent
produces only one, or none. But this sort of refutation is quite worthless for getting at the truth;
since occasionally a man may actually be crushed by the number and reputation of the false
witnesses brought against him. And so now you will find almost everybody, Athenians and
foreigners, in agreement with you on the points you state, if you like to bring forward witnesses
against the truth of what I say.

(Plato, Plato, with an English Translation, LCL 166, trans., Walter Rangeley Maitland Lamb
[London: William Heinemann, 1925], 342–44).
 85

The other relevant instance of οὐκ ἄξια πρός occurs in Dio Chrysostom, 1 Regn.

1.57, and similarly to Plato, the context also points to a contrastive relationship between

the juxtaposed elements:

Συµβαλεῖς δέ, ἔφη, ποτὲ ἀνδρὶ καρτερῷ, πλείστης ἄρχοντι χώρας καὶ ἀνθρώπων·
τούτῳ µήποτε ὀκνήσῃς εἰπεῖν τόνδε τὸν µῦθον, εἰ καί σου καταφρονεῖν τινες
µέλλοιεν ὡς ἀδολέσχου καὶ πλάνητος. οἱ γὰρ ἀνθρώπων λόγοι καὶ τὰ πάντα
σοφίσµατα οὐδενὸς ἄξια πρὸς τὴν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἐπίπνοιαν καὶ φήµην. ὅσοι γὰρ
ποτε σοφοὶ καὶ ἀληθεῖς κατʼ ἀνθρώπους λόγοι περὶ θεῶν τε καὶ τοῦ σύµπαντος,
οὐκ ἄνευ θείας ποτε βουλήσεως καὶ τύχης ἐν ψυχῇ ποτε ἀνθρώπων ἐγένοντο διὰ
τῶν πρώτων µαντικῶν τε καὶ θείων ἀνδρῶν· οἷον ἐν Θρᾴκῃ τινὰ λέγουσιν Ὀρφέα
γενέσθαι Μούσης υἱόν, ἄλλον δὲ ποιµένα ἐν ὄρει τινὶ τῆς Βοιωτίας αὐτῶν
ἀκοῦσαι τῶν Μουσῶν· ὅσοι δὲ ἄνευ δαιµονίου κατοχῆς καὶ ἐπιπνοίας λόγους
τινὰς ὡς ἀληθεῖς παρʼ αὑτῶν ἐκόµισαν εἰς τὸν βίον ἀτόπους καὶ πονηρούς.57

The context demonstrates that the purpose of the phrase οἱ γὰρ ἀνθρώπων λόγοι

καὶ τὰ πάντα σοφίσµατα οὐδενὸς ἄξια πρὸς τὴν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἐπίπνοιαν καὶ φήµην is to

motivate the listener to speak (εἰπεῖν) the tale (τὸν µῦθον), even though he may be

ridiculed (καταφρονεῖν) as a prating vagabond (ὡς ἀδολέσχου καὶ πλάνητος). Therefore,

the phrase εἰ καί σου καταφρονεῖν τινες µέλλοιεν ὡς ἀδολέσχου καὶ πλάνητος delimits

the semantic range of οἱ γάρ ἀνθρώπων λόγοι. Hence, these are the words said by men

57
Dio Chrysostom, 1 Regn. 1.56–58. Translation in English according to the LCL:

‘Some day’, she said, ‘you will meet a mighty man, the ruler of very many lands and peoples. Do
not hesitate to tell him this tale of mine even if there be those who will ridicule you for a prating
vagabond. For the words of men and all their subtleties are as naught in comparison with the
inspiration and speech due to the promptings of the gods. Indeed, of all the words of wisdom and
truth current among men about the gods and the universe, none have ever found lodgment in the
souls of men except by the will and ordering of heaven and through the lips of the prophets and
holy men of old. For instance, they say there once lived in Thrace a certain Orpheus, a Muse’s
son; and on a certain mountain of Boeotia another, a shepherd who heard voices of the Muses
themselves. Those teachers, on the other hand, who without divine possession and inspiration have
circulated as true stories born of their own imaginings are presumptuous and wicked’

(Dio Chrysostom, Dio Chrysostom, with an English Translation, LCL 257, trans., James Wilfred
Cohoon [London: William Heinemann, 1961], 30–32).
 86

which are meant to mock the persons reporting the words of the gods. But the point

conveyed by the clairvoyant, who gives the advice (ἔφη), is that human words have no

worth when contrasted with divine speech. The scale will not tilt towards the mockery of

men. This is the reason why the person to whom the oracle is being revealed does not

need to refrain his lips in proclaiming to men the story told by the woman.

In this passage the phrases οἱ γάρ ἀνθρώπων λόγοι and τὴν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν

ἐπίπνοιαν καὶ φήµην in this passage, are not simply compared. In fact they are

profoundly contrasted. Not only are their sources different, but so are those who speak

them, and also their natures.58 Therefore the idiom οὐδενὸς ἄξια πρός underlines the

weightlessness of the words of man in contrast to the speech of the gods.

The Idiom οὐκ ἄξια πρός in Romans 8:18

The question remains, what is the implication of the idiom οὐκ ἄξια πρός in

Romans 8:18? It has been shown that in ancient Greek literature it can function in two

different ways, and depending on which one is applied to Romans 8:18, the interpretation

will differ.

Οὐκ ἄξια πρός as a Simple Comparison

If this idiom is understood as a simple comparison, both juxtaposed elements, τὰ

παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ and τὴν µέλλουσαν δόξαν, are of the same quality but of

58
The phrase τὴν παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἐπίπνοιαν καὶ φήµην speaks of words of wisdom (σοφοί) and
truth (ἀληθεῖς) that cannot find their origin in men (οὐκ ἄνευ θείας ποτε βουλήσεως καὶ τύχης ἐν ψυχῇ ποτε
ἀνθρώπων ἐγένοντο) without the direct intervention of the gods and their prophets (καὶ θείων ἀνδρῶν).
 87

different degree.59 Therefore, Paul would be asserting that when τὰ παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν

καιροῦ are seen in light of τὴν µέλλουσαν δόξαν the former becomes of no value with

respect to the much greater worth of the δόξαν.

To identify the function of the idiom as a simple comparison could lead to an

idealization of tribulations, as is found in some of the Fathers of the Church. For instance

John Chrysostom, commenting on Romans 8:17, as he sets the context for Romans 8:18

says:

Δείξας τοίνυν ἀντίδοσιν οὖσαν τὸ πρᾶγµα, ἵνα ἀξιόπιστον ᾖ τὸ λεγόµενον, καὶ

µηδεὶς ἀµφιβάλλῃ, δείκνυσι πάλιν καὶ χάριτος δύναµιν ἔχον [emphasis added]· τὸ
µὲν, ἵνα καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἀµφιβάλλουσι πιστεύηται τὰ λεγόµενα, καὶ οἱ λαµβάνοντες
µὴ αἰσχύνωνται ὡς ἀεὶ δωρεᾷ σωζόµενοι· τὸ δὲ, ἵνα µάθῃς, ὅτι νικᾷ ταῖς
ἀντιδόσεσι τοὺς πόνους ὁ Θεός. Καίτοι τὸ µὲν ἐδήλωσεν εἰπὼν, Εἴπερ
συµπάσχοµεν, ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶµεν· τοῦτο δὲ, ἐπαγαγὼν καὶ προσθεὶς, ὅτι Οὐκ
ἄξια τὰ παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ πρὸς τὴν µέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς
ἡµᾶς.60

59
Only the context determines whether in an A compared to B situation, both elements are
positive, or one is entirely negative (or even neutral).
60
John Chrysostom, Hom. Rom., 60.528. Translation according to the Library of Fathers of the
Holy Catholic Church:

Having them shewn that the thing was a matter of return, to make men give credit to what was
said, and prevent any from doubting, he shews further that it has the virtue of a gift [emphasis
added]. The one he shewed, that what was said might gain credit even with those that doubted, and
that the receivers of it might not feel ashamed as being evermore receiving salvation for nought;
and the other, that you might see God outdoeth the toils by his recompenses. And the one he has
shewn in the words, If we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified together. But the other in
proceeding add; The sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory
which shall be revealed in us.”

(A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Anterior to the Division of the East and
West [Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848]: 242).
 88

In this passage, according to Chrysostom, sufferings are considered a gift by

means of which the future glory is attained, and therefore to be seen as something

positive and not in contrast with the glory.

At the other end of the chronological spectrum, Ethelbert Stauffer defining what it

means to love God says, “it means glowing with a passion for God, the passionate

eagerness to suffer [emphasis added] that characterizes a little flock which holds on,

faithful and undismayed, in spite of all its problems and the menace of powerful

authorities—until He comes, whom they love.”61 Although this is a broad statement it

clearly portrays sufferings in a good light.62

Franz Leenhardt, commenting on Romans 8:18, sees sufferings as “more than a

mere unavoidable necessity.”63 In fact he intrinsically binds up suffering with the very

essence of the Christian life:

Suffering is a sign and proof of the authenticity of our Christian condition.

Suffering and future glory are inseparable, because the present is a state of
transition leading to the future, the visible an anticipation of the invisible;
everything must be referred to another world, that of the Spirit which casts all
things into a state of tension and crisis, which induces in the heart of being an
essential dissatisfaction since it is itself the ultimate reality and therefore exercises
an ontological pressure on this-worldly realities.64

61
Ethelbert Stauffer, “Jesus,” in Love, by Gottfried Quell and Ethelbert Stauffer, ed., and trans.,
John Rider Coates (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1949), 46.
62
Stauffer is not specifically dealing with Romans 8; instead he is defining what it means to love
God according to Jesus’ demands. Nevertheless his statement has been chosen because it illustrates an
idealistic view of sufferings to such an extreme that it may be misinterpreted as a call to passionately seek
sufferings.
63
Franz J. Leenhardt, The Epistle to the Romans, trans. Harold Knight (New York: The World
Publishing, 1961), 218.
64
Ibid.
 89

The problem with Leenhardt’s view is that it does not account for Paul’s

transition from the sufferings of Christ to a broader category that does not only apply to

Christians. In Romans 8:17 the apostle qualifies suffering in association with Christ

(συµπάσχοµεν), but immediately in verse 18 he moves from the individual to the cosmos

as he contrasts the future glory with τὰ παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ. Consequently, while

sufferings are used in the believer’s life for God’s ultimate glory (Rom 8:28–29), these

are not necessarily inseparable from the anticipation of the invisible.

Nonetheless, its is evident that when the idiom οὐκ ἄξια πρός is understood as a

simple comparison, suffering and glory are categorized under the same nature, which in

this context is positive, although the present sufferings may be positively insignificant in

comparison with the glory that is to come. This interpretation, however, differs from the

proposed view, namely, Romans 8:18 presents a contrast between suffering as negative,

and glory as positive.

Οὐκ ἄξια πρός as a Contraposition

The scope of the sufferings mentioned in verse 17 (συµπάσχοµεν) is not parallel

to τὰ παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ in verse 18. To see παθήµατα in a positive light implies a

forced meaning of εἴπερ συµπάσχοµεν ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶµεν on the following verse,

ignoring the conjunction γάρ in verse 18 which shows a logical transition from these two

verses. Verse 18 is subordinate to its previous context, but not parallel,65 and the reason

for the previous statement is given in this subordination. The apostle expands the theme

65
BDAG, “γάρ,” 189.1.e.
 90

of suffering by moving on from the believer’s identification with Christ’s sufferings to

suffering in general—it “encompasses the whole gamut of suffering.”66 This verse

contains the Christian worldview of the suffering of this life that views it in a “larger,

world-transcending context that, while not alleviating its present intensity, transcends it

with the confident expectation that suffering is not the final word.”67

Verses 19–22 further define the sufferings of verse 18 as radically different from

verse 17. For the believer to suffer together with Christ (Rom 8:17) cannot be qualified as

µαταιότης (Rom 8:21) or ἀπὸ τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς (Rom 8:21). According to

Romans 8:17, the believer’s identification with Christ’s suffering will result in his

glorification. But to see suffering in verse 18 as positive will imply speaking of the same

divinely infused suffering to bring God’s children into glory as something that brings

corruption and slavery. Both concepts are incompatible with the Spirit’s work in the life

of the believer (Rom 8:1–2, 9–10, 12, 14). Therefore, πάθηµα must be interpreted in light

of the following verses and not verse 17.68

In that case, the present suffering is not portrayed as something intrinsically

positive. It cannot be restricted to sufferings with Christ. In fact, τὰ παθήµατα is further

qualified by the phrase τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ, linking these sufferings with the “old age of

salvation history, conquered in Christ but remaining as the arena in which the Christian

66
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 511.
67
Ibid.
68
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 511–12; Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 319; Dunn,
Romans 1–8, 468; Mounce, Romans, 183.
 91

must live out his or her new life.”69 The scope of the suffering is cosmological, since all

of creation suffers under the bondage of sin. As Robert Tannehill declares: “this phrase

evidently includes all the sufferings involved in creation’s slavery to corruption (verses

20–21).”70

It is clear, on the one hand, that the word πάθηµα evokes the verb συµπάσχω from

the end of verse 17. On the other, it does so with an important difference. In verse 18

there is no mention of Christ. Also, in verse 17, believers (συµπάσχω)71 are the subject of

the verb, but in the next verse πάθηµα becomes the subject, speaking of suffering as

general and broad as possible. There is no attempt to identify the sufferer or to link him

with Christ himself, which is unique to Paul’s writings in the New Testament. Paul

normally specifies the subject of the suffering. He speaks of his personal suffering (2 Tim

1:12, Phi 3:10, Col 1:24, 2 Tim 3:11), the suffering of the apostles (2 Cor 1:5, 2 Cor 1:6,

1 Thess 2:2), and the suffering of the believers (1 Cor 12:26, Gal 3:4, Phil 1:29, 1 Thess

2:14, 2 Thess 1:5, 2 Cor 1:6–7). This makes Romans 8:18 exceptional and especially

significant in the development of the apostle’s argument. Therefore, the following verses

are delimited by Romans 8:18, and not verse 17. In Romans 8:19–30 the sufferings are

69
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 512.
70
Robert C. Tannehill, Dying and Rising With Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology, BZNW 32
(Berlin: Alfred Topelmann, 1967), 114.
71
First person plural including Paul and his readers, who are described as ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, κλητοῖς
ἁγίοις (Rom 1:7).
 92

the creation’s, the believer’s and the Spirit’s, so Paul needs to be as indefinite as possible

when introducing the theme of the present sufferings.72

If these sufferings are seen as positive, in light of a simple comparison with the

future glory, then they cannot refer to the Spirit’s groaning (Rom 8:26) or physical

creation itself (Rom 8:22), since a positive nature would imply that these are the

sufferings described in Romans 8:17, which are in participation with Christ—a reality

spoken by those who are fellow heirs with Christ (Rom 8:17) and whose status is

different than creation’s and the Spirit’s. It is evident that sufferings in general are

negative and in opposition to the future glory. The argument of the apostle is that the

future glory will replace the present sufferings, and mark the end of the present era.

Suffering will not extend through the eternal state, thus demonstrating that by definition

they are of opposite nature.

A brief overview of the semantic range of the word πάθηµα suffices to support the

previous statement. The word itself is vague in identifying the kind of suffering,

indicating that Paul has the whole range of negative experiences in mind that can

overtake anything. It is a universal term to speak of the most varied forms of affliction,73

72
Hendriksen and Kistemaker, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 264. Even Cranfield,
who sees the sufferings of verse 18 as a reference to verse 17, has to explain them in light of a much wider
range (Cranfield, Romans, 1:409).
73
This term is a synonym of θλῖψις in Romans 5:3 (“los sufrimientos de este tiempo presente son
las mismas affliciones de 5:3,” Wilckens, 2:188). Θλῖψις also embraces the most varied forms of distress or
oppression (Heinrich Schlier, “θλίβω, θλῖψις,” in TDNT, 3:141).
 93

which focuses on the experiencing subject.74 Its verbal cognate πάσχω occurs 18 times in

both simple and compound form (πάθηµα does not appear at all) in the LXX,75 and is

used two times in the sense of “to go through, experience”76 (Est 9:26, Dan 11:17), to

express the idea of “to suffer under.” Two other times it has the sense of “to have

sympathy for thee” (Amos 6:6, Zech 11:5).77 In thirteen other passages in the Apocrypha

it connotes the sufferings of the enemies of Israel or Israel itself (Wis 12:27, 18:1, 11, 19,

19:13, 2 Macc 6:30, 7:18, 32, 9:28, 4 Macc 4:25, 9:8, 10:10, 14:9).78 In the majority of

these sufferings of Israel’s enemies and the Israelites, the sufferings are shown as a way

of divine punishment.79 “There is a strong emphasis in that God must punish them for

their sins.”80 So the sufferings implied by πάσχω are seen as a type of retribution for a

transgression, that is, a judgment that someone rightly receives for his moral

74
See, BDAG, “πάθηµα,” 747. This usage is also consistent in Ancient Greek Literature (Wilhelm
Michaelis, “πάσχω, παθητός, προπάσχω, συµπάσχω, πάθος, πάθηµα, συµπαθής, συµπαθέω, κακοπαθέω,
συγκακοπαθέω, κακοπάθεια, µετριοπαθέω, ὁµοιοπαθής, πραϋπάθεια,” in TDNT, 5:904–907).
75
Est 9:26, 2 Macc 6:30, 7:18, 32, 9:28, 4 Macc 4:25, 9:8, 10:10, 14:9, Wis 12:27, 18:1, 11, 19,
19:13, Sir 38:16, Amos 6:6, Zech 11:5, Dan 11:17.
76
Michaelis, “πάσχω, παθητός, προπάσχω, συµπάσχω, πάθος, πάθηµα, συµπαθής, συµπαθέω,
κακοπαθέω, συγκακοπαθέω, κακοπάθεια, µετριοπαθέω, ὁµοιοπαθής, πραϋπάθεια,” 5:907.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid., 5:908.
79
The sufferings of Israel are referred to in Wis 12:19–27, when compared with Egypt’s purpose
for suffering. See also 2 Macc 7:18 (ταῦτα πάσχοµεν ἁµαρτόντες εἰς τὸν ἑαυτῶν θεόν), 7:32 (διὰ τὰς
ἑαυτῶν ἁµαρτίας πάσχοµεν), and 4 Mac 10:10 (Ἡµεῖς µέν, ὦ µιαρώτατε τύραννε, διὰ παιδείαν καὶ ἀρετὴν
θεοῦ ταῦτα πάσχοµεν).
80
Michaelis, “πάσχω, παθητός, προπάσχω, συµπάσχω, πάθος, πάθηµα, συµπαθής, συµπαθέω,
κακοπαθέω, συγκακοπαθέω, κακοπάθεια, µετριοπαθέω, ὁµοιοπαθής, πραϋπάθεια,” 5:908.
 94

misbehavior. It does not mean that either Christians or Christ are morally guilty of

behaving sinfully, but that those who inflicted the suffering regarded them as guilty.

This usage is consistent also outside of Pauline literature in the New Testament.

The overwhelming majority of occurrences of πάσχω and πάθηµα are in connection with

the sufferings of Christ (Matt 16:21, 17:12, Mark 8:31, 9:12, Luke 9:22, 17:25, 22:15,

24:26, 46, Acts 1:3, 3:18, 17:3, Heb 2:9–10 [2x, πάθηµα], 18, 5:8, 9:26, 13:12, 1 Pet 1:11

[πάθηµα], 2:21, 23, 3:18, 4:1, 13 [πάθηµα], 5:1 [πάθηµα]) or Christians (Acts 9:26, Heb

10:32 [πάθηµα], 1 Pet 2:19–20, 3:14–17, 4:15–19, 5: 9 [πάθηµα], 10, Rev 2:10).

These sufferings are presented as outside of what would be understood as sharing

with Christ’s sufferings, meaning that these are inflicted sufferings due to moral

retribution. Once again, neither Christ nor Christians are morally guilty, but they suffered

under the hands of people who thought that they were. All passages in reference to

Christ, except 1 Peter 3:18, show how the leaders of Israel erroneously judged Jesus’

actions as morally wrong, therefore he suffered the punishment in his flesh.81 In 1 Peter

3:18 the sufferings are the consequence of God’s people’s sins (a reference to his

vicarious sacrifice). So these words, πάθηµα and πάσχω, still carry the nuance of

retribution for something judged as wrong. The rest of the passages applied to believers

also portray a similar situation. 1 Peter 2:20 exhorts Christians to endure “retribution” for

what is good, instead of for what is wrong, which implies that those who inflict the

punishment think that they are exercising human justice, because they conclude that,

81
This is not to deny God’s ultimate responsibility for crushing his own son (Isa 53:10), but these
passages emphasize Israel’s guilt for rejecting and condemning the Messiah.
 95

acting like a Christian is morally wrong. Luke 13:2–4 and Acts 28:5 also express the

same idea, but it is in reference to divine retribution.

In Pauline literature both terms, πάσχω82 and πάθηµα,83 function in a similar

manner but the retribution idea is not as clear as in other passages outside of the Corpus

Paulinum. The noun πάθηµα is used six out of nine times 84 (cf., 2 Cor 1:5–7[3], Phil

3:10, Col 1:24 and 2 Tim 3:11) with reference to the infliction of sufferings for the sake

of being Christian, implying human justice in the sense that these sufferings are the result

of other humans administering affliction as a means of retribution.

Paul uses the verb πάσχω seven times, and six of the seven are consistent with the

negative idea of suffering as retribution (cf., 2 Cor 1:6; Gal 3:4; Phi 1:29; 1 Thess 2:14; 2

Thess 1:5; 2 Tim 1:12). All these instances speak of a kind of suffering that is either

inflicted by others or the result of the Christian’s faithfulness to his master. Undeniably in

God’s providence these afflictions are not only part of his plan, but also work for the

good of the believer (Rom 8:28). But, this should not diminish the negative idea of this

type of suffering. The apostle escapes the Jewish evaluation that every suffering is a

punishment for sins,85 which is why at times his usage of these terms is more general than

in the LXX and the rest of the New Testament. Nevertheless, the nuance is the same—

82
1 Cor 12:26, 2 Cor 1:6, Gal 3:4, Phi 1:29, 1 Thess 2:14, 2 Thess 1:5, 2 Tim 1:12.
83
Rom 7:5, 8:18, 2 Cor 1:5, 6, 7, Gal 5:24, Phi 3:10, Col 1:24, 2 Tim 3:11.
84
The other two times πάθηµα refers to the sinful passions of the flesh (see, Rom 7:5, and Gal
5:24), and the third instance is the verse under study—Romans 8:18.
85
Michaelis, “πάσχω, παθητός, προπάσχω, συµπάσχω, πάθος, πάθηµα, συµπαθής, συµπαθέω,
κακοπαθέω, συγκακοπαθέω, κακοπάθεια, µετριοπαθέω, ὁµοιοπαθής, πραϋπάθεια,” 5:912.
 96

one suffers for being loyal to his master and doing what is right, because either he is

judged by others who erroneously evaluate his behavior as morally wrong, or due to the

infliction of affliction owed to acting in a Christ-like manner in the midst of a Christ-

hating world.

It is evident then that the word πάθηµα in Romans 8:18 is to be understood in a

negative light, relating it contrastively to δόξα, which in itself is a positive term. This also

supports what has been demonstrated by the immediate context of Romans 8:18—the two

juxtaposed elements πάθηµα and δόξα are presented as a contraposition. Therefore, the

phrase τὰ παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ must not be limited, in light of verse 17 to “the

believer’s suffering together with Christ,” since it would deny the universal nuance of the

term intended by Paul.86 Instead, the word πάθηµα, carries a negative overtone implicit in

the idea of retribution due to someone’s judgment.

Once again, this does not mean that either Christ or Christians were punished for

their sins. Jesus did not know sin, hence he suffered only for the sins of others (2 Cor

5:21). God does not punish his children, for, as Paul declares, “there is no condemnation

for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8:1), though He disciplines them (Heb 12:4–11)

often by means of affliction. Nonetheless, whether God brings chastening or not, it would

86
The prepositional phrase εἰς ἡµᾶς that adverbially modifies the infinitive ἀποκαλυφθῆναι does
not extend to the first half of the verse. Paul develops his argument from universal extension to individual
implications. He moves from the cosmological scope of glory to how it is applied in the life of the child of
God. It is unnecessary to argue that the apostle is omitting εἰς ἡµᾶς from the first part of the verse for
stylistic reasons. In 2 Corinthians 4:17 Paul mentions both, suffering and glory, and he does not hesitate to
determine to whom each element refers (ό γὰρ παραυτίκα ἐλαφρὸν τῆς θλίψεως ἡµῶν καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν εἰς
ὑπερβολὴν αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης κατεργάζεται ἡµῖν). See also 2 Cor 1:5 (ὅτι καθὼς περισσεύει τὰ
παθήµατα τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἡµᾶς, οὕτως διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ περισσεύει καὶ ἡ παράκλησις ἡµῶν).
 97

be misleading to attribute every distress in the believer’s life to sin. Thus, the suffering

expressed by παθήµατα in the believer’s life is a negative action performed against him,

as the result of a previous judgment in nature. This inflicted retribution could be due

either to his faith and loyalty to his master, or because he is in a worldly system that hates

Christ (John 15:18). Nevertheless, this is clearly a broad concept that could encompass

any kind of affliction that affects the believer and unbeliever, and the creature and

creation. The apostle is portraying τὰ παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ in a contrastive light to

τὴν µέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι.

The nature of the πάθηµα and δόξα cannot be merely compared but must be

contrasted, as Paul’s usage of the word δόξα in Romans 8:18 shows. The meaning of the

word δόξα in this passage differs from classical Greek, which uses it in the sense of

opinion, reputation, or renown ascribed by public opinion.87 Here it follows the semantic

development of the noun in the LXX, where it usually renders the Hebrew noun ‫כָּבוֹד‬,88

with the sense of “innate weightiness, honor, beauty, fiery presence, splendor, or

power.”89 This term expresses the innate capacity to shine beyond others. The Hebrew

term is used two hundred times in the Old Testament to portray themes such as royal or

divine power (Isa 14:18, Hos 9:11, Ps 24:8, 29:3), fiery radiance of the tent of meeting

(Exod 40:34, Lev 9:23–24), Mount Sinai (Exod 24:16–17) and the temple (2 Chr 7:1, Isa

87
Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 510.d
88
H. Hegermann, “δόξα, ης, ἡ,” in EDNT, 1:345.
89
Gerhard Kittel, “δοκέω, δόξα, δοξάζω, συνδοξάζω, ἔνδοξος, ἐνδοξάζω, παράδοξος,” in TDNT,
2:247, and Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, “δόξα,-ης,” in A Greek-English Lexicon of the
Septuagint, rev. ed., (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart, 2003), 159–60.
 98

6:3–4, Ezek 10:4, 43:2).90 Glory, therefore, has both a concrete and an abstract meaning,

which may refer to the subjective appraisal (Isa 11:3, Eccl 10:1), as well as to the

objective reasons for such an appraisal (Gen 31:1, 1 Esd 6:9).91

The New Testament use of δόξα follows the LXX. It extends the meaning of the

LXX, however, in that the glory of God is clearly manifested in Christ and salvation

(Matt 17:2–5; 1 Cor 2:8; 2 Cor 4:4; Phi 3:21), but also in believers (John 17:22; 2 Cor

3:18; Eph 1:18; 3:16; Col 1:11). A concept hinted at in the Old Testament but fully

uncovered in the New.92

This aids in understanding the link between δόξαν and ἀποκαλυφθῆναι in Romans

8:18. Creation has fallen short of God’s glory, and specifically, his adopted children.

Therefore, God’s glory needs to be restored in them. This is derived from a major stream

of prophetic and postexilic expectations. For instance, Isaiah 24:23 speaks of the

following time: “For the LORD of hosts will reign on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and

his glory will be before his elders,” which is an event that will become universal, “then

the glory of the LORD will be revealed, and all flesh will see it together” (Isa 40:5).

Regarding these prophetic expectations, Jewett and Kotansky assert that: “The revelation

of divine radiance and glory, to be seen by all the nations, reiterates the theophanic vision

90
Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 510.
91
Lust, Eynikel, and Hauspie, “δόξα,-ης”, 159–60.
92
Human beings were created to reflect the glory of God (Ps 8:1, 5–6), but when they become
corrupt and fell, they lost the glory (Hos 4:7, 9:11, Jer 2:11, Ezek 24:25). But, when Yahweh redeems
them, their glory is restored (Isa 35:1–2).
 99

of Deut 33:2 and Hab 3:3–4, a vision that will one day ‘fill the whole world’ (Isa 6:3,

Num 14:21, Ps 72:19), thus demonstrating God’s triumph over evil.”93

In the New Testament believers will partake of this promised glory (1 Cor 2:7, 2

Cor 4:17, Phi 3:21, Heb 2:10, 1 Pet 5:1). This then becomes their hope of glory,94 and

explains why δόξαν is qualified as τὴν µέλλουσαν and modified by ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς

ἡµᾶς. In the light of this, it is insufficient simply to limit this glory to a future

“immortality” to be enjoyed by the saints.95 Instead, Paul is speaking of a much more

comprehensive idea, namely, “the altogether different, divine-heavenly quality of

existence, an inexpressible transcendent condition of life.”96

Connecting this with the Old Testament idea of the visible manifestation of God’s

glory, Paul is speaking of a cosmological reversal in which the glory of God will be

inherently manifested in every element of creation once that suffering in its broadest

category is obliterated. As a subset of this cosmological divine action, this glory will be

revealed for and in the believer,97 enabling him to fully partake of it. Hence, Paul could

speak as already in the past (Rom 8:30, ἐδόξασεν).

93
Jewett, and Kotansky, Romans, 511.
94
For more detail see Kittel, “δοκέω, δόξα, δοξάζω, συνδοξάζω, ἔνδοξος, ἐνδοξάζω, παράδοξος,”
2:245–47.
95
Byrne, Sons of God, 107.
96
Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30, 123.
97
The phrase “for and in the believer” is used to bring out the nuances of the prepositional phrase
εἰς ἡµᾶς, which is a difficult phrase to translate. The dynamic verb ἀποκαλύπτω does not normally use εἰς
with the meaning of ἐν (Nigel Turner, Syntax, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, ed., J. H. Moulton
[New York: T & T Clark International, 1963], 256; and Maximilian Zerwick, Biblical Greek Illustrated by
Examples, English edition adapted from the 4th Latin edition by Joseph Smith, [Rome: Scripta Pontificii
 100

Consequently, there is a clear and drastic contraposition between τὰ παθήµατα

τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ and τὴν µέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι εἰς ἡµᾶς in Romans 8:18.

There is no comparison between suffering and glory. These two elements are in

themselves mutually exclusive, and so, the apostle is firmly convinced that the present

sufferings are worthless when contrasted to the certainty of the coming glory.

Summary

The apostle in Romans 8:18 does not limit the scope of suffering to the believer’s

identification with Christ’s sufferings. He speaks of any suffering whatsoever occurring

during the present age prior to the restoration of all things. This is a necessary step in his

argument. Previously, in order to demonstrate God’s victory over sin and death on

account of which his people will be completely delivered, Paul created a parallel between

Jesus and the believer, specifically between his suffering and resurrection and theirs

(Rom 8:9–16). Only those who suffer with Him will also be glorified with him (Rom

8:17). But this could easily be misunderstood and present an incomplete picture of

salvation—God’s redemptive action would be effective only in some creatures identified

with Jesus. Thus, this raises one inevitable question—if deliverance is true solely for the

sufferings of believers, is there any assurance for the promise of the future glory?

Instituti Biblici, 1987], 106–110). This suggests that this prepositional phrase should not be translated “in
us,” (Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 535). But, to
translate it as “to us” and treat the prepositional phrase to convey the idea of a simple dative of advantage is
insufficient. That would indicate that believers are only the recipients of the revelation (ἀποκαλύπτω).
Therefore, it seems better to assert with Moo that, “Paul’s choice of εἰς (this is the only place in the New
Testament where εἰς follows ἀποκαλύπτω) suggests that the glory reaches out and includes us in its scope”
(Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 512).
 101

To stop at verse 17 would imply that God does not have the final word against the

effects of sin in the physical realm, and therefore, believers could question that he would

deliver their physical body from the present suffering. Paul is concerned for the believer’s

glory, which is going to be revealed by God himself in the eschatological future.98 This

becomes the rationale for Paul’s argument in verses 19–22. The presence of suffering

calls God into question, for either, he is not able to overcome it, or He has chosen not to

reveal the future glory. Furthermore, suffering still points to the present reality of sin in

this creation, causing doubt in the believer’s mind regarding Paul’s statement in Romans

8:1, οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριµα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, and by implication, raising an

objecting to God’s justification that Paul has been developing throughout the book. In

short, sufferings are a major obstacle in Paul’s argumentative development.

The apostle has no choice but to present the insignificance of suffering in contrast

to the future glory. The idiom οὐκ ἄξια πρός portrays the contrastive relationship between

these two elements, by underlining the diametrically opposed nature of παθήµατα and

δόξαν together with its unique modifiers, τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ and τὴν µέλλουσαν

respectively. The trivial and irrelevant nature of πάθηµα will never call into question the

immovable assurance of τὴν µέλλουσαν δόξαν. Thus, a simple comparison will simply

not do, because it does not solve the problem of the apostle’s argument—the reality of

suffering.

98
The voice of the infinitive ἀποκαλυφθῆναι is passive showing that others would accomplish the
action, and in the context it is God himself, a point that would be made clearer in the next chapter when
explaining who subjected creation to futility, since he who did it will also set it free (Rom 8:20–21).
 102

These two elements are opposite but interrelated—to limit one is to limit the

other. If suffering is restricted to the understanding of verse 17, then the assurance of the

glory is lost. Paul’s surmounting argument clashes with and overcomes any possible

doubt. The entire cosmos is the anchor for the believer’s glory, and this is the framework

within which to interpret Romans 8:19–22.

 CHAPTER FOUR:
THE ABSURDITY OF CREATION IN CONTRAST TO THE PRINCIPLE OF
LINEAR RETRIBUTION IN ROMANS 8:19–22

The previous chapter demonstrated that the main thrust of Romans 8:18 is to

affirm the definiteness and certainty of final redemption for the believer—a key tenet of

the gospel message.1 Present sufferings do not call into question the coming glory of

cosmological proportions. The apostle is convinced (λογίζοµαι) that there is nothing that

can thwart such glory to be revealed. Nevertheless, Paul anticipates objections to his

subpropositio in verse 18 and elaborates a subprobatio in verses 19–22 by using the case

of creation.

The force of this argument needs to be seen in light of Romans 8:1–4, which is

the overarching propositio of this section (Rom 8:1–11:36). Paul has just declared that

there is no condemnation for the believer, who has the life of the Spirit (Rom 8:9–10).

The Christian has the same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead, who indwells him, and

who will also raise his mortal body (Rom 8:11). The believer is, therefore, obliged to live

according to this new Spirit’s life (Rom 8:12). Only those who live by being led by the

Spirit are sons of God (Rom 8:14) and fellow heirs with Christ, and yet still they suffer

(Rom 8:17).

1
See, Luke 21:28, Rom 5:3–4, 9–10, 13:11, 1 Cor 3:15, 5:5; Eph 4:30, Heb 9:27–28, 11:39–40, 1
Pet 1:5, 8–9.

103
 104

In developing his argument the apostle sees how suffering could pose a challenge

to the fact that there is no condemnation. The classic belief of Deuteronomist retribution

sets the background for this type of counterargument,2 in light of which, “God’s principle

of justice [is] to reward the good and to punish the bad.”3 This strict theory of retribution

that presents some type of correspondence between suffering and sin4 could object to the

believer’s deliverance. Paul is anticipating the popular notion of his time. The logic is as

follows: (1) A Christian is not under condemnation, yet (2) he suffers, and since (3)

sufferings are God’s punishment, then (4) this Christian is being punished by God. (5)

Hence he still is under condemnation, and therefore, (6) he will not partake of the glory to

come.5

In short, as soon as Paul affirms the believer’s forgiveness he must face the

challenge of how a guiltless person can suffer distress. Here is where Romans 8:19–22

becomes essential to his argument. He is opposing the popular view that sufferings are

God’s punishment for the one suffering due to his guilty. So, then the apostle calls

creation as his first witness against this false link. Creation is undeniably suffering, and

yet she has been found not guilty (Rom 8:19–22). It is possible, therefore, to suffer and

2
The overview of the words πάσχω and πάθηµα in the previous chapter explains this retributive
background (see page 92).
3
C. G. Montefiore, “Retribution: Hebrew and Greek Ideas of Providence and Divine Retribution,”
eds., I Abrahams and C. G. Montefiore, JQR 5 (July 1893): 555.
4
Ibid., 553.
5
Ibid., 549–53.
 105

remain guiltless. For that reason, the believer’s forgiveness ought not to be brought into

question. Consequently, Paul is certain that a Christian, regardless of the intensity of his

sufferings, will surely be glorified.

Romans 8:19: The Proof for No Condemnation

Verse 19 begins with the conjunction γάρ, which may function as a marker of

cause or reason, clarification, or inference, resulting in several possible meanings: “for,”

“you see,” “certainly,” “by all means,” “so,” or “then.”6 It is obvious, then, that verses

19–22 support verse 18, but it is not always as clear as desired, which leads to a diverse

spectrum of answers.7 A common feature to most explanations is that verse 19 contains

illustrative material.8 There is, however, sufficient contextual evidence to reject this

interpretation and categorize γάρ as a marker of showing cause. For instance, the way

Paul introduces the subproposito (λογίζοµαι γάρ ὅτι... [Rom 8:18]) implies an argument

as the result of careful reasoning. It indicates that the apostle is anticipating objections to

6
BDAG, “γάρ,” 189–90.
7
Murray says that γάρ gives the reason for the patient endurance urged by implication in verse 18
(Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:301). Godet believes that the apostle is demonstrating the suffering
he just explained (Frederic Louis Godet, Commentary on Romans [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,
1977], 313). E. H. Gifford explains the particle γάρ as that which asserts the certainty of the future
revelation of glory (see, E. H. Gifford, The Epistle of St. Paul to The Romans with Notes and Introduction
[Minneapolis: The James Family, 1977], 154. See also, Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the
Epistle to the Romans, 319. Alford claims that γάρ introduces the evidence of the transcendent greatness of
the glory (Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers Containing the Authorized Version,
Marginal Corrections of Readings and Renderings, Marginal References and a Critical and Explanatory
Commentary [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1983], 2: 910). Moo on the other hand asserts that this
conjunction is supporting and developing the concept of “to be revealed,” in other words, it explains its
cause (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 513).
8
For some examples see Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 513, and Murray, The Epistle to the
Romans, 1:301.
 106

his line of argument,9 so he is creating an expectation in his audience for evidence to

support his claim. Therefore, the apostle is stating an argument which is not evidenced by

the believer’s everyday experience,10 but that requires careful argumentation. Paul, in

Romans 8:19–22, is not resorting to an obvious illustration to further explain his

statement in the previous verse.

Moreover, the repeated usage of γάρ in this section (Rom 8:19, 20, 22, 24, 26),

together with ἀλλά (Rom 8:20, 26), οὐ µόνον δέ, ἀλλά (Rom 8:23), εἰ δέ (Rom 8:25),

Ὡσαύτως δὲ καί (Rom 8:26), δέ (Rom 8:26, 27), and οἴδαµεν γάρ (Rom 8:22) indicates

that he is reasoning and supporting his argument. It is difficult to see all these markers as

mere explanative language further expanding Romans 8:18. It is evident then that the

character of Romans 8:19–22 consists of proof and reasoning.

However, the causal connection of the conjunction is not in reference to the

greatness of the glory, its certainty, futurity, or immanence. Paul’s emphasis goes back to

Romans 8:1. He has not finished developing his full propositio11—God will deliver his

people from sin and death (Rom 8:1–30). Essential to this is that there is no more

condemnation for the believer, and because of this, as previously stated, suffering

becomes a large objection to Romans 8:1–17. How can believers, who are fellow heirs

9
Romans 8:19–22 cannot be a mere illustration or clarification of verse 18 (Cranfield, Romans,
1:143).
10
For such, he usually refers to the following constructions: οἴδαµεν γάρ (Rom 7:14, 8:22, 2 Cor
5:21), οἴδαµεν δέ (Rom 2:2, 3:19, 8:28, 1 Tim 1:8, 2 Cor 5:1), οὐκ οἴδατε (Rom 6:16, 11:2, 1 Cor 3:16, 5:6,
6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9:13, 24), and ἢ ἀγνοεῖτε (Rom 6:3, 7:1).
11
See Table 1.2 in chapter 1, page 30.
 107

with Christ, children of the Almighty God and no longer condemned, suffer? In light of

Romans 1:18, 24–32; 2:2, 5–6, 9, 3:15–16; and 7:1–11, the only “logical” answer in

human terms is that they still are in a guilty state—an affirmation contradictory to

Romans 8:1. Since humanity is guilty before the Holy Judge, and death and suffering are

the results of their sin, the existence of suffering in the believer’s life must “prove” his

guilt.

Obviously such an idea is foreign to Paul’s argument, but in anticipation of it he

replies, “creation is guiltless and yet suffers, thus suffering is not necessarily an evidence

for condemnation.” Three clear evidences in Romans 8:19–22 support this interpretation:

(1) the word µαταιότητι in Romans 8:20, (2) the phrase οὐχ ἑκοῦσα also in Romans 8:20,

and (3) the metaphor συνωδίνει ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν in verse 22. All these elements point back to

Genesis 3:16–19, where the futility and the pains of childbirth are the consequence of

Adam and Eve’s sin. Their rebellious deed opened up Pandora’s box of sin and its

consequences. But, the second element demonstrates that when it comes to creation,

although experiencing the same sufferings as Adam and Eve, she is guiltless. It was not a

willing subjection—Creation was the victim. On this account, Paul is demonstrating that

there is truly no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. In a nutshell, the

conjunction γάρ introduces the audience to Paul’s first defense for Romans 8:18 as one

proof for Romans 8:1, namely, only those who are no longer under condemnation will

partake of the coming glory. But the fact that they suffer does not prove that they remain

in a guilty state, ergo, they do not need to doubt Romans 8:18.

 108

This is the reason which potentially undermines the cosmological eschatology and

which Paul portrays in these verses as posing a threat to his argument and by extension to

the statement οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριµα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (Rom 8:1).

The noun ἀποκαραδοκία begins an unusual double personification. Not only is

κτίσις portrayed as having mental and emotional activity, but ἡ ἀποκαραδοκία is also

directly involved since it functions as the subject of ἀπεκδέχεται. The rare word

ἀποκαραδοκία is not found prior to Paul, although, according to Moulton and Milligan,

the cognate verb ἀποκαραδοκιέω was occasionally used starting in the second century

B.C.12

Moulton and Milligan assert that the intensive form of ἀπεκδέχεται may be a

coining by Paul himself.13 This word means “expectant waiting” or “eager expectation.”14

Its etymology implies, “straining the neck,” “craning forward to see something,”15 which

suggests the picture of a crowd standing on tiptoe straining with outstretched heads to

catch a glimpse of the chariot of the conqueror who just arrived victoriously.16 So, the

universe is eagerly, and expectantly waiting. It is not a passive action of resignation. This

12
James Hope Moulton, and George Milligan, “ἀποκαραδοκία,” The Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1980), 63.
13
Ibid., “ἀπεκδέχοµαι”, 56.
14
BDAG, “ἀποκαραδοκία,” 112.
15
Cranfield, Romans, 1:410.
16
David Stacey, “Paul’s Certainties II. God’s Purpose in Creation – Romans viii. 22–23,” The
ExpTim 69, no. 6 (March 1958): 180.
 109

is a highly expressive word used to express how κτίσις “struggles and strains to

distinguish the first signs of Christ’s appearing.”17

On the other hand, the word may convey a less positive idea of anxious waiting,

but this does not mean that it is characterized by uneasiness or irritation.18 Instead, it

speaks of the apprehension under which the κτίσις currently exists, because of the

conflictive nature of its existence. Nevertheless, this possibility of anxiety does not

nullify the confidence in God who has promised that this age has an expiration date.19

This is underlined by the pairing of the noun ἀποκαραδοκία with the word ἐλπίδι (Rom

8:20), which also occurs in Philippians 1:20, and is the only other instance in the New

Testament of ἀποκαραδοκία. The context of Romans 8 reflects a confidence that God’s

promises will be fulfilled.

One of the major interpretative issues in this verse is the identification of τῆς

κτίσεως. The matter in question was treated at length in the second chapter. It was

concluded that in Romans 8:19–22 κτίσις refers to the non-human material creation with

a universal nuance. Its scope is limited to the physical world of nature, but this does not

17
Ibid.
18
Bertram, for example, believes that the compound form is to amplify the negative character of
the term: “Das Kompositum ist als Intensiv-Bildung mit Verstärkung des negativen Momentes zu
verstehen” (The compound is to be understood as intensive reinforcing the negative moment, [author’s
translation]) Georg Bertram. “Άποκαραδοκία,” ZNW 49, no. 1 (1958): 265.
19
Gerhard Delling, “ἀποκαραδοκία,” in TDNT, 1:393.
 110

mean planet earth only. The physical universe is also part of God’s creation and is

included in κτίσις. Hence, it describes the cosmic non-human material creation.20

It is important to maintain the non-human distinction. There are not only clear

contextual evidences for this,21 but also, as demonstrated in the previous chapter, Paul

calls κτίσις as a witness for his argument, which suffers and yet has not sinned.

Therefore, the apostle differentiates sharply between guiltless and guilty entities. The

purpose is not merely to contrast nature and man, but to present a witness of

cosmological proportions to support his claim that a believer is truly no longer under

condemnation (Rom 8:1). Hence, the relevancy of the extension of the scope of κτίσις.

Paul’s reference in Romans 8:19 is the widest possible, excluding those elements of

creation which could suffer in connection with retribution for their own sin.

To the same extent that man’s sin has affected a guiltless creation, man’s

restoration will include this cosmological κτίσις. This is the reason for the eager

expectation—creation understands that her sufferings are underserved, so one day she

will be delivered from µαταιότητι (Rom 8:20). The same day, when τήν ἀποκάλυψις τῶν

υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ occurs, “man and κτίσις will be, as always, bound together—the one

20
Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History,
rev., ed., trans., Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1964), 102–103, and Jewett, and
Kotansky, Romans, 511.
21
See the section Kτίσις in Romans 8 on page 46.
 111

leading the other. For as man led κτίσις into sin so, in Paul’s mind, man’s release will

involve the whole created universe.”22

Paul is conceiving κτίσις as being involved in all the fortunes of humanity, that is,

“a mysterious sympathy between the world and man… Creation is not inert, utterly

unspiritual, alien to our life and its hopes. It is the natural ally of our souls.”23

This idea of eagerness is reinforced by the verb ἀπεκδέχεται, which means, “to

await eagerly or expectantly for some future event,” “to look forward eagerly.”24 It is

always associated in the New Testament with the idea of eschatological hope, particularly

in regard to either the second coming of Christ (cf., Phil 3:20; 1 Cor 1:7; Heb 9:28), or

the eschatological perfection of the sons of God (Gal 5:5),25 the latter being also the

context of Romans 8:19. The apostle is further enhancing this idea of anticipation and

eagerness by using ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς κτίσεως as the grammatical subject for

ἀπεκδέχεται.26

This is somewhat surprising because one would expect a personal subject for this

verb, not an abstract concept like ἀποκαραδοκία, which intensifies the idea of longing.27

22
Stacey, “Paul’s Certainties II,” 180.
23
James Denney, “St. Paul’s Epistle to The Romans”, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, ed.,
W. Robertson Nicoll (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1970), 649.
24
Johannes P. Louw, and Eugene Albert Nida, “ἀπεκδέχοµαι,” Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, 2nd ed., (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996),1:295.
25
BDAG, “ἀπεκδέχοµαι,” 100.
26
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 513.
27
Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, 103, n 40, Dunn, Romans 1–8, 469.
 112

Κτίσις still remains the logical subject, as indicated by the subjective genitival

relationship of ἀποκαραδοκία to κτίσις ([the] Creation’s eager expectation),28 which is

probably why most recent translations in several languages make κτίσις the subject of the

verb.29

The phrase τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ in verse 19 shows what κτίσις is

eagerly longing for. The combination of ἀποκάλυψιν with τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ is

somewhat unusual. This word is primarily associated with the unveiling of God himself,

or the manifestation of his wrath (Rom 1:18) or judgment (Rom 2:5).30 It is a word often

used in the New Testament for events surrounding the second coming of Christ. This is

why it has been suggested that it cannot refer to believers, especially due both to the

change from τέκνα (Rom 8:17) to υἱῶν (Rom 8:19), and the implication that what is

being revealed has been hidden before, which does not seem as true of believers.31

Nevertheless, the change from τέκνα to υἱῶν is not significant since both words

can be used interchangeably of believers.32 This occurs in Romans 8:14–23. Verses 14–

17 clearly refer to believers and yet verse 14 uses υἱοὶ θεοῦ, while verses 16 and 17 have

28
So κτίσις functions semantically as the subject of the verbal idea implicit in ἀποκαραδοκία,
making it the logical subject of ἀπεκδέχοµαι. See Daniel B.Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.
An Exegetical Syntax on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), 113.
29
For English see ESV, GW, GNB, HCSB, ISV, The Message, NET, NCV, NIV, and NRSV.
Contrast KJV, RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NAS95. For Spanish see LBLA, NTV, NVI, RVA, and TLA, and
for Italian see NR, CEI, and LR.
30
Nelson, “The Groaning of Creation,” 193.
31
Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, 103–104.
32
See BDAG, “τέκνον,” 995, and “υἱός,” 1025.
 113

τέκνα θεοῦ/τέκνα. In addition, verse 21 has the phrase τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ, which in

verse 17 was used of believers, and yet verse 21 still speaks of the same τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ

θεοῦ as verse 19. Moreover, the word ἀποκάλυψις is also used in reference to Christ (2

Thess 1:7; 1 Cor 1:7; 1 Pet 1:7, 13). This implies that it is possible for a person to be

revealed, without suggesting that he did not previously exist. In this case, the word is

used in a similar way to φανερόω. In fact, Louw and Nida classify it in the same semantic

domain as ἀποκάλυψις and ἀποκαλύπτω,33 under the meaning of “well known, clearly

shown and revealed.”34 The phrase τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν in Romans 8:19 thus occurs in

reference to making τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ fully known, by revealing or disclosing

something unknown about them. This verse then speaks of an eschatological event

connected to the Messiah’s second coming, in which the glory of the sons of God will be

fully revealed and manifested. Therefore, there are not enough contextual arguments to

reject τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ as a reference to believers.35

The revelation of the sons of God (τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ) is a

multifaceted concept clearly incorporating the appearance of glorified believers with

Christ at his second coming.36 At this time the identity of τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ will be fully

33
Louw and Nida, “ἀποκάλυψις,” Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1:337–38.
34
Ibid., 1:337.
35
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 550–51, and Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:303.
36
Sanday and Headlam believe that Jewish literature sheds light on this issue, as it shows how the
coming of the Messiah not only brings benefits to all Creation, but also is accompanied by a group of his
people, cf., 4 Ezra 7:5, 13:12, 26. 29, 32, 39, 51, Apoc. Bar 39:7 4 Ezra 7:75 (Sanday, and Headlam,
Romans, 207).
 114

disclosed as sons of God, whose υἱοθεσίαν (Rom 8:23) is currently veiled except to faith

(Rom 8:14–17).37 Death has been hidden from the sons of God. They are unknown to the

world, even as the Messiah was. The believers’ glory will appear in their resurrection, as

it happened with Jesus himself (Matt 13:43; 1 Cor 15:42–43). The bodies of the saints

suffer death because of sin, so they must be renewed before dwelling eternally with God,

and in that their true status as τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ will be fully displayed to the cosmos.38

Sufferings and death make believers not appear like sons of God, since their

adoption will not be completed until their resurrection. Only at that point will believers

be fully manifested as sons of God with all their privileges. Meanwhile, this hidden status

may be misunderstood as an objection to οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριµα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

(Rom 8:1). The apostle, however, uses the ἡ ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς κτίσεως to demonstrate

the opposite. As Peter Stuhlmacher summarizes, “the appearance of the Son of Man and

his community in eschatological glory carries the greatest significance for the creation as

a whole.”39 Creation knows that her future is full of hope, and by implication, likewise

the believer’s, and because neither is under condemnation, God will, therefore, fully

deliver them both from the effects of sin.

37
Cranfield, Romans, 1:412.
38
Robert Govett, Govett on Romans (Miami Springs, FL.: Conley & Schoettle Publishing, 1981),
329.
39
Peter Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, trans., Scott J. Hafemann
(Louisville, KY.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), 134.
 115

Romans 8:20: τῇ µαταιότητι ἡ κτίσις

The conjunction γάρ introduces Romans 8:20–21 as the explanation for why

κτίσις is eagerly awaiting for the revelation of the sons of God, that is, because it was

subjected to µαταιότητι (Rom 8:20), and enslaved to φθορᾶς (Rom 8:21).

The word µαταιότητι is first in the clause, stressing the present futility of

creation.40 BDAG explains that µαταιότης means “state of being without use or value,

emptiness, futility, purposelessness, transitoriness [emphasis original],”41 and in Romans

8:20 “frustration.”42 Cranfield asserts that it is used to express creation’s inability to

attain God’s purpose for its existence: “The word’s basic sense [denotes] the

ineffectiveness of that which does not attain its goal, and to understand Paul’s meaning to

be that the sub-human creation has been subjected to the frustration of not being able

properly to fulfill the purpose of its existence.”43

This understanding of µαταιότητι, however, presents the following limitations: (1)

the aorist tense of the verb ὑπετάγη highlights the action in itself and not the result.44 To

40
See Cranfield, Romans, 1:413.
41
BDAG, “µαταιότης,” 233.
42
Ibid.
43
The same interpretation is also supported by several authors: Cranfield, Romans,1:413, Morris,
The Epistle to the Romans, 321, Mounce, Romans, 184–8, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 515,
Hendriksen and Kistemaker, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 268, Robert Haldane,
Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1988), 379, and Fitzmyer, Romans, 507.
44
Winer asserts that “there is no passage in which it can be certainly proved that the aorist stands
for the perfect.” (Georg Benedikt Winer, A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded
as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1882], 344).
 116

explain µαταιότης as the present futile state of creation draws more attention to the result

of the action, displaying µαταιότης as a lasting result of ὑποτάσσω. For this the perfect

tense would be a more natural construction,45 as it occurs in 1 Corinthians 15:27 (ὅταν δὲ

εἴπῃ ὅτι πάντα ὑποτέτακται). (2) The obscurity of the phrase, especially in comparison to

Romans 1:21, may indicate a different meaning than the one explained above. In this

verse Paul, speaking of the pagans says, ἀλλʼ ἐµαταιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισµοῖς αὐτῶν.

Here the usage of µαταιόω coincides with Cranfield’s explanation of µαταιότης in

Romans 8:20. In other words, pagans render their mind worthless46 by not fulfilling its

original purpose—to know God (Rom 1:21).

Since, Paul was familiar with the verb µαταιόω, the question arises, if Paul knew

this term and he wanted to express this very same idea in Romans 8:20, why does he not

use the verb µαταιόω since it says exactly what he wants to convey? Instead he resorts to

a very rare construction that could easily be misunderstood (τῇ µαταιότητι ἡ κτίσις

ὑπετάγη). This noun appears only two other times in the New Testament (Eph 4:17, 2 Pet

2:18), and is almost unknown in Greek literature outside of Scripture before Paul’s

time.47

45
Robertson, 895, F. Blass, and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature, trans., Robert W. Funk (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1961), 41.
46
BDAG, “µαταιόω,” 621.
47
It is found in in Flavius Arrianus Hist. Indica, 36.1 (A.D. I–II).
 117

Therefore, the word’s rarity underlines the uniqueness of its meaning. The

infrequency of the noun µαταιότης makes one suspicious of Cranfield’s “simplest and

most straightforward interpretation.”48

The word µαταιότης is used in the LXX a total of fifty-four times. Thirty-nine of

those times occur in the book of Ecclesiastes, fourteen times in Psalms, and one in

Proverbs.49 Therefore, if this term is so rare in Greek literature, the most probable

meaning understood by the audience, as readers of the Greek Old Testament, would have

been the meaning of this word in the LXX, and especially the book of Ecclesiastes.50

The Hebrew word that translates µαταιότης is the noun ‫ ֶהבֶל‬. This term opens and

closes Ecclesiastes, appearing five times in the second verse, and three in the last

paragraph (Eccl 12:8). The word has a basic meaning of breath or vapor, from which is

derived the idea of fleeting, vain, ineffectual, and deceitful. In general, the meaning is

negative—futility, worthlessness.51 In the book of Ecclesiastes the term is applied to toil

and its products (Eccl 2:11; 6:2), joy (Eccl 2:1; 6:9), wisdom (Eccl 2:15), speech (Eccl

6:11), human existence (Eccl 2:12), death (Eccl 11:8), and injustice in retribution (Eccl

48
Cranfield, Romans, 1:413.
49
Ps 4:3, 25:4, 30:7, 37:13, 38:6, 39:5, 51:9, 61:10, 77:33, 118:37, 138:20, 143:4, 8, 11, Prov 22:8,
Eccl 1:2 [5x], 4, 2:1, 11, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 3:19, 4:4, 7, 8, 16, 5:6, 9, 6:2, 4, 9, 11, 12, 7:6, 15, 8:10, 14
[2x], 9:2, 9 [2x], 11:8, 10, 12:8 [3x].
50
Otto Bauernfeind, “µάταιος, µαταιότης, µαταιόω, µάτην, µαταιολογία, µαταιολόγος,” in TDNT,
4:523.
51
Roland Murphy, Ecclesiastes, WBC, eds., Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W.
Barker (Dallas: Word Books, 1998), lviii–lix.
 118

8:14).52 Since this word implies that “ephemerality, inefficacy, and deceitfulness are

indeed absurd if permanence, efficaciousness, and reliability are expected of the

phenomena that have these failings,”53 probably the best translation is “absurd,” although

not in a sense of irrationality, but incomprehensibility. The former would deny the

meaning of what it qualifies, so in Romans 8:20 it would imply that creation has been

subjected to meaninglessness, or that creation lacks any meaning. Such a usage seems

strange not only in Paul’s argumentation, but also in the book of Ecclesiastes. Solomon

does not categorize ‫ ֶהבֶל‬in concepts of rationality or irrationality. Instead he uses simple

verbs (to know) that indicate that ‫ ֶהבֶל‬is being used to convey the idea of comprehension,

that is, to understand or misunderstand the meaning of a given entity or event.54

Therefore ‫ ֶהבֶל‬implies the absurdity inherent in not comprehending the meaning behind a

series of situations that apparently lack any sense, in contradiction to the expected logic

that should drive such an event, specifically regarding divine justice.

In Ecclesiastes 8:11–13, the word ‫ ֶהבֶל‬is used to describe the absurdity of a sinner

having a long life. In the following verse (Eccl 8:14), ‫ ֶהבֶל‬defines the fact that some

people receive a fate contrary to what they deserve. “Not only the wicked and

righteousness both die (in itself an absurdity) but the righteous sometimes die younger

than the wicked. This radical disjunction between moral deserts and fate is the epitome of

52
Ibid., lix.
53
Michael V. Fox, “The meaning of Hebel for Qohelet,” JBL 105, no. 3 (September 1986): 425.
54
Murphy, Ecclesiastes, lix.
 119

absurdity.”55 Therefore, ‫ ֶהבֶל‬also speaks of the disassociation between righteousness and

its expected results. So, in one sense ‫ ֶהבֶל‬appears in the book of Ecclesiastes to indicate

those instances where the retribution principle collapses. This is extremely important for

Romans 8:20 especially in light of the counterargument that Paul is replying to, as

previously explained in connection with τὰ παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ.

The phrase τῇ µαταιότητι ἡ κτίσις ὑπετάγη manifests that µαταιότητι is the

element to which creation was subjected, and in light of the usage of the word µαταιότης

in Ecclesiastes, Paul is asserting in Romans 8:20 that κτίσις was made subject to

absurdity. In other words, it was a “victim” of an incomprehensible situation—the non-

sense of the apparent inconsistency within the principle of retribution.56 Death is the same

end for both justice and wickedness. Only the ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ θεοῦ will put an

end to this absurd characteristic of the present state of creation. The full manifestation of

the adoption of the sons of God will end any illogical objection against the guiltless state

of those who have been justified by God himself (Rom 8:1, 33–34). Therefore, the

apostle exclaims, “who will separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom 8:35). Death will

not have the last word.

55
Michael V. Fox, Qohelet and his Contradictions, Bible and Literature Series 18, eds., David M.
Gunn, Danna Nolan Fewell, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and James G. Williams (Sheffield: Almond Press,
1989), 43–44.
56
This idea is reinforced by the phrase οὐχ ἑκοῦσα, manifesting the innocence of κτίσις. This
subjection was not due to the creation’s will, any sin that it may have committed, or its original
constitution. Instead, it is a victim of human sin; creation did not incur guilt for itself. This subjection is
abnormal, and was superimposed by the will of “Him who subjected it” (Dunn, Romans 1-8, 470, BDAG,
“ἑκών,” 313, John Brown, Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans [London:
William Oliphant and Sons, 1857], 232, Käsemann, Romans, 235).
 120

The end established for the wicked is not the same for the one who is no longer

under condemnation, regardless of the fact that during this present age they both die.

Therefore, in the apostle’s argument, the fact that the creation has been subjected to τῇ

µαταιότητι does not imply that this subjection was because it was guilty. Hence, the

believer may also die and yet remain guiltless, because death is part of the absurdity to

which in like manner the non-human creation was subjected. It is an absurdity embedded

within τὰ παθήµατα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ, supporting once again the necessity for a

cosmological understanding of the term κτίσις, since death is consistently present

throughout the universe.

The previous interpretation is supported by the verbs ὑπετάγη and τὸν

ὑποτάξαντα, both referring to the same person. As Cranfield asserts, “it would be

intolerably harsh to take the participle to refer to any one other than the agent implied by

the passive ὑπετάγη earlier in the verse.”57 This is evident since both occurrences are

close in proximity, as part of the same context, and the phrase οὐχ ἑκοῦσα ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν

ὑποτάξαντα is a parenthetical statement further explaining τῇ γάρ µαταιότητι ἡ κτίσις

ὑπετάγη. But there are four views which differ over who subjected creation to absurdity:

(1) one view states that God subjected creation as a judgment on Adam’s sin.58 (2) Others

believe that Adam did the subjection—when he fell everything under his dominion was

57
Cranfield, Romans, 1:414, Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung, 41.
58
See Byrne, Sons of God, 106, Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 343, Cranfield, Romans,
1:414, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 516, Brown, Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Romans, 232, Mounce, Romans, 185, Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 321, Käsemann,
Romans, 235, and Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 514.
 121

subjected to his failure.59 (3) Another possibility attributes the subjection to Satan,60 and

finally (4) Jesus, by his death on the cross, is said to have subjected the creation to vanity,

as Barth asserts.61

Barth’s approach, the fourth view, is unusual and inconsistent with Romans 8:20.

This verse does not speak of the event that delivered creation from futility and corruption.

Instead it is looking back to the very same moment when the cross became a necessity.

Paul mentions the miserable consequences of the fall. Hence, to explain this subjection as

Christ’s victory on the cross over the power of darkness is to contradict Paul’s argument.

Furthermore, in light of the previous interpretation of τῇ µαταιότητι, Barth’s suggestion

implies that the cross is the cause of the absurdity of physical death for both the righteous

and impious.

It is unlikely that Paul has Satan in mind, because he could not subject creation

ἐφʼ ἐλπίδι (Rom 8:20).62 Moreover Scripture never assigns “to Satan the power to bring

about such a far-reaching change.”63

59
G. W. H. Lampe, “The New Testament Doctrine of Ktisis,” SJT 17, no. 4 (December 1964):
458, Gerhard Delling, “τάσσω, τάγµα, ἀνατάσσω, ἀποτάσσω, διατάσσω, διαταγή, ἐπιταγή, προστάσσω,
ὑποτάσσω, ὑποταγή, ἀνυπότακτος, ἄτακτος (ἀτάκτως), ἀτακτέω,” in TDNT, 8:41, Paul Evdokimov,
“Nature,” SJT 18, no. 1 (March 1965): 1, Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer, 221, Balz,
Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung, 41–45, Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, 132.
60
Godet, Commentary on Romans, 315, although hesitantly.
61
Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans, 99–100.
62
Cranfield, Romans, 1:414.
63
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 321.
 122

The identification of Adam appears also to overestimate his role.64 However, it is

argued that the διά and the accusative refer to him, because such a construction seems to

indicate the reason for the subjection of creation to futility.65 It also seems to be a

senseless repetition to say διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα in reference to God, when he is the

implied agent behind the verb ὑπετάγη. If Paul had wanted to emphasize the role of God

as agent in the previous ὑπετάγη, it is argued he could have done it by using θεόν instead

of the participle. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that these two verbs refer to two

different subjects. Moreover, Romans 5:12–19 portray Adam’s sin as the cause of death

and sin. His impact is parallel to Romans 8:20–22 where creation is under the effects of

such absurdity, all of which supports the position that it is subjected by Adam.66

There are several difficulties with these arguments. First, the construction διά

with the accusative does not necessarily imply cause. According to Käsemann, this

phrase expresses the author of the subjection of creation,67 an idea similar to what BDAG

calls an “efficient cause.”68 This means that διά with the accusative is simply expressing

agency. The nuance implied by the phrase διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα, in contrast with ἑκοῦσα,

64
Ibid.
65
A. J. Hess, “διά,” in EDNT, 297, Godet, Commentary on Romans, 314, and Balz, Heilsvertrauen
und Welterfahrung, 41.
66
Although Hahne sees God as the one who does the subjecting, he makes this connection with
Romans 5 in order to explain how Paul has Adam’s fall in mind, which ultimately could lead to seeing
Adam as the one who subjects creation to futility (Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation,
188).
67
Käsemann, Romans, 235.
68
BDAG, “διά,” 226.
 123

is that God is both the agent and the effective cause. This means, that God subjected

creation (ὑπετάγη), and that he did it out of his own will (διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα). He is the

author of the subjection, and it is thus according to his purposes. It is a judicial act

originating from and applied by God himself in response to Adam’s sin. Consequently,

the close proximity of these two instances of the same verb implying some type of

agency does not necessarily demand a different agent per occurrence. Finally, regarding

Romans 5:12–19, Paul is dealing more specifically with death and sin in humanity and

not with creation as such. Therefore, one must be careful when applying the cause of

Romans 5 to this passage in chapter 8. In addition, Adam’s agency in Romans 5 is used

as the background for the presentation of Christ’s salvific activity. Since Adam’s role is

not the primary focus of Romans 5 (but the surpassingly effective work of Christ), there

is no reason to highlight it in Romans 8:20.

It is evident, then, that ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν ὑποτάξαντα, ἐφʼ ἐλπίδι speaks of God

subjecting creation as a judgment on Adam’s sin. Only God could subject creation to

absurdity with a hope for its future redemption (ἐφʼ ἐλπίδι). Also the verb ὑποτάσσω

implies an authority that is not suitable for Satan or Adam.69 In fact, when Paul uses this

verb in the active voice, as the participle ὑποτάξαντα, it always refers to God.70

Moreover, the meaning that has been proposed for µαταιότης implies that God is the

agent. This absurdity is in reference to divine retribution, and the incomprehensibility

69
Cranfield, Romans, 1:413.
70
1 Cor 15:27 [2], 28, Eph 1:22, Phil 3:21. For the rest of the New Testament see Heb 2:5, 8 [2]
where God is also the agent.
 124

inherent in the death of the righteous and unrighteous. The non-sense of this lies in the

fact that it is expected for God to punish the wicked and save the righteous. But in the

sufferings of the present age, the full revelation of the sons of God is still a future hope,

which means that they will physically die as the wicked will.

The apostle is explaining why the creation is suffering as if it were under

condemnation, and yet when called to the stand is found non-guilty. This becomes one of

the anchors for the believer’s hope when doubting Romans 8:1—it is possible to suffer

without assuming that it is God’s condemnation. This stresses the close relationship

between humanity and creation in its present suffering and future redemption. In the

words of Ernst Käsemann, “life always has a cosmic dimension, since it is always

integrated in creation.”71

Creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God because at that time it

will be delivered from its present absurdity, and will share the glory of the glorified

believers. There is, therefore, a strong parallel between the hope of both humanity and

cosmological creation. The future hope of creation is contingent upon the future hope of

humanity. Hence, the hope of the enslaved creation for redemption is the cosmic basis for

the hope of the enslaved person crying for deliverance.72 God subjected the non-human

cosmic creation to absurdity in anticipation of its final transformation in glory. The

apostle anticipates Romans 11:32—Israel’s present rejection does not mean God’s final

71
Käsemann, Romans, 233.
72
Ibid, 236.
 125

abandonment. In fact, it is a means to divine mercy, and this principle is also present in

Romans 8:20—the absurdity to which the entire creation was subjected results in mercy

to believers.

Romans 8:21: τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς

This verse offers the second explanation as to why κτίσις is eagerly awaiting for

the revelation of the sons of God. It is because it was enslaved to φθορᾶς (Rom 8:21).73

Paul is again uniting creation and humanity in their glorious and cosmic destiny,74 as

Käsemann asserts:

Hope… reaches beyond believers to creation as a whole. For since Adam’s fall
the world lacks nothing more than eschatological freedom, which alone means
salvation for it too. Since Paul understands eschatological freedom as salvation in
a cosmic dimension, he here singularly describes the event of the parousia from
the standpoint of anthropology. He could not say that the world was on the way to
Christ even though he regarded Christ as the designated cosmocreator and
oriented world history to him. He was concerned to show, however, that within

73
The reading followed is NA27 and UBS4 as ὅτι in place of διότι. Both readings have solid
external support in both early and genealogically diverse MSS. Ὅτι is found in the early papyrus p46, in the
Alexandrian family (A, B, C, 33, 81, 1739), the uncial Ψ, and in the majority text. Διότι appears in ‫א‬
(Alexandrian family) and D, F, G (western family) (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 506, n 1). According
to Metzger, both can be explained on the basis of orthographic factors also: διότι could have arisen as a
result of dittography after ἐλπίδι, ὅτι as a result of haplography in the same way (see, Bruce Manning
Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible
Societies’ Greek New Testament Fourth Revised Edition, 2nd ed. [London: United Bible Societies, 1994],
456). Since the external support for ὅτι is stronger and it is also the more natural reading, it is the preferable
reading.
Scholars are divided as to how to translate ὅτι—”that” (Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 208, Moo,
The Epistle to the Romans, 516–17, Fitzmyer, Romans, 509) or “because” (Dunn, Romans 1-8, 471, Barrett,
A Commentary on The Epistle to The Romans, 166, Cranfield, Romans, 1:414–15). If it is translated as
“that,” ὅτι explains the content of the hope of creation. On the other hand, “because” explains the reason
why the creation is eagerly awaiting in hope. According to Hahne, “both ideas are true and it is difficult to
choose based on grammar or context. The main idea is not affected by either interpretation” (Hahne, The
Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 194).
74
Russell, The “New Heavens and New Earth,” 170.
 126

the world… eschatological freedom as salvation for all creation appears in

outline. Hence Christianity… seemed to him to be the great promise for all
creation even beyond the human sphere.75

This cosmological subject of God’s future liberation is emphasized by καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ

κτίσις.76 This implies a contrast with τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ at the end of the verse,

conveying a sense of wonder—”even the creation itself.”77 This contrast should not be

understood as materialism versus the non-materialism of the children of God. Paul is not

expressing such a dualism. Instead, the dualism is between τῆς δουλείας and τὴν

ἐλευθερίαν. Both creation and the identified sons of God are affected by both elements of

the contrast. The focus, then, is to proclaim the deliverance that both κτίσις and τῶν

τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ have in common. The apostle creates this distinction in order to

underline the cosmic non-human scope of redemption, a divine intervention not limited to

God’s children alone. On the other hand, as the apostle develops the argumentation of his

subpropositio, it is important for him to separate humans from creation, as he shows that

κτίσις is not under condemnation, regardless of the fact that it is under τῆς δουλείας τῆς

φθορᾶς.

This genitive has been explained as (1) subjective, that is, slavery that comes from

φθορᾶς,78 or (2) objective—it indicates that to which creation is enslaved.79 It could also

75
Käsemann, Romans, 234.
76
It is important to see the combination of the article together with the emphatic pronoun and the
conjunction καί, which reinforces the stress.
77
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 516, n 46.
78
Cranfield, Romans, 1:415.
 127

be (3) a qualitative genitive, in other words, slavery that is characterized by φθορᾶς,80 or

(4) an epexegetic genitive: the slavery, namely, φθορᾶς.81 At this juncture, the meaning

of the word φθορᾶς offers the best aid to determine the genitival relationship. Φθορᾶς

conveys the idea of decay, underlining its physicality.82 Hence, if taken subjectively, and

since verses 20 and 21 are understood as parallel in the subprobatio,83 it implies that the

deliverance will be from the decay but not the absurdity. The epexegetic genitive seems

too reductive for Paul’s understanding of φθορά, since he also speaks of other kinds of

corruptions (cf., Rom 8:15), and the qualitative genitive would portray the gnostic view

that matter is evil. Therefore, the preferred option is an objective genitive, indicating that

creation is enslaved to φθορᾶς.

The difficulty in this verse relates more specifically, however, to the precise

meaning of the word φθορά. It is necessary to determine whether or not it is equivalent to

µαταιότης in the previous verse. The word φθορά appears nine times in the New

Testament,84 five of which are in Pauline literature.85 It could be used to convey either the

79
Godet, Commentary on Romans, 315, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 517, Byrne, Sons of
God, 107.
80
Turner, Syntax, 213.
81
Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 537.
82
BDAG, “φθορά,” 1054–55.
83
The fact that they are parallel does not mean that they are equivalent. Both words µαταιότης and
φθορά convey different meanings, within the same parallelism.
84
Rom 8:21, 1 Cor 15:42, 50, Gal 6:8, Col 2:22, 2 Pet 1:4, 2:12 [2x], 19.
85
Rom 8:21, 1 Cor 15:42, 50, Gal 6:8 and Col 2:22.
 128

sense of death, decay and destruction (Gal 6:8; 2 Pet 2:12), or moral corruption and evil

(1 Pet 1:4; 2:19).86 Although, it can also have the meaning of “that which is perishable”

or “corruptible,” qualifying the sense of being subject to death (1 Cor 15:42, 50).87 The

moral sense of the word here is improbable because the context demands the idea of

physical corruption: decay and mortality,88 and perhaps by implication the transient

nature of life.89 Moreover, in Paul’s writings, the noun is never used in the sense of moral

corruption.90

In 1 Corinthians 15:42–54, speaking of the bodily resurrection, the word is

contrasted directly with ἀφθαρσία (1 Cor 15:42, 50), and indirectly with δόξα, δύναµις (1

Cor 15:43) and σῶµα πνευµατικόν (1 Cor 15:44). Romans 8:21 presents a similar

contrast between δόξα and φθορά. This corroborates the idea that here in Romans 8,

φθορά should be interpreted as physical corruption, since Paul is conveying transitoriness

found in the present creation versus the future existence free from decay and

corruption—immunity to death.

86
BDAG, “φθορά,” 1054–55.
87
Günther Harder, “φθείρω, φθορά, φθαρτός, ἄφθαρτος, ἀφθαρσία, ἀφθορία, διαφθείρω,
διαφθορά, καταφθείρω,” in TDNT, 9:102–104.
88
Dunn, Romans 1-8, 471–71, Cranfield, Romans, 1:414, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 517,
and Fitzmyer, Romans, 509.
89
Cranfield, Romans, 1:414.
90
Hahne, The Corruption and Redemption of Creation, 195.
 129

This shows that Paul has in mind the punishment of death described in Genesis

3:17–19.91 While Paul has just alluded to Genesis 3 in the previous verse, however, the

climax of such an allusion is found here and in Romans 8:22. The Genesis account is

crafted92 in a precise way to highlight God’s grace and redemption during the darkest

hour of human history. Adam and his wife are never cursed, only the Serpent and the

ground, though it does not diminish Adam’s responsibility for the entrance of sin. Both,

Adam and the woman will directly experience the effects of sin in their respective roles.

Nevertheless, the centrality of God’s curse for the Serpent draws humanity away from the

curse and brings God’s grace into the picture at its utmost.93 This is the τῇ µαταιότητι of

Romans 8:20—the expected retribution would have implied humanity’s immediate death,

and creation’s liberation from the decay that Adam’s sin brought into its realm. But

rather, the opposite is true—a guiltless creation is enslaved under the bondage of φθορά

(corruption). No wonder that ἡ ἀποκαραδοκία τῆς κτίσεως τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ

91
Govett, Govett on Romans, 340.
92
Genesis 3:17–19 is chiastically arranged:

A. YHWH and Adam’s dialogue (3:9–12)

B. YHWH and Adam’s wife’s dialogue (3:13)
C. YHWH and the Serpent (3:14–15)
B’. YWHW’s monologue directed to Adam’s wife (3:16)
A’. YHWH’s monologue directed to Adam (3:17–19)

Roberto Ouro. “The Garden of Eden Account: The Chiastic Structure of Genesis 2–3,” AUSS 40,
no. 2 (2002): 236.
93
James McKeown, Genesis, The Two Horizons OT Commentary, eds., J. Gordon McConville
and Craig Bartholomew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2008), 36–38, and W. Graham Scroggie,
The Unfolding Drama of Redemption. The Bible as a Whole, Three Volumes Complete and Unabridged in
One (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1970), 61–64.
 130

θεοῦ ἀπεκδέχεται (the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of

the sons of God, Rom 8:19).

Adam’s failure was cataclysmic to the point that decay appears to be unstoppable.

The curse pronounced on the ground consisted in the earth no longer yielding the fruits

needed for man’s spontaneous sustenance. Now the man “was obliged to force out the

necessaries of life by labor and strenuous exertion.”94 In the Old Testament, whenever

God blessed the land, it became fertile and well-watered (Deut 33:13–16, cf. Gen 2:8–

14), so, in one sense, to curse the ground is to cause it to lack such benefits, as implied in

Genesis 3:18.95

As previously demonstrated, however, this does not mean that the words

µαταιότης and φθορά in Romans 8:20–21 refer to this unique event in Genesis 3. Genesis

3:18–19 shows that what Paul has in mind is the death that Adam’s sin brought. These

verses reinforce the link between the curse and the ground. There was a time in human

history, before the curse, that the ground was not hostile toward men. Hence, the entrance

of sin radically and intrinsically affected creation. After the fall, the cultivation of the

ground continuously reminded Adam of his sin in that he obtained his bread with sorrow.

94
C. F. Keil, and F. Delitzsch, “Genesis,” in The Pentateuch, translated by James Martin, Biblical
Commentary on the Old Testament (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2011), 65.
95
Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15, WBC, eds., Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and
Glenn W. Barker (Waco: Word Books Publisher, 1987), 82, Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book
of Genesis. Part I, from Adam to Noah, Genesis I–IV 8, trans., by Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: The
Magness Press, 1998), 168.
 131

On the other hand, Genesis 3:19 emphasizes the lifelong continuance of the toil imposed

on man and his returning to the ground, that is, creation’s corruptibility.

Much of the phraseology of man’s creation is picked up in this verse (Gen 3:19).

“Man was shaped from the dust of the land (Gen 2:7); but now he must return to dust.

Woman was taken out of man (Gen 2:23) as man was taken from the ground (Gen 3:19).

Man’s lifelong struggle for survival will eventually end in death.”96 The man and his wife

sought to elevate themselves, but instead they brought chaos and death.97 “All they

achieved was to condemn themselves to a ceaseless brutal struggle for survival, with the

consciousness of the fragility of life ever hanging over them.”98 Genesis 3:17–19 portray

the man’s dust-nature. The fate of the human body is foretold: being of dust, it must

return to dust. The man, while on this earth, will never be free from toil. Repentance will

not lift up such a heavy burden—he will still die.

This is the background to φθορά in Romans 8:21. While the Genesis 3 account

highlights Adam’s responsibility and the effects of his sin for mankind, the apostle

underlines the cosmological effects of Adam’s sin. Decay has entered into this realm, not

only affecting humanity, but also creation itself, which in itself is an oxymoron—the

absurdity of the cosmos suffering. Genesis 3 undeniably states that man sinned, thus, he

96
Wenham, Genesis 1–15, 83.
97
Bruce K.Waltke, and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 2001), 95.
98
Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis ‫בְּ ֵראשִׁ ית‬, The JPS Torah Commentary, eds., Nahum M. Sarna and
Chaim Potok (New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 29.
 132

is judged and yet in God’s judgment, creation, a guiltless entity, is brought under

condemnation, which is an unexpected result. This is the reason why creation stands as a

loud witness being heard throughout the immensity of the cosmos to the reality that

sufferings do not necessarily imply condemnation. The children of God are truly forgiven

and justified. Consequently, they and creation can be confident that their present

sufferings will not thwart the future glory.

The δουλεία τῆς φθορᾶς will end in ἡ ἐλευθερία τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ.

This is the positive statement of creation’s hope.99 The main verb of this verse

ἐλευθερωθήσεται governs both prepositional phrases. So creation will be delivered from

(ἀπό) τῆς δουλείας τῆς φθορᾶς, and set free into (εἰς) ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων

τοῦ θεοῦ. Paul thus speaks of a process of transformation, a movement from one

condition to another.100 The apostle makes clear that it is impossible to associate

creation’s future with an idea of annihilation. “A radical transformation fits much better

with this vision of the consummation of creation.”101

The phrase τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ refers to the eschatological glory that

believers will share with God.102 The eschatological redemption of the material world is

connected to the final glorification of the sons of God because of the solidarity between

99
Byrne, Sons of God, 107, and Dunn, Romans 1-8, 472.
100
This is highlighted by the use of both prepositions together: ἀπὸ and εἰς.
101
Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30, 165.
102
See, Käsemann, Romans, 234.
 133

humanity and creation. Man was given dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26–18), which

resulted in the corruption of creation. Likewise, humanity’s redemption will lead the way

for creation’s transformation into its God-intended abundance.

The expectation described in these verses focuses on the glorification of believers,

making this the most relevant eschatological event from creation’s perspective. There is a

logical sequence from the lesser to the greater. Believers await the Parousia (παρουσία)103

because they know that when they see Christ they will be transformed and become like

him (1 John 3:2). In the same manner, creation also longs for the Parousia, but

specifically, for the glorification of the sons of God, because only then will creation share

in that glory.104 Therefore, τήν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ θεοῦ also is an

opportunity for creation itself. It is a happy ending to a painful and sorrowful longing.

Paul apparently does not see the destruction of this present world as a hopeful

hope. Instead, κτίσις will be redeemed and transformed, which is why the creation

anticipates it. It is not looking forward to its own annihilation. Creation’s transformation

demands the total removal of φθορά from its own realm, once again indicating the

cosmological extent of the term κτίσις, and its implication for the believer’s assurance of

justification. So, if creation is gladly awaiting τήν ἐλευθερίαν τῆς δόξης τῶν τέκνων τοῦ

θεοῦ to be gloriously transformed because it is not under condemnation, the believer also

103
Ibid.
104
The fact that creation and a believer’s respective glorifications are compared does not mean
that they are equal. The freedom of the cosmologic non-human creation is according to its own nature
(Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:304). In light of Romans 8:21 it can be inferred that φθορά will not
be part of such an event. Creation will no longer experience the judgment that belonged to Adam himself.
 134

shares the same hope in the midst of his present struggle against his own body of death,

realizing that he is also not condemned. Therefore, he will be glorified—beyond any

doubt, sin will be removed from the believer.

Romans 8:22: πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει

The beginning formula οἴδαµεν γάρ indicates how Paul continues the subprobatio

which he began in verse 19. From a rhetorical point of view, this verse is not a

conclusion. The apostle does not use the formula οἴδαµεν γάρ to conclude a unit.105 In

fact, he employs this type of construction to introduce commonly accepted premises in

the argumentation (cf., Rom 3:19, 7:14, 8:28, 2 Cor 5:21) or proofs that are evident in

themselves (Rom 2:2). Hence, Romans 8:22 becomes a final argument for the claims

previously expressed, especially for Romans 8:20 in connection to the propositio first

introduced in Romans 8:1. So this verse becomes another proof for the final glorification

and non-condemnation of the believer despite the absurdity (µαταιότης) present in

creation. Dieter Zeller writes regarding this:

Das in der Bibel vielseitig verwendete Bild von der Geburtswehen ist dazu
parallel und Muß an sich nicht schon eine glückliche Lösung mitandeuten. Noch
weniger darf man speziell die sich in der Zeit vor dem Kommen das Messias
gewaltig steigernden eschatologischen Wehen einlesen; denn man kann von V. 20
her ergänzen, daß die Qual der Schöpfung vom Sündenfall bis auf den heutigen
Tag anhält.106

105
For several examples see: οἴδαµεν γάρ (Rom 7:14, 8:22, 2 Cor 5:21), οἴδαµεν δέ (Rom 2:2,
3:19, 8:28, 1 Tim 1:8, 2 Cor 5:1); οὐκ οἴδατε (Rom 6:16, 11:2, 1 Cor 3:16, 5:6, 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19, 9:13,
24).
106
The versatile image used in the Bible of the birth pangs is parallel to it and does not need to
indicate a fortunate outcome per se. Even less so are we allowed to read into the time before the coming of
 135

Zeller does not see the clauses πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει καὶ συνωδίνει ἄχρι τοῦ

νῦν as an optimistic end. In fact, he rejects its link to the Parousia. For him, the

prepositional phrase ἄχρι τοῦ νῦν delimits the meaning of this verse. If the creation

groans until now, then it is not a reference to the Parousia. Neither is it a positive

element, since creation is in agony under the weight of the present sufferings (Rom 8:18).

This interpretation contradicts the consensus that argues for this verse as an

indicator of the birth pangs bringing in a glorious new world, confirming the

eschatological hope of the glory of creation.107 According to this, the “birth pangs”

metaphor indicates a positive outcome.108 Therefore, Paul is somehow aiming to

reconcile present sufferings with glory. This argument is, however, incompatible with the

Romans 8:19–22 subpropositio, since it turns the µαταιότης of κτίσις into a reasonable

experience and not an absurdity. In this case these sufferings provide the circumstance in

which the glory comes, as if it were the last “push.” Consequently, the argument switches

from the Deuteronomic principle of retribution to the impossibility of frustrating the

the Messiah ever increasing eschatological pains; then we can take from verse 20, that the agony from the
creation to the fall continues to this day (author’s translation), Dieter Zeller, Der Brief an die Römer
Übersetzt und Erklärt, Regensburger Neues Testament (Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1985), 162.
107
Thomas Robinson, Studies in Romans: Expository and Homiletical Commentary, (Grand
Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1982), 473, Hermann Olshausen, Studies in The Epistle to The Romans
(Minneapolis: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1983), 293–94, Schreiner, Romans, 437, Charles
Hodge, Commentary on The Epistle to The Romans, new ed., (New York: Armstrong and Son, 1909), 432,
Byrne, Romans, 259, Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 1:305, Russell, The “New Heavens and New
Earth,” 172, Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 134, Godet, Commentary on Romans, 315–16,
Fitzmyer, Romans, 509, Dunn, Romans 1-8, 489, Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 518, Lenski, The
Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 539–50, Hendriksen and Kistemaker, Exposition of
Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 268, Cranfield, Romans, 1:416–17, Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans, 346,
and Mounce, Romans, 185.
108
Byrne, Sons of God, 108.
 136

future glory. While this fits the major propositio (Rom 8:1), it is detached from its

immediate subpropositio (Rom 8:18). In fact the entire propositio extends from verse 1 to

30, so verse 22 must somehow support or explain that present sufferings will not thwart

future glory because the believer is no longer under condemnation. Thus, he will be

delivered from the presence of sin. Nevertheless, Paul is dealing more specifically with

the objection posed by affliction, and in this he is proving that creation is guiltless and yet

suffers, which is absurd. Verse 22 is Paul’s last proof of creation’s suffering to support

verse 18, which in itself also testifies to the truth of Romans 8:1. The argumentation is

subsequent, making a transition from Romans 8:1–17 to 8:18, and then to 8:19–22.

Hence, to explain Romans 8:22 as the argument for the reconciliation of suffering and

glory means to depart from the logical sequence, requiring that Paul leave his argument

incomplete at Romans 8:21.

The metaphor of birth pangs is not such a positive and clear reference to new

creation as it may seem. When Paul uses this same metaphor in other passages he does

not refer to new life.109 In Galatians 4:19 (οὓς πάλιν ὠδίνω), Paul chooses this metaphor

as a reference to the exhausting and intense struggle he went through to bring about

purity of doctrine according to God’s will. A few verses later the apostle quotes Isaiah

54:1 (ῥῆξον καὶ βόησον, ἡ οὐκ ὠδίνουσα) where the prophet speaks of giving birth to

children without birth pangs. The emphasis is not on the new life, but on the lack of

109
The compound form συνωδίνω is unique to Romans 8:22, but the root verb ώδινω appears in
Gal 4:19, 27, and the cognate noun ώδιν in 1 Thess 5:3.
 137

pain.110 Finally, in 1 Thessalonians 5:3, Paul uses the noun ὠδίν to denote the suddenness

of destruction. Therefore, the apostle seems to use this term to emphasize the pain of a

given situation and not the life resulting from it.

This usage is consistent with the LXX (Isa 13:8, 21:3, 26:17–18, 22:23, Hos

13:13).111 The most obvious reason for using this image is to underline the pain of

childbirth, characterized by its intensity—an experience basic to all humanity, as

mentioned in Genesis 3:16, where pain in childbirth becomes one of the curses of the fall.

Both pain and peril are clear in Jeremiah 4:31, ὅτι φωνὴν ὡς ὠδινούσης ἤκουσα, τοῦ

στεναγµοῦ σου ὡς πρωτοτοκούσης (For I heard a cry as of a woman in labor, the anguish

as of one giving birth to her first child).

In reference to God’s judgment, the prophet Jeremiah uses several metaphors,

including sores and wounds (Jer 30:12–15), but surely the clearest image is found in

verses 5–7, “For thus says the LORD,’I have heard a sound of terror, of dread, and there

is no peace. Ask now, and see if a male can give birth. Why do I see every man with his

hands on his loins, as a woman in childbirth? And why have all faces turned pale? Alas!

For that day is great, there is none like it; and it is the time of Jacob’s distress, but he will

be saved from it.” This imagery is also carried into other later passages such as 1 Enoch

62:4 speaking of men in positions of authority who will suffer greatly. These verses are

110
This is confirmed by the fact that nowhere else in the Corpus Paulinum is this imagery used in
reference to Paul as a “pregnant mother” who gives birth to converts (Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians,
WBC, eds., Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker [Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1990],195).
111
Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 517.
 138

describing terrible and acute painful events, and while the mechanics of a child being

born are mentioned, the birth itself is not part of the metaphor, since the men mentioned

do not father a figurative child.112

This emphasis of intense and helpless pain is the picture behind Romans 8:22. It

is clear that this word is not used to communicate eschatological hope, but rather images

of pain, despair and even humiliation. On the other hand, Romans 8:18–22 certainly

speaks of all creation waiting together for the new world,113 but this idea is based on the

immediate context, not specifically on συνωδίνω. Romans 8:19 introduces this theme of

waiting for future glory, which is a positive eschatological outcome. Also, as

demonstrated in the first chapter, Paul’s use of the term κτίσις points towards

eschatological hope. In the end, this is the principal thrust of the Romans 8:1–30

propositio—God’s ultimate deliverance from the presence of sin. Therefore, Romans

8:18–22 is filled with eschatological nuances.

Nevertheless, Romans 8:22 carries negative implications for the sake of the

argument. Paul gives the last proof to the present absurdity as the final evidence for the

believer’s present non-condemnation reality. This corresponds to the eschatological hope

of this section. If the apostle’s argument could be paraphrased it might read as follows:

“It is true that the believer suffers, but he is not condemned. Creation is suffering the

112
Conrad Gempf, “The Imagery of Birth Pangs in The New Testament,” TynBul 45, no. 1 (1994):
123.
113
Georg Bertram, “ὠδίν, ὠδίνω,” in TDNT, 9:673.
 139

same punishment as Eve—birth pangs, but unlike Eve, it is innocent. Thus, it too will be

restored.”

The wording οἴδαµεν γάρ ὅτι makes clear that Paul assumes that the Roman

believers are acquainted with what he is about to say. This statement plays a decisive role

in setting Romans 8:22 as a common ground on which Paul is basing his argument, and

this is because this truth about creation is generally known among believers due to past

divine revelation and Christian teaching.114 Although a sensitive person can perceive the

suffering of creation, only a Christian can see it from the divine perspective. This implies

that Romans 8:22 represents an “Old Testament insight… the idea of the groaning of the

whole non-human creation is not a very big step from the basic statement of Genesis 3:17

that the ground is cursed for the man’s sake.”115 The previous statement by Cranfield

represents the common opinion that Paul draws his conclusions in 8:22 from Genesis

3:17–18.116 But it should be noted that Genesis 3:16 is the verse that mentions the pains

of childbirth, (Πληθύνων πληθυνῶ τὰς λύπας σου καὶ τὸν στεναγµόν σου, ἐν λύπαις τέξῃ

τέκνα, LXX), and not Genesis 3:17–19. The pains in Genesis 3:16 (τὰς λύπας σου καὶ τὸν

στεναγµόν σου, ἐν λύπαις τέξῃ τέκνα) are described somewhat differently than in

Romans 8:22 (ἡ κτίσις συστενάζει), but it is still a strong indication of the affinity

114
Cranfield, Romans, 1:416, Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the
Romans, 326, Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 516
115
Cranfield, Romans, 1:416.
116
Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, 323, Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 516, Kruse, Paul’s
Letter to the Romans, 346, Hendriksen and Kistemaker, Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 267–
68.
 140

between both passages, since these descriptions are equivalent and interchangeable.117

Moreover, both passages present words related to the root στενός in the same context—

στεναγµός in Genesis 3:16, and συστενάζω in Romans 8:22.

In light of the above arguments, it is probable that the literary and theological

background for Romans 8:22 is not only Genesis 3:17–19, but also verse 16, which

speaks of Eve’s pain in childbirth which she was destined to go through because of her

sin.118 Genesis 3:16–17 present two elements intrinsic to Romans 8:22, and these are, (1)

the birth pangs (Gen 3:16), and (2) the effect upon all of creation (Gen 3:17–19). If the

latter verses are established as the literary background, then the reader is forced to ask

what the pains in childbirth are. As previously explained, however, Romans 8:22 is a

statement known by the audience due to its inclusion in divine revelation. Thus, only

Genesis 3:16–19 explain the entirety of this verse’s background.

This confirms Zeller’s interpretation of this passage. It removes the positive

overtone from the image. In Eve’s case the groaning and birth pangs were the

punishment, not a direct promise of glory. This punishment confirms Paul’s statement in

Romans 8:20, τῇ γάρ µαταιότητι ἡ κτίσις ὑπετάγη. Eve ate from the fruit and sinned. She

received the consequences of her actions. Nonetheless, this experience is common to the

entire creation, hence, the compound verbs συστενάζει and συνωδίνει. Some have

maintained that these portray nature as a whole, undergoing such birth pangs. So, creation

117
Gieniusz, Romans 8:18–30, 146.
118
See D. T. TSumura, “An OT Background to Romans 8:22,” NTS 40, no. 4 (1994): 621.
 141

is not in agony together with believers,119 instead “the various parts of the creation are

groaning together, are in birth pangs together, uttering a symphony of sighs.”120 The

problem with this view is that in every instance of a compound verb with the preposition

συν, it refers to somebody else with whom the action is being performed or stated.121

A brief overview of all the occurrences of such construction verifies the statement

above. In Romans 1:32 (συνευδοκοῦσιν), Paul speaks of those who commit evil deeds

together with those who approve them. Romans 3:5 (συνίστησιν) refers to the

righteousness of God in association with man’s. In Romans 6:4 (συνετάφηµεν) believers

are buried together with Christ. Two verses later the apostle refers to the crucifixion of

both the believer and Christ (συνεσταυρώθη). Romans 7:22 (συνήδοµαι) presents Paul

himself who joyfully agrees with the law of God. Romans 8:17 (συνδοξασθῶµεν) refers

to the glorification of Christ and the believer. In Romans 8:26 (συναντιλαµβάνεται) the

compound verb is used to express the help of the Spirit with the believer. Romans 8:28

(συνεργεῖ) could show that there is only one entity implied— πάντα. But, the plural

underlines the solidarity between the elements of a plurality. So the association is

between the various components implied by the expression πάντα. This verse is not

similar to Romans 8:22, since πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις is singular. Thus it is not speaking of several

119
Romans 8:23 seems to imply that believers should not be included in the same category as
creation in Romans 8:22. Since Paul begins this verse with the phrase οὐ µόνον δέ showing that only in
light of Romans 8:22 the reader would not include believers groaning together with creation.
120
Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 518, Jewett and Kotansky, Romans, 517, and Cranfield,
Romans, 1:417.
121
Romans 1:32, 3:5, 6:4, 6, 7:22, 8:17, 26, 28, 11:32, 12:16, 15:30, 32.
 142

creations but one in its totality, unlike the various elements included with πάντα. So there

is not enough evidence in Romans 8:28 to conclude that the verbs συστενάζει καὶ

συνωδίνει in Romans 8:22 together with the singular subject πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις speak of all

creation groaning in birth pangs together with itself. Furthermore, in Romans 11:32

(συνέκλεισεν) the verb is used in reference to both Gentile and Jew. The compound verb

of Romans 12:16 (συναπαγόµενοι) highlights the condescendence between the subject of

the verb and the lowly. In Romans 15:30 (συναγωνίσασθαί) Paul exhorts the Romans to

strive together with him. Romans 15:32 (συναναπαύσωµαι) speaks of the rest that Paul

wishes to find together with the believers in Rome. In short, every single occurrence of

this type of compound verb in the book of Romans refers to more than just one subject.

So, Paul almost certainly does the same in Romans 8:22.

The question remains, with whom is creation associated when Paul writes

συστενάζει and συνωδίνει? The proposed answer in light of the literary background and

the argumentation of the subprobatio is that these verbs associate the present sufferings

of creation with the results of Eve’s sinful act.122 The birth pangs that God imposed on

Eve due to her guilt are also part of the present creation which is guiltless. As has been

previously stated, Romans 8:22 speaks of a well-known fact. This, together with the

literary link with Genesis 3:16 puts Eve on display as that well-known character. Paul is

giving his last proof to show how an innocent body may suffer. With this in mind, the

apostle is creating a rhetorical contrast between Eve’s deserved judgment because of her

122
See Balz, Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung, 52.
 143

sin, and creation’s underserved subjection as the result of the Fall. Eve sinned and God

punished her by imposing birth pangs on her. By contrast, creation, which is innocent, is

also under the same kind of suffering when it was expected that only Eve would suffer

this retribution for her actions. Therefore, the apostle has masterfully validated his claim

in Romans 8:20, τῇ γάρ µαταιότητι ἡ κτίσις ὑπετάγη, as the perfect counterargument

against the objection of the reality of sufferings to his statement in Romans 8:1, οὐδὲν

ἄρα νῦν κατάκριµα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ.

Summary

Paul has replied to the challenge posed by the fact that a guiltless person can be in

distress. Romans 8:19–22 become essential to his argument. The apostle has

demonstrated in these verses how creation is suffering and yet is innocent. So creation’s

future glory will not be frustrated, nor will the believer’s. The present sufferings are not

even a challenge to the manifestation of God’s children’s future glory. Their justification

is complete; they are no longer under condemnation regardless of the intensity of their

present sufferings.

The solidarity of humanity and the created order is especially affirmed in this

passage. Both, humanity and creation are objects of God’s redemptive work.

Cosmological non-human creation as a whole will be delivered from the bondage to

corruption. The present absurdity of both the righteous and wicked being subjected to

death and decay will soon come to an end. The day of the revelation of the children of

God will manifest the fullness of God’s adoption because of their forgiveness. Their
 144

guilty state has been removed. Therefore, they can be confident of God’s future salvation.

Creation’s present state and future glory correlates to the believer’s present and future

realities, showing why creation as a whole must also be renewed and restored. Otherwise,

if the scope of its deliverance is limited, the believer’s final glorification can be called

into question. This is Paul’s final argument: because creation is innocent and suffers, a

believer can also suffer and not be under condemnation. God’s salvation embraces the

whole. In fact, “humanity’s salvation is indeed a microcosm of the greater macrocosmic

event—the redemption of creation.”123

123
Russell, The “New Heavens and New Earth,” 171.
 CONCLUSION

The introduction to this thesis briefly surveyed the contemporary tendency to see

the Savior’s work in terms of his earthly life only, disassociating redemption from the

cosmos, which inevitably results in a secular scientific approach to creation.

Consequently, the theological impact that creation has on the ratification of the believer’s

justification is crippled.

As an answer to this problem, Romans 8:18–22 was offered as one of the

passages that better harmonizes the concepts of creation and redemption in light of

Christ’s work. The various interpretations of these verses, however, often detached from

creation itself, have muddled their clarity. Several methodologies applied to the study of

Romans are deficient to some extent. Therefore, a proposed argumentative situation

methodology was proposed as a complement to literary, historical and background

considerations. This approach underlined the logical argument of the apostle throughout

the letter to the Romans, assisting in interpreting Romans 8:18–22 in its eschatological

context, and thus, becoming essential for harmonizing creation and redemption.

Following this argument, Chapter One demonstrated that Romans 8 is not an

independent unit from chapters 9–11, but instead is connected to chapters 9–11 indicating

that Romans 8:18–22 is contained within an Old Testament eschatological framework,

which was further examined in Chapter Two.

145
 146

The letter to the Romans carries out Paul’s logic through three main arguments.

The first argument develops the concept of God’s justice against the sinner, underscoring

that no one is excusable before him (Rom 1:18–3:20). The second argument shows how

the justice of God is also demonstrated in Jesus who has become the justification of the

sinner (Rom 3:21–4:25). Finally, a third argument was examined which contains two

interwoven subdivisions that advance in both a linear and resumptive fashion. The first

subdivision (Rom 5:1–7:25) shows that justification is by grace alone. The second (Rom

8:1–11:36) demonstrates the future assurance of practical justification. This subdivision

presents a propositio (Rom 8:1–30), probatio (Rom 8:31–11:32) and conclusio (Rom

11:33–36). The rhetorical structure of this argument is key to the apostle’s argument.

Romans 8:1–11:36 becomes an argumentative unit in and of itself. Like the other

propositiones of the letter (Rom 1:18–21, 3:21–26, and 5:1–21), Romans 8:1–30 resumes

the issue of the previous sections, and introduces a new thesis subordinated to the main

argument of the letter, which is marked by the words νυνί in 3:21, οὖν in 5:1, and oὐδὲν

ἄρα in 8:1.

The apostle sets out to prove that justification will end in glorification (Rom 8:1–

30), which he demonstrates by reminding the readers of God’s faithfulness to his

promises (Rom 8:31–11:32). This is why he is concerned with the fate of Israel. God

remains faithful to all of his promises to his national people. Therefore one can only

conclude in worship recognizing the unfathomable divine ways of salvation (Rom 11:33–

36). A potential objection to the apostle’s propositio, however, is the reality of present

sufferings, which may be an indicator of divine punishment. If so, the object of the
 147

punishment is under condemnation. This would in turn mean that if the believer suffers,

then the premise of Romans 8:1 is not true, and he will not be glorified. It is in this

context, that the apostle offers an overwhelming counterargument—creation itself.

Paul carefully crafts this section to show how creation suffers the same effects of

the fall as mankind, and yet it is innocent. The conclusion is that a guiltless entity may

suffer, without implying judicial punishment for incurred guilt. The believer’s sufferings

do not call into question his ultimate glorification, and likewise for Israel and creation.

Romans 8–11 is thus Paul’s assuring reflection on the future fate of the believer, which is

dependent on the future of Israel, delimited by Old Testament eschatology, namely, the

redemption of the People of God, whether Jew or Gentile, taking place in the context of a

renewed cosmos. Romans 8, not only speaks of the certainty of glorification for the

individual who believes, but also indicates that the justification presented in chapter 5

becomes the basis for the eschatological restoration of chapter 8. To reject this nullifies

the probatio given by Paul to defend his propositio.

Chapter Two unfolded the theology of the term κτίσις, showing the numerous

points of contact between Romans 8:18–22 and Jewish apocalyptic literature. These

similarities are not so much in literary genre but rather in theology. While the apostle

expresses a perspective similar to Jewish apocalyptic literature, he nevertheless avoids

the vindictive and exclusive nature of Jewish apocalyptic literature, and concentrates on

the corruption and redemption of creation.

The tension between creation being under God’s control and the creation having

been damaged by sin, characteristic of Jewish apocalyptic literature, is present throughout

 148

Romans 8:18–22. The devastation and chaos of sin is cosmic and earthly. All creation

suffers under the weight of its divine subjection. The Jewish apocalyptic and Old

Testament backgrounds of Romans 8 present a vivid, picturesque, withering earth

exhausted and impotent as it languishes under the weight of human sin. Humanity and

non-human cosmological creation relate and depend on each other. Thus, the revelation

of the sons of God will lead the way to the restoration of creation.

In Romans 8:19–22 Paul looks forward to this transformation of the existing

creation with the removal of the effects of sin. The apostle underscores the universal

character of God’s work of redemption, namely that a redeemed humanity is not

envisioned apart from a correspondingly redeemed world. The cosmos is not overthrown

but rather its innocence is vindicated. This facet of Pauline theology is governed by Old

Testament teaching—the consummation is what brings the final realization of what was

the will of God from its beginning inception, brought together in the Messiah, who is the

unifying principle, which gives both coherence and continuity to redemption and

creation.

This background highlights the cosmic extent of the term κτίσις. It is an all-

inclusive concept, though in the context of Romans 8:19–22 it excludes those entities that

according to God’s purposes are unredeemable, such as fallen angels. This distinction

becomes important later when Paul argues for the security of the believer’s glorification

in light of creation, which while not being responsible for man’s fall, suffers the same

effects of sin. It, too, eagerly awaits its own restoration, knowing that its sufferings are

not consequent to guilt. It is an innocent entity, and thus its future glorification will not be
 149

thwarted. All of the guiltless creation will be delivered from its present distress, and to

restrict its extent will consequently limit the apostle’s argument in Romans 8. An

understanding of κτίσις as cosmological non-human creation is central to Romans 8:18–

22.

Romans 8:18 functions as the thesis for the subpropositio of Romans 8:19–22

within the propositio of Romans 8:1–30 as shown in Chapter Three. The subject of the

argument concerns the relationship between the sufferings of the present time and the

glory to be revealed, having previously created a parallel between Jesus and the believer

(Rom 8:9–17), and as a necessary step in his argument, the apostle speaks of all suffering

occurring during the present age prior to the restoration of all things. But he does not stop

there, for this would imply that God does not have the final word against the effects of sin

in the physical realm, and therefore, the believer’s physical deliverance from the present

suffering.

Paul defines the relationship between sufferings and glory by the idiomatic phrase

οὐκ ἄξια... πρός, which creates a contrast. This contrast portrays both, a contrastive

relationship between these two elements, and the opposed nature of παθήµατα and δόξαν

together with their respective modifiers, τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ and τὴν µέλλουσαν. The nature

of πάθηµα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ is worthless in contrast with the immovable assurance of τὴν

µέλλουσαν δόξαν.

This phrase was not unknown in classical Greek, and it is consistent with the

internal argument. The apostle shows that the current agony and distress in creation poses

no real challenge to the sure glory to come. It is of no account when contrasted with the
 150

certainty of the glory. In accordance with this, the apostle’s objective in Romans 8:18 is

to prove the sureness of the glory to be revealed to the believers despite the suffering

through which they themselves and the cosmos continue to go through. This is the

rationale for Paul’s argument in verses 19–22.

Romans 8:18 answers possible objections to Romans 8:1, and especially 8:16–17.

One objection is the linear principle of retribution—if one suffers it is due to divine

punishment. Agony becomes the “proof” against the justification of the believer and

shows that his stand before God has been compromised. As chapters 1–3 indicate, this

objection may be part of the Deuteronomic mentality of retribution: Suffering is evidence

of sin, and by implication, of removal from God’s glorification. This thinking is

erroneous, but Paul paves the way for the final proof of his thesis in Romans 8:18 and

8:1. His surmounting argument vanquishes any possible doubt. The restoration of the

entire cosmos becomes the anchor for the believer’s glory, which is the framework for

interpreting Romans 8:19–22.

Chapter Four explained Paul’s reply to this challenge. Romans 8:19–22 become

essential to the argument. He challenges the Deuteronomic principle of retribution as

universal, and he gives the example that creation groans and suffers birth pangs while

being innocent. Because creation’s future glory will not be frustrated, it is also true for

the believer.

The solidarity of humanity and the created order is especially affirmed in this

passage. Both humanity and creation are objects of God’s redemptive work.

Cosmological non-human creation as a whole will be delivered from the bondage to

 151

corruption. The present absurdity of both the righteous and wicked being subjected to

death and decay will soon come to an end.

The interpretation of the argument in these verses supports the view that the term

κτίσις, especially the phrase πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (Rom 8:22), should be given a maximum

application, one of cosmological proportions. This leads to the conclusion that Paul is

speaking of a renewal which the entirety of the material world will undergo when the

children of God will be revealed. The apostle interprets Old Testament eschatology

consistently. Creation’s present state and future glory correlates to the believer’s present

and future realities, so that creation as a whole must also be renewed and restored. If the

scope of its deliverance is limited, the believer’s final glorification could be called into

question. This is Paul’s final argument—because creation is innocent and suffers,

believers can also suffer and not be under condemnation.

Paul does not describe how the renewal of creation will take place, for it is not his

main purpose in Romans 8:18–22. He is concerned with the present and future effects of

the believer’s justification. But it is in this context that the relationship between creation

and redemption may be inferred. The importance of this passage should not be

underestimated, for it presents creation’s future hope in the context of redemption.

Without the redeeming purposes of God, creation is destined to absurdity. The contrast

between present suffering and future glory portrays a tension which must be

maintained—today will not thwart tomorrow. Discontinuity clearly exists between what

creation is now and what it will become, but continuity is also affirmed by the fact that

creation was unwillingly subjected to futility.

 152

Romans 8 takes seriously the corruption of humanity and creation because of sin.

But, it also displays God’s redemptive purposes for the entire universe. Mankind’s

redemption occurs in the context of creation. For Paul’s counterargument to the

Deuteronomic principle of retribution to work, creation must be subjected to a kind of

redemption similar to the believer’s. Otherwise the parallelism between the innocence of

creation and the believer’s does not hold. Humanity will be redeemed along with

creation, not from creation.

The relationship between creation and redemption must be defined in the same

theological framework as the relationship between the believer and redemption. As the

believer understands his justified status before God and future hope of glorification,

creation has likewise been called as a guiltless witness to its future divine redemption in

order to ratify the consummation of the believer’s salvation. Therefore, the scope of

redemption encompasses the entire physical universe, as the context in which the crown

of God’s creation—mankind—will be glorified.

This interpretation affects three areas of theology: soteriology, eschatology and

ethics. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to analyze all of the implications in each area,

but simply to mention that this understanding of redemption strengthens the faith of the

believer, as he sees the certainty of his final glorification. Moreover, it portrays a glorious

picture of God’s salvific intervention, which will reverse the effects of sin in the elect and

the entire cosmos. Regarding eschatology, the redemption of the physical universe must

be taken into account, since it has ramifications for the area of environmental ethics.

Creation is innocent since it was man who brought on the curse, and with the knowledge
 153

that it is in God’s plans for creation to be renewed, questions should be raised about how

believers often despise the environment. Despite the fall of man, the principle of

stewardship needs to be maintained.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Texts

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M.

Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition. Stuttgart,
Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993.

Charles, R. H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Volume
Two: Pseudepigrapha. Biblical Apocrypha Series. Berkeley, CA.: Apocryphile
Press Edition, 2004.

Charleworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Volume One:
Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments. Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson Publishers,
1983.

Elliger, K., and W. Rudolph, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Editio secunda
emendata. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1984.

Epstein, I., ed. Soncino Babylonian Talmud. Translated by I. Epstein. London: The
Soncino Press, 1938.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta. Editio minor. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,

1979.

Classical and Hellenistic Literature

Aesopica, Aesopus et. Fabulae Syntipae philosophi. Vol. 1.2, in Corpus fabularum
Aesopicarum, edited by A. Hausrath and H. Hunger, 155–183. Leipzig: Teubner,
1959.

Aristoteles. De mundo. In Aristotelis qui fertur libellus de mundo. Edited by W. L.

Lorimer, 47–103. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1933.

Arrianus, Flavius. Historia Indica. In Flavii Arriani quae exstant omnia, edited by A. G.
Roos and G. Wirth. Vol. 2, 1–73. Leipzig: Teubner, 1968.

154
 155

Augustine. De Fide et Symbolo. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene

Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume III: St. Augustin: On the
Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, edited by Philip Schaff.
Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1887.

———. De Moribus Ecclesiœ Catholiœ. In A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume IV: St. Augustin:
The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists, edited by
Philip Schaff. Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1887.

———. The Fathers of the Church. Vol. v. 70, Eighty-Three Different Questions.
Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982.

Dio Chrysostom. Dio Chrysostom, with an English Translation. Loeb Classical Library
257. Translated by James Wilfred Cohoon. London: William Heinemann, 1961.

Dio Chrysostomus. Orationes. In Dionis Prusaensis quem vocant Chrysostomum quae

exstant omnia, edited by J. von Arnim. Vol. 1, 1–338. Berlin: Weidmann, 1962.

Euripides. Orestes. Vol. 3, in Euripidis fabulae, edited by J. Diggle, 191–286. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1994.

Herodotus. Historiae. Vol. 7, in Hérodote. Histoires, edited by E. Legrand, 24–235.

Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1963.

Ignatius. Epistulae interpolatae et epistulae suppositiciae. In Patres apostolici, edited by

F. Diekamp and F. X. Funk. Vol. 2, 83–268. Tübingen: Laupp, 1913.

Joannes Chrysostomus. In Epistulam ad Romanos. In Patrologiae cursus completus,

edited by J. P. Migne, 391–682. Paris: Migne, 1866.

John Chrysostom. Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Romans. In Library of the Fathers
of the Holy Catholic Church. Anterior to the Division of the East and West.
Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1848.

Plato. Apologia Socratis. In Platonis opera, edited by J. Burnet. Vol. 1, 17a–42a. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1967.

———. Gorgias. In Platonis opera, edited by J. Burnet. Vol. 3, 447a–527e. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1968.

———. Phaedo. In Platonis opera, edited by J. Burnet. Vol. 1, I.57a–118a. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1967
 156

———. Plato, with an English Translation. Loeb Classical Library 166. Translated by
Walter Rangeley Maitland Lamb. London: William Heinemann, 1925.

Polybius. Historiae. In Polybii historiae, edited by T. Büttner-Wobst. Vol. 2, 1–380.

Leipzig: Teubner, 1965.

Sapientes, Septem. Apophthegmata. In Fragmenta philosophorum Graecorum, edited by

F. W. A. Mullach. Vol. 1, 219–35. Paris: Didot, 1860.

Siculus, Diodorus. Bibliotheca Historica . Edited by Immanuel Bekker. Medford, OR.: in

aedibus B. G. Teubneri, 1888–1890.

Strabo. Geographica. Leipzig: Teubner, 1877.

Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian Wars (English). Vol. I, in The English Works
of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury, edited by Thomas Hobbes. Medford, OR.:
Bohn, 1843.

Xenophon. Memorabilia. In Xenophontis opera omnia, edited by E.C. Marchant. Oxford:

Clarendon Press, 1971.

Reference Works

Bauer, W., F. W. Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of

the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Third edition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Bauernfeind, Otto. "µάταιος, µαταιότης, µαταιόω, µάτην, µαταιολογία, µαταιολόγος." In

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, translated
by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 4, 519–24. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1967

Bertram, Georg. "ὠδίν, ὠδίνω." In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited
by Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 9, 667–74. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1974.

Blass, F., and A. Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. Translated by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1961.

Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907.
 157

Brown, John. Analytical Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans.
London: William Oliphant and Sons, 1857.

Delling, Gerhard. "ἀποκαραδοκία." In Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,

edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard Friedrich Gerhard Kittel. Vol. 1,
393. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1964.

———. "τάσσω, τάγµα, ἀνατάσσω, ἀποτάσσω, διατάσσω, διαταγή, ἐπιταγή, προστάσσω,

ὑποτάσσω, ὑποταγή, ἀνυπότακτος, ἄτακτος (ἀτάκτως), ἀτακτέω." In Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Friedrich, translated by
Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 8, 27–48. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1972.

Foerster, Werner. “κτίζω, κτίσις, κτίσµα, κτίστης.” In Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Gerhard
Friedrich. Vol. 3, 1000–1035. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1964.

Habermas, Gary R. “Plato, Platonism.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Second

edition, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 927–29. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007.

Harder, Günther. "φθείρω, φθορά, φθαρτός, ἄφθαρτος, ἀφθαρσία, ἀφθορία, διαφθείρω,

διαφθορά, καταφθείρω." In Theological Dictionary of The New Testament, edited
by Gerhard Friedrich, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Vol. 9, 93–106. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1974.

Hess, A. J. "διά." In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Horst Robert
Balz and Gerhard Schneider. Vol. 1, 296–97. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1990.

Hawthorne, G. F., and R. P. Martin, eds. Dictionary of Paul and his Letters. Downers
Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner, ed. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the
Old Testament. Revised by Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm. Study
edition, translated and edited under the supervision of M.E.J. Richardson. 2 vols.
Leiden: Brill, 2001.

Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene Albert Nida. Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. Second edition. 2 vols. New York:
United Bible Societies, 1996.

Moreschini, Claudio, and Enrico Norelli. Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A
Literary History. Vol. 1, From Paul to the Age of Constantine. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 2005
 158

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek. Second Edition. Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press, 1971.

Moulton, Harold K. The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1978.

Moulton, James Hope, and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament.
Illustrated From the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1980.

Osborn, L. H. “Creation.” In New Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by T.

Desmond Alexander and Brian S. Rosner, 429–35. Downers Grove, IL.:
InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Petzke, G. “κτίζω.” In Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by Horst

Robert Balz and Gerhard Scheneider. Vol. 2, 325–26. Grand Rapids: T & T Clark
International, 1990.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical

Research. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1934.

Schmid, H. H. “‫א ֶֶרץ‬.” In Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, edited by Ernst Jenni
and Claus Westermann, 172–79. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997

Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

Turner, Nigel. Syntax. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edited by J. H. Moulton.

New York: T & T Clark International, 1963.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. An Exegetical Syntax on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1996.

Winer, Georg Benedikt. A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testament Greek: Regarded
as a Sure Basis for New Testament Exegesis. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1882.

Commentaries

Alford, Henry, ed. The New Testament for English Readers Containing the Authorized
Version, Marginal Corrections of Readings and Renderings, Marginal References
and a Cristical and Explanatory Commentary. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1983.

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on The Epistle to The Romans. Second edition. London:

A&C Black Publishers, 1991.
 159

Barth, Karl. A Shorter Commentary on Romans with an Introductory Essay by Maico

Michielin. Barth Studies. Edited by Maico M. Michielin. Translated by D. H. van
Daalen. Burlington, MA.: Ashgate, 2007.

———. Der Römerbrief: (zweite Fassung), 1922. Edited by Katja Tolstaja and Cornelis
Van Der Kooi. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2010.

Bryan, Christopher. A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in Its Literary and
Cultural Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Bullard, Roger Aubrey, and Howard A. Hatton. A Handbook on Tobit. UBS Handbook
Series. New York: United Bible Societies, 2001.

Byrne, Brendan. Romans. Sacra Pagina. Edited by Daniel J. Harrington. Collegeville,

PA.: Liturgical Press, 1996.

Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans. Edited by
John Owen. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1847.

Cassius Dio. Historiae Romanae. Vol. 2. Cassii Dionis Cocceiani historiarum

Romanarum quae supersunt. Edited by U.P. Boissevain, 1–690. Berlin:
Weidmann, 1955.

Cassuto, Umberto. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part I, from Adam to Noah,
Genesis I–IV 8. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magness Press,
1998.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans:

Introduction and commentary on Romans I-VIII. The International Critical
Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Edited by
G. I. Davies, C. M. Tuckett, J. A. Emerton and C. E. B. Cranfield. New York:
T&T Clark, 2011.

Denney, James. “St. Paul’s Epistle to The Romans.” In The Expositor’s Greek Testament.
Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Vol. 2, 555–725. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 1970.

Dodd, C.H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. Revised edition, Moffatt New Testament
Commentary. London: Collins, 1959.

Dunn, James D. G. Romans 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M.

Metzger, David A. David and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas: Word Books, 1988.

———. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek
Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996.
 160

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.

AB. Edited by William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. New York:
Doubleday, 1993.

Gifford, E. H. The Epistle of St. Paul to The Romans with Notes and Introduction.
Minneapolis: The James Family, 1977.

Godet, Frederic Louis. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications,

1977.

Govett, Robert. Govett on Romans. Miami Springs, FL.: Conley & Schoettle Publishing,
1981.

Griffith, Gwilym O. St. Paul’s Gospel to the Romans. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1949.

Haldane, Robert. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1988.

Harrison, Everett F. “Romans.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Romans through

Galatians, edited by Everett F. Harrison and W. Harold Mare Frank E. Gaebelein.
Vol. 10, 14–171. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1976.

Hendriksen, William, and Simon J. Kistemaker. Exposition of Paul’s Epistle to the

Romans. New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1981.

Hodge, Charles. Commentary on The Epistle to The Romans. New edition, Revised and
in Great Measure Rewritten. New York: Armstrong and Son, 1909.

Jewett, Robert, and Roy David Kotansky. Romans. Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical
Commentary on the Bible. Edited by Eldon Jay Epp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,
2006.

Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1980.

Keil, C. F., and F. Delitzsch. “Genesis.” In The Pentateuch. Translated by James Martin.
Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson
Publishers, 2011.

Kertelge, Karl. The Epistles to the Romans and Galatians. New York: Sheed and Ward,
1977.

Kruse, Colin G. Paul’s Letter to the Romans. The Pillar New Testament Commentary.
Edited by D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2012.
 161

Leenhardt, Franz J. The Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Harold Knight. New York:
The World Publishing, 1961.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis:

Ausgburg Publishing, 1961.

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M.

Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Nashville: Thomas Nelson
Publishers, 1990.

McKeown, James. Genesis. The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary. Edited by J.
Gordon McConville and Craig Bartholomew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing, 2008.

Metzger, Bruce Manning. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A

Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament Fourth
Revised Edition. Second edition. London: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the
Romans. Edited by William P. Dickson. Translated by John C. Moore and Edwin
Johnson. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884.

Moo, Douglas J. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary of the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1996.

Moo, Douglas J. “Romans.” In New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, edited by
D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer and G. J. Wenham, 1115–1160.
Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1988.

Mounce, Robert H. Romans. The New American Commentary. Vol. 27. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1995.

Murphy, Roland. Ecclesiastes. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger,

David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Dallas: Word Books, 1998.

Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition
and Notes. The New International Commentary on The New Testament. Edited
by F. F. Bruce. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1977.

Nygren, Anders. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Carl C. Rasmussen.

Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 949.
 162

Olshausen, Hermann. Studies in The Epistle to The Romans. Minneapolis: Klock &
Klock Christian Publishers, 1983.

Plumer, William S. Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans with an Introduction of

the Life, Times, Writings and Character of Paul. Edinburgh: W. Oliphant and
company, 1870.

Robinson, Thomas. Studies in Romans: Expository and Homiletical Commentary. 2 vols.

Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1982.

Sanday, William, and Arthur C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the
Epistle of the Romans. The International Critical Commentary on the Holy
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Fifth edition. Edited by Charles
Augustus Briggs, Samuel Rolles Driver and Alfred Plummer. Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1902.

Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis ‫בְּ ֵראשִׁ ית‬. The JPS Torah Commentary. Edited by Nahum M.
Sarna and Chaim Potok. New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament.

Vol. 6. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.

Stuhlmacher, Peter. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. Translated by Scott J.

Hafemann. Louisville, KY.: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994.

Waltke, Bruce K., and Cathi J. Fredricks. Genesis: A Commentary. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing, 2001.

Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. World Biblical Commentary. Revised Edition. Edited by
Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Nashville: Thomas
Nelson, 2005.

Wenham, Gordon J. Genesis 1–15. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M.

Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco: Word Books Publisher,
1987.

Wilckens, Ulrich. La Carta a los Romanos: Rom 6-16. Vol 2. Biblioteca de Estudios
Bíblicos, 62. 2nd edition. Translated by Víctor A. Martínez de Lapera and Manuel
Olasagasti. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2006.

Wright, N. T. “The Letter to the Romans.” In The New Interpreter’s Bible: Acts.
Introduction to Epistolary Literature. Romans. 1 Corinthians, by Robert W. Wall,
J. Paul Sampley and N. T. Wright. Edited by Leander E. Keck, 393–770.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000.
 163

Zahn, Theodor. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. First and second editions. Leipzig:
A. deichert’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Nachf., 1910.

Zeller, Dieter. Der Brief an die Römer Übersetzt und Erklärt. Regensburger Neues
Testament. Regensburg: Verlag Friedrich Pustet, 1985

Books and Monographs

Alcorn, Randy. Heaven. Carol Stream, IL.: Tyndale House Publishers, 2004.

Anderson, Bernhard W. From Creation to New Creation. Old Testament Perspectives.

Eugene, OR.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1994.

Baeck, Leo. Judaism and Christianity. Translated by Walter Kaufmann. Philadelphia:

The Jewish Publication, 1960.

Balz, Horst R. Heilsvertrauen und Welterfahrung: Strukturen der paulinischen

Eschatologie nach Römer 8, 18-39. Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie 59.
Edited by E. Wolf. Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 1971.

Beale, Greg K. “The Eschatological Conception of New Testament Theology.” In

Eschatology in Bible & Theology: Evangelical Essays at the Dawn of a New
Millennium, edited by Kent E. Brower and Mark W. Elliott, 11–52. Downers
Grove, IL.: IVP, 1997.

Beare, F. W. St. Paul and his Letters. New York: Abingdon, 1962.

Beker, Johan Christiaan. Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought.
Philadelphia: Fortress Publishers, 1980.

Benz, Arnold. The Future of the Universe: Chance Chaos Or God? London: Continuum,
2000.

Berry, R. J., ed. The Care of Creation: Focusing Concern and Action. Leicester, England:
InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Bock, Darrell L. “Opening Questions: Definition and Philosophy of Exegesis.” In

Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of
Exegesis, edited by Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning, 23–32. Wheaton, IL.:
Crossway Books, 2006.

Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. Translated by K. Grobel. 2 vols.

London: SCM, 1952.
 164

Byrne, Brendan. Sons of God, Seed of Abraham: A Study of The Idea of The Sonship of
God of All Christians in Paul against The Jewish Background. Analecta biblica
83. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1979.

Christoffersson, Olle. The Earnest Expectation of the Creature: The Flood-tradition As

Matrix of Romans 8:18-27. Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series 23.
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1990.

Cranfield, C. E. B. “Some observations on Romans 8: 19-21.” In Reconciliation and

Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology Presented to L. L.
Morris on his 60th Birthday, edited by Robert Banks, 224–30. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing, 1974.

Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and
History. Revised edition. Translated by Floyd V. Filson. Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1964.

Dahl, N. A. “Christ, Creation and the Church.” In The Background of the New Testament
and Its Eschatology: Studies in Honour of C.H. Dodd, edited by W. D. Davies
and D. Daube, 422–43. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1964.

Das, A. Andrews. Solving the Romans Debate. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.

Dean, I. R. In Christ or in Adam or The Believer’s Position, Privileges, and Victory.

Philadelphia: Philadelphia School of the Bible, 1925.

Dumbrell, William J. “Genesis 2:1–17. A Foreshadowing of the New Creation.” In

Biblical Theology. Retrospect and Prospect, edited by Scott J. Hafemann, 53–65.
Downers Grove, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Durant, John. Darwinism and Divinity: Essays on Evolution and Religious Belief.
Oxford: Blackwell, 1985.

Elliott, Neil. The Rhetoric of Romans: Argumentative Constraint and Strategy and Paul’s
Dialogue wiht Judaism. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement
Series 45. Edited by David Hill and David E. Orton. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

Ellis, George F. R., ed. The Far Future Universe: Eschatology from a Cosmic
Perspective. Radnor: Templeton Foundation Press, 2002.

Fox, Michael V. Qohelet and his Contradictions. Bible and Literature Series 18. Edited
by David M. Gunn, Danna Nolan Fewell, Elizabeth Struthers Malbon and James
G. Williams. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989.
 165

Fretheim, Terence E. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of
Creation. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005.

Gibbs, John G. Creation and Redemption: A Study in Pauline Theology. Supplements to

Novum Testamentum 26. Edited by W. C. van Unnik. Leiden: Brill, 1971.

Gieniusz, Andrzej. Romans 8:18–30 “Suffering Does Not Thwart the Future Glory”.
University of South Florida: International Studies in Formative Christianity and
Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999.

Gloer, W. Hulitt. An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Understanding of New

Creation and Reconciliation in 2 Cor. 5:14–21. Mellen Biblical Press Series 42.
Lewiston, ID.: Mellen Biblical Press, 1996.

Gnanakan, Ken. God’s World: A Theology of The Environment. SPCK International

Study Guide 36. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1999.

Gowan, Donald E. Eschatology in the Old Testament. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester:

IVP, 2007.

Hahne, Harry Alan. The Corruption and Redemption of Creation: Nature in Romans
8.19-22 and Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. Library of New Testament Studies
336. Edited by Mark Goodacre. New York: T&T Clark, 2006.

———. “The Whole Creation Has Been Groaning.” In Apocalyptic Vision. Edited by
Robert B. Kruschwitz, 19–28. Waco: The Center for Christian Ethics, 2010.

Hasel, Gerhard F. The Remnant: the History and Theology of the Remnant Idea from
Genesis to Isaiah. Berrien Springs, MI.: Andrews University Press, 1974.

Horner, Barry E. Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged. Edited
by Ray Clendenen. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007.

Jervis, L. Ann. The Purpose of Romans: A Comparative Letter Structure Investigation.

Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 55. Edited by
David E. Orton. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.

Johnson, E. Elizabeth. The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9–

11. Dissertation series. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1989.

Knox, John. Life in Christ Jesus: Reflections on Romans 5-8. Greenwich, CT.: The
Seabury Press, 1961.
 166

Liddon, H. P. Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis:

James and Klock Christian, 1977.

Lloyd-Jones, David Martyn. The Final Perseverance of the Saints: Exposition of Chapter
8:17-39. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1975.

Lodge, John G. Romans 9–11: A Reader-Response Analysis. University of South Florida:

International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1996.

Manson, T.W. “St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans—and Others.” In Studies in The Gospels
and Epistles, edited by Matthew Black, 225–41. Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1962

McCarthy, Dennis J. “‘Creation’ Motifs in Ancient Hebrew Poetry.” In Creation in the

Old Testament, edited by Bernhard W. Anderson, 74–101. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1984.

Miller, Patrick D. “The Poetry of Creation: Psalm 104.” In The Way of the Lord. Essays
in Old Testament Theology, 178–92. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2007.

Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation: An Ecological Doctrine of Creation. London: SCM,

1985.

———. “Cosmos and Theosis: Eschatological Perspectives on the Future of the

Universe.” In The Far Future Universe: Eschatology from a Cosmic Perspective,
edited by George F. R. Ellis, 249–65. Radnor: Templeton Foundation Press, 2002.

Montefiore, C. G., and H. M. J. Loewe, . A Rabbinic Anthology. Cambridge Library

Collection. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Morris, Simon Conway. “Does Biology Have an Eschatology, and If So does It Have
Cosmological Implications?” In The Future of the Universe: Chance Chaos Or
God?, edited by Arnold Benz, 158–74. London: Continuum, 2000.

O’Donovan, Oliver. Resurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics.
Leicester, England: Eerdmans Publishing, 1986.

Osten Sacken, Peter von der. Römer 8 als Beispiel Paulinischer Soteriologie.
Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975.

Paas, Stefan. Creation and Judgment: Creation Texts in Some Eight Century Prophets.
Oudtestamentische Studiën 47. Edited by Johannes C. Moor. Boston, MA.: Brill,
2003.
 167

Panjikaran, J.G. Paul’s Concept of Mission: An Exegetical and Theological Study of

Romans 10:8–17. Delhi: ISPCK, 2009.

Perrin, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism? Edited by Dan O. Via. Eugene, OR: Wipf
and Stock Publishers, 1969.

Piper, John. The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright. Wheaton, IL:
Crossway Books, 2007.

Prenter, Regin. Creation and Redemption. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1967.

Russell, David M. The “New Heavens and New Earth,” Hope for the Creation in Jewish
Apocalyptic and the New Testament. Studies in Biblical Apocalyptic Literature 1.
Philadelphia: Visionary Press, 1996.

Russell, David S. The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic, 200 B.C.-A.D. 100.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964.

Santmire, H. Paul. The Travail of Nature: The Ambiguous Ecological Promise of

Christian Theology. Theology and the Sciences. Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1985.

Schaeffer, Francis A. Pollution and the Death of Man. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books,
1970.

Scroggie, W. Graham. The Unfolding Drama of Redemption. The Bible as a Whole.

Three Volumes Complete and Unabridged in One. Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing, 1970.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. “Jesus.” In Love, by Gottfried Quell and Ethelbert Stauffer, edited by
John Rider Coates, translated by John Rider Coates, 45–53. London: Adam and
Charles Black, 1949.

Stendahl, Krister. Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, and Other Essays. Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1976.

Stott, John R. W. Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8. Downers Grove, IL.:
InterVarsity Press, 1966.

Stuhlmueller, Carroll . Creative Redemption in Deutero-Isaiah. Rome: Pontifical Biblical

Institute, 1970.

Tannehill, Robert C. Dying and Rising With Christ: A Study in Pauline Theology.
Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 32. Berlin: Alfred
Topelmann, 1967.
 168

Tobin, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Context: The Argument of Romans. Peabody,
MA.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2004.

Vangemeren, Willem. The Progress of Redemption. The Story of Salvation from Creation
to the New Jerusalem. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1988.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. The Student Library. Phillipsburg, NJ.: P&R
Publishing, 1994.

Watson, Duane F. “The Three Species of Rhetoric and the Study of the Pauline Epistles.”
In Paul and Rhetoric, edited by J. Paul Sampley and Peter Lampe, 25–47. New
York: T&T Clark, 2010.

Westermann, Claus. Creation. Translated by John J. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

Wilkinson, David. Christian Eschatology and the Physical Universe. New York: T&T
Clark International, 2010.

Wise, David S. “A Review of Environmental Stewardship Literature and the New

Testament.” In The Environment & The Christian: What Can We learn from the
New Testament?, 117–34. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1991.

Wolters, Albert M. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview.

Second edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2005.

Wright, N. T. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

———. The New Testament and the People of God. Vol 1. Christian Origins and the
Question of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

———. Pauline Perspectives: Essays on Paul, 1978–2013. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

2013.

Zerwick, Maximilian. Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples. English Edition Adapted

from The Fourth Latin Edition by Joseph Smith. Third reprint. Rome: Scripta
Pontificii Instituti Biblici, 1987.

Periodicals

Barclay, J. M. G. “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case.” Journal

For The Study Of The New Testament 31 (1987): 73–93.
 169

Beauchamp, Lance T. “The Old and New Man in Ephesians 4:17–24.” Faith and Mission
24, no. 3 (Summer 2007): 30–42.

Beker, Johan Christiaan. “Vision of Hope for a Suffering World: Romans 8:17-30.” The
Princeton Seminary Bulletin 3 (1994): 26–32.

Bertram, Georg. “Άποκαραδοκία.” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 49, no. 1 (1958): 264–70.

Betz, Hans Dieter. “On the Problem of the Religio-Historical Understanding of

Apocalypticism.” Journal of Theology and Church 6 (1969): 134–56.

Black, C. Clifton. “Pauline Perspectives on Death in Romans 5–8.” Journal of Biblical

Literature 103, no. 3 (September 1984): 413–33.

Bridger, Francis. “Ecology and Eschatology: A Neglected Dimension.” Tyndale Bulletin

41, no. 2 (1990): 290-301.

Collins, John Joseph. “Introduction: Towards the Morphology of a Genre.” Semeia 14

(1979): 1–19.

Dantine, W. “Creation and Redemption: Attempt at a Theological Interpretation in Light

of the Contemporary Understanding of the World.” Scottish Journal of Theology
XVIII, no. 2 (June 1965): 129–47.

Evdokimov, Paul. “Nature.” Scottish Journal of Theology 18, no. 1 (March 1965): 1–22.

Fox, Michael V. “The meaning of Hebel for Qohelet.” Journal of Biblical Literature 105,
no. 3 (September 1986): 409–27.

Gager, John J. “Functional Diversity in the Use of Paul’s End Time Language.” Journal
of Biblical Literature 89, no. 3 (1970): 325–37.

Gempf, Conrad. “The Imagery of Birth Pangs in The New Testament.” Tyndale Bulletin
45, no. 1 (1994): 119–35.

Gentry, Kenneth. “The New Creation.” Tabletalk 28, no. 3 (March 2004): 8–11.

Gianoulis, George C. “Is Sonship in Romans 8:14-17 a Link with Romans 9?”
Bibliotheca Sacra 166, no. 661 (January 2009): 70–83.

Hessel-Robinson, Timothy. “Nurturing Hope in the Face of Ecotastrophe: Advent,

Eschatology, and the Future of Creation.” Liturgical Ministry 19, no. 1
(December 2010): 9–20.
 170

Howell, Don N. “Pauline Eschatological Dualism and Its Resulting Tensions.” Trinity
Journal 14, no. 1 (1993): 4–24.

Kaiser, Walter C. “The Davidic Promise And The Inclusion Of The Gentiles (Amos 9:9-
15 And Acts 15:13-18): A Test Passage For Theological Systems.” Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 20, no. 2 (June 1977): 98–113.

Käsemann, Ernst. “On the Topic of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic.” Journal of

Theology and Church 6 (1969): 99–133.

Lampe, G W H. “The New Testament Doctrine of Ktisis.” Scottish Journal of Theology

17, no. 4 (December 1964): 449–62.

Mare, W. Harold. “Guiding Principles for Historical Grammatical Exegesis.” Grace

Journal 14, no. 3 (Fall 1973): 14–23.

Mathison, Keith A. “Paradise Restored.” Tabletalk 28, no. 3 (March 2004): 2.

Montefiore, C. G. “Retribution: Hebrew and Greek Ideas of Providence and Divine

Retribution.” Edited by I Abrahams and C. G. Montefiore. The Jewish Quarterly
Review 5 (July 1893): 517–90

Moo, Douglas J. “Creation and New Creatiom.” Bulletin For Biblical Research 20, no. 1
(January 2010): 39–60.

Moo, Douglas J. “Nature In The New Creation: New Testament Eschatology And The
Environment.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 3
(September 2006): 450–88.

Morgenstern, Julian. “The Rest of The Nations.” Journal of Semitic Studies 2, no. 3 (July
1957): 225-31.

Myers, Charles Davison. “Chiastic inversion in the argument of Romans 3-8.” Novum
Testamentum 35, no. 1 (January 1993): 30-47.

Ollenburger, Ben C. “Isaiah’s creation theology.” Ex Auditu 3 (January 1987): 54–71.

Ouro, Roberto. “The Garden of Eden Account: The Chiastic Structure of Genesis 2–3.”
Andrews University Seminary Studies 40, no. 2 (2002): 219–43.

Page, Sydney H. T. “Revelation 20 And Pauline Eschatology.” Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 23, no. 1 (March 1980): 30–43.

Pannenberg, Wolfhart. “Theology and Science.” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 13 (1992):

299–310.
 171

Piper, Otto A. “The Saviour’s Eternal Work. An Exegesis of Colossians 1:9–29.”

Interpretation 3, no. 3 (July 1949): 286-298.

Poythress, Vern. “The Reversal of the Curse.” Tabletalk 28, no. 3 (March 2004): 12–15.

Pratt, Jonathan R. “The Relationship Between Justification and Spiritual Fruit in Romans
5–8.” Themelios 34, no. 2 (July 2009): 162–78.

Sproul, R. C. “I Believe in the Life Everlasting.” Tabletalk 28, no. 3 (March 2004): 4–7.

Stacey, David. “Paul’s Certanties II. God’s Purpose in Creation – Romans viii. 22–23.”
The Expository Times 69, no. 6 (March 1958): 178–81.

Surburg, Mark P. “Good Stuff! The Material Creation and the Christian Faith.”
Concordia Journal 36, no. 3 (June 2010): 245-62.

Talbert, Charles H. “Tracing Paul’s train of thought in Romans 6-8.” Review & Expositor
100, no. 1 (2003): 53-63.

Timmer, John. “The Bible and the City: from Eden to the New Jerusalem.” Reformed
Journal 23, no. 8 (October 1973): 21–25.

TSumura, D. T. “An Old Testament Background to Romans 8:22.” New Testament

Studies 40, no. 4 (1994): 620–21.

Walters, Al. “Worldview and Textual Criticism in 2 Peter 3:10.” Westminster

Theological Journal 49, no. 2 (Fall 1987): 405–13.

Ware, James P. “Paul’s Hope and Ours: Recovering Paul’s Hope of the Renewed
Creation.” Concordia Journal 35, no. 2 (March 2009): 129–39.

Williams, Jarvis. “Violent Atonement in Romans: The Foundation of Paul’s

Soteriology.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53, no. 3
(September 2010): 579–96.

Williams, Michael D. “Man and Beast.” Presbyterion 34, no. 1 (2008): 12–26.

Wuellner, Wilhelm H. “Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to

The Donfried-Karris Debate over Romans.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38, no. 3
(1976): 330-51.

Unpublished and Other Sources

Nelson, Joseph Lee. “The Groanings of Creation: An Exegetical Study of Romans 8:18–
27.” ThD diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1969.
 172

Vlach, Michael J. Platonism’s Influence on Christian Eschatology.

http://theologicalstudies.org/files/resources/Platonism_and_Eschatology_article_(
PDF).pdf (accessed March 13, 2014).