No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Extract
We must first set this verse in its context. Paul has given in chapters 5, 6 and 7 of the Epistle to the Romans three definitions of that life which, according to 1.17, is promised for the man who is righteous by faith. In chapter 8 he goes on to define it further and finally as life in the Spirit, that is, life in obedience to God's law established in its true character by God's gift to us of His Spirit. The basic statement of this definition is contained in verses 1–11. In verses 12–16 the meaning of obedience is clarified. Its substance is summed up in verse 15. Obedience to God's law is to call God ‘Father’ in all seriousness and sincerity, in gratitude and joy. This, as Barth has pointed out, is in principle the whole of our obedience; for it naturally involves seeking wholeheartedly to please Him in thought, word and deed, and to avoid displeasing Him. Verse 17 by its movement of thought from sonship to heirship effects the transition to the subject of Christian hope, with which verses 17–27 are concerned. Life in the Spirit, life under God's law as established by His Spirit, life in obedience to God, is life characterised by hope. The content of the hope is indicated by verses 18, 19 and 21, its present painful context by verse 20.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1966
References
page 204 note 1 Cf. Barth, Karl, A Shorter Commentary on Romans (London, 1959), pp. 88f.Google Scholar
page 204 note 2 op. cit., p. 95f.
page 205 note 1 Cf. Michel, O., Der Brief an die Römer (Göttingen, 2nd ed., 1957), p. 180.Google Scholar
page 205 note 2 The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, translated by Mackenzie, R. (Edinburgh, 1961), p. 179.Google Scholar
page 206 note 1 Cf. Michel, op. cit., p. 181.
page 206 note 2 J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca (cited below as P.G.) XIV, cols. 1121–2. The Greek fragments of his commentary (given in J.T.S. XIII-XIV) do not include his comments on this verse.
page 206 note 3 Knox, W. L., St. Paul and the Church of the Gentiles (Cambridge, 2nd ed., 1961), p. 105, n. 2Google Scholar, has suggested a further possibility—that the Chester Beatty Papyrus variant 
for 
might point to an original 
= ‘the Universe co-operates’; but it seems more likely that this variant is simply a slip.
page 207 note 1 LX, p. 110f.
page 207 note 2 Neotestamentica et Patristica (Leiden, 1962), pp. 16gff. On p. 171 he quotes Test. Gad 4.7 as support for interpretation (vi); but, while the quotation is interesting for the two occurrences of 
, it is difficult to see how it supports this interpretation, since neither 
nor 
denotes the Holy Spirit. Bruce, F. F., The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1963), p. 176Google Scholar, also regards the N.E.B. translation as ‘attractive’.
page 208 note 1 On the subject of conjectural emendation in the New Testament Metzger, B. M., The Text of the New Testament: its transmission, corruption and restoration (Oxford, 1964), pp. 182–185Google Scholar, should be consulted.
page 208 note 2 op. cit., p. 168.
page 209 note 1 Cf. Xcnophon, Mem. III.5.6; Polybius XI.9.1; Plutarch, Moralia 769D; Heliodorus IX. 11.
page 209 note 2 Though (Bauer,) Arndt and Gingrich do quote a close parallel from the 2nd/3rd century A.D. writer Alexander Aphrodisiensis (de fato 31) for 
(understood as accusative of respect) 
.
page 209 note 3 In Rom. 3.19 the subject (
) is placed in the relative clause; in 2 Cor. 5.1 the subject is indicated by the first person plural verb. In every other case the subject is expressed.
page 209 note 4 xxv. 3, Robinson, J. A., The Philocalia of Origen (Cambridge, 1893), p. 229.Google Scholar
page 209 note 5 The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh, 5th ed., 1902), p. 215.Google Scholar
page 210 note 1 P.G. LX, col. 541. His Greek is: 
.
page 210 note 2 P.C. LXXXII, col. 140. Pace the Latin translation given in Migne, which three times renders Theodoret's 
by the singular cooperatur, the original Greek does not, as far as I can see, give any clear indication that he understands God to be the subject of Paul's sentence.
page 210 note 3 P.G. CXVIII. col. 488.
page 210 note 4 P.G. CXXIV. col. 452.
page 210 note 5 It is interesting to compare the way in which Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on Romans (Opera VI (Venice, 1725), p. 103f), though he is expounding the Latin in which it is inescapably clear that the subject of the verb is ‘all things’, speaks of the Holy Spirit helping us, and then of God turning all things to good for those who love Him.
page 210 note 6 The Epistle to the Romans (London, 1932), pp. 137–139.Google Scholar
page 211 note 1 op. cit., p. 104.
page 211 note 2 Cf. Liddell & Scott, and (Bauer,) Arndt and Gingrich, s.v.; and also Chrysoslom's use of 
as a synonym in the sentence from his commentary quoted above.
page 212 note 1 Calvin, op. cit., p. 179.
page 213 note 1 op. cit., p. 180.
page 214 note 1 P.G. XIV, col. 1126.
page 214 note 2 P.G. LX, col. 541.
page 214 note 3 P.G. LXXXII, col. 141.
page 214 note 4 P.G. CXVIII, col. 489.
page 214 note 5 J.-P. Migne, Patrologia Latino XXXV, col. 2076. He says: ‘Propositum autem Dei accipiendum est, non ipsorum.’
page 214 note 6 He says: ‘ … nec praedestinavit aliquem, nisi quem praescivit crediturum et secuturum vocationem suam. …’
page 214 note 7 Expositio in Romanos on 8.29 (Souter, A., Pelagius's Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul II (Cambridge, 1926), p. 68)Google Scholar: ‘… quos praescierat credituros ….’