Original Meaning
Anticipation of Future Glory (8:19–25)
AS IN CHAPTER 5 (see 5:3–4), Paul does not try to hide the fact that believers suffer. Indeed, he highlights it. As people who identify with one who came to overturn the values of this world, Christians will inevitably share in the rejection and trials Christ himself experienced. Committed Christian living will always rub the world the wrong way at some point, and friction is inevitable.
But those sufferings aren’t worth comparing to the glory that will be “revealed in us” (v. 18). This last phrase is hard to translate. The preposition Paul uses (eis) means neither “in” nor “to” (e.g., NRSV) exactly. What Paul is implying is that the glory he speaks of already exists; as Peter puts it, our final salvation is “kept in heaven … ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Peter 1:4–5). So what now exists will one day be given “to” us so that it can come to reside “in” us, transforming us into Christ’s own image (see Rom. 8:29).
In verses 19–21, Paul accentuates the importance of this revelation of glory by tying the liberation of the whole of creation to it. Interpreters debate just what this “creation” (ktisis) might refer to. Because he speaks so personally (e.g., in v. 22, it groans), many think he is referring only to human beings, or perhaps to unbelievers. Paul can use the word to refer to human “creatures” (Gal. 6:15; Col. 1:23), but he usually applies it to God’s entire creation (Rom. 1:20, 25; 8:39; 2 Cor. 5:17; Col. 1:15). The key to its meaning here is the fact that Paul insists that the frustration “creation” is experiencing is not its own fault. We must, therefore, exclude all human beings, since they all had a part in the Fall. With most modern commentators, we conclude that Paul refers to all of subhuman creation: plants, animals, rocks, and so on.1
Following the lead of the psalmists, Paul personifies the created world, using vivid poetic language to speak of its “frustration” (v. 20) and its eventual “liberation” (v. 21). The entire created world has failed to attain its purpose. Because of human sin, it is not what God intended it to be. “The one who subjected it,” then, might be Adam, Satan, or God.2 But only God truly “subjected” creation—in his decree after the Fall—and only God did it “in hope that the entire creation itself will be liberated.” God will one day set the created world free from the decay that mars everything after the fall of human beings into sin. The fate of creation is bound up with that of humanity. As it was through them that creation was marred, so it is through the glorified children of God that it will be restored again.
Creation, then, groans “as in the pains of childbirth.” The pain a woman about to deliver a child experiences is a vivid metaphor of suffering that has a joyous outcome. Biblical writers use this imagery to put a Christian “spin” on the difficulties of this life (see Matt. 24:8; Mark 13:8; John 16:20–22). From a Christian perspective, suffering is but a momentary thing that eventuates in eternal joy (see Rom. 8:18). Thus, Christians join creation in this kind of groaning (8:23).
Many interpreters take the phrase “who have the firstfruits of the Spirit” concessively: We groan despite the fact that we have the Spirit.3 But it makes better sense to give it a causal interpretation: We groan because we have the Spirit.4 Once the Spirit, with his demand for holiness, enters our lives, we sense as never before just what God wants us to be. As a result, the Spirit increases our frustration at not meeting God’s standard and our yearning to be what he wants us to be. What do we wait for? “The redemption of the body” refers to the rescue of the body from sin and death that will happen when it is raised from the dead (see 8:10–11).
But how can Paul suggest that we yearn also for “our adoption as sons”? Has he not said that we have already been adopted (8:16)? Here we find a classic New Testament example of the “already-not yet” tension that pervades its teaching about the Christian life. Yes, we are God’s children already—justified, reconciled, and brought into his family. But we are not yet God’s children in the way we one day will be—possessing the full inheritance, enjoying perfect holiness in resurrected bodies, and glorified.
In light of this tension, therefore, it becomes clear that “hope” is an inevitable part of Christian living. We were “saved” in this hope; that is, hope has been a part of our salvation since the time of our conversion. The very nature of hope means that we await something we cannot now see. God has promised us glory, a glory already existing in heaven for us. But we cannot see it, hear it, or taste it; we must simply hope.
Nevertheless, Paul assures us, this hope is not of the normal human kind—“I hope I win the lottery.” No, Christian hope is solidly founded in God himself. Thus, we can “wait for it patiently [hypomones]” or, perhaps better, “with endurance.” This word suggests the ability to bear up under the trials that come our way (cf. Rom. 5:3–4; Heb. 10:36; 12:1; James 1:3–4; 5:11). “Wait for,” the same word Paul used of creation in Romans 8:19, connotes a person craning his or her neck to spot someone or something coming. In the next few verses (8:26–30), Paul will explain why believers can look so eagerly and hopefully for what is coming.
Bridging Contexts
FOLLOWING THE ARGUMENT. One of the biggest mistakes we can make in reading the Bible is to read paragraphs in isolation from one another. Certain devotional books, by selecting daily readings from all over the Bible, unfortunately encourage this practice. But the biblical authors meant their books to be read as books. Reading a paragraph chosen at random from the middle of, say, 2 Kings is something like reading a paragraph in isolation from the middle of the latest John Grisham novel. To be sure, the various biblical genres are not really comparable to a modern novel, and some of the genres require far less sequential reading than others (e.g., the Psalms). But the point is still valid. We can get the full meaning from any text of Scripture only as we appreciate the way the author intended it to function in the context of his whole book.
The principle of contextual reading is particularly important in Romans. For in this letter Paul is mounting an argument. He is trying to convince the Roman Christians of the power and truth of the gospel as he preaches it. Once we understand the overall argument, we will have a much better appreciation for the meaning of its particular parts. Conversely, relating the parts accurately to one another will help us determine the overall argument.
Modern Western readers miss the nuances of Paul’s argument because we are used to reading in a linear fashion. That is, we are trained by our culture to assume an author will develop his argument in a straightforward sequence:
Consider A
and consider B
and C
and thus, the conclusion, D
But the culture of the biblical writers was much more accustomed to cyclical styles of argument. Especially common was what is called the “chiastic” form of argument:
Consider A
thus B
B′ again
Because of A′
In this particular example, the conclusion the author is driving at comes in the middle of his argument. But it can also work the other way, with the main point appearing at the opposite ends of the sequence. We have suggested in our exposition of both 5:1–11 and 8:18–39 that these two paragraphs function as the “bookends” to Paul’s argument in chapters 5–8. A comparison of vocabulary in these two sections provides further support for the relationship:
| 5:1–11 | (5:12–8:17) | 8:18–39 |
love (of God/Christ) | 5:5, 8 | – | 8:35, 39 |
justify | 5:1, 9 | 6:7 | 8:30 [2x], 33 |
peace | 5:1 | 8:6 | – |
glory | 5:2 | 6:4 | 8:18, 21, 30 (glorify) |
hope | 5:2, 4, 5 | – | 8:20, 24 [4x], 25 |
tribulation/suffering | 5:3 [2x] | – | 8:18, 35 |
save | 5:9, 10 | – | 8:24 |
endurance/perseverance | 5:3, 4 | – | 8:25 |
One can, of course, prove anything by means of selective statistics. But the words above are the key words in both paragraphs. While emphases differ, Paul makes the same basic point in each section: The justified believer can be confident that he or she will experience final salvation because of God’s love for him or her, the work of Christ, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Recognizing the relation between these sections has three important consequences for our reading of this part of Romans. (1) It reinforces our belief that chapters 5–8 form an integral section within Romans. Without breaking these chapters off from their surroundings and recognizing that we need to appreciate the continuity between chapters 4 and 5 on the one hand and chapters 8 and 9 on the other, we must nevertheless understand these chapters in special relationship to each other.
(2) This will lead to a more accurate interpretation of the argument as a whole. Scholars have argued for centuries over the exact contribution of these chapters to Paul’s argument in Romans. Once we recognize the inclusio that frames these chapters, we can conclude with some confidence that their overall purpose is to convince justified believers that they have assurance for the last judgment.
(3) Having isolated the main point, we can then understand better the contribution of each individual section. As we have seen, we will be less inclined to think that 5:12–21 is about original sin when we recognize its connection to 5:1–11 and the unfolding defense of Christian assurance.
Creation and restoration. Paul’s interesting allusions to the subhuman creation in 8:19–22 have sparked considerable interest. Nowhere else in the New Testament do we have a text quite like this, dealing with the fall and the restoration not just of human beings, but of the world in general. As a first step toward the goal of applying this passage, we will consider here some of the teaching in Paul’s day that may have influenced him.
Particularly important were certain Jewish apocalyptic traditions. Apocalyptic is the term applied to a broad movement within the Jewish world of Paul’s day. Having its origins in the crises that the Jewish people experienced in the two centuries before Christ, the apocalyptic movement found comfort for God’s suffering people in the ultimate realities of the spiritual realm. On earth, God’s people were having a difficult time. But from heaven’s perspective, a plan of God was unfolding that would inevitably bring redemption to those loyal to God. The term apocalyptic comes from the Greek word meaning “revelation” (apokalypsis), and writers in the apocalyptic movement insisted that they possessed a revelation of just what God was up to in history. While it differs in some important respects from Jewish apocalypses, the book of Revelation is an example of a New Testament apocalyptic book.
What does all this have to do with Romans 8? In trying to make sense of the world, apocalyptic writers often sharply contrasted the new world of God’s redemptive work with the old world of sin and death. God’s vindication of his saints would not take place gradually through the processes of history, but would happen suddenly in a spectacular display of God’s power. So sharp was the move from this world to the next that the redemptive work of God was often pictured as a new creation that would affect the entire universe. As a reflex of this development, attention was also directed to the way human sin affected the cosmos. Note the following sample of texts:
For I made the world for their sake, and when Adam transgressed my statutes, what had been made was judged. (4 Ezra 7:11)
In those days, mountains shall dance like rams; and the hills shall leap like kids satiated with milk. And the faces of all the angels in heaven shall glow with joy, because on that day the Elect One has arisen. And the earth shall rejoice; and the righteous ones shall dwell upon her and the elect ones shall walk upon her. (1 Enoch 51:4–5)
That which will happen at that time bears upon the whole earth. Therefore, all who live will notice it…. The earth will also yield fruits ten thousandfold. And on one vine will be a thousand branches, and one branch will produce a thousand clusters, and one cluster will produce a thousand grapes, and one grape will produce a cor of wine. And those who are hungry will enjoy themselves and they will, moreover, see marvels every day. For winds will go out in front of me every morning to bring the fragrance of aromatic fruits and clouds at the end of the day to distill the dew of health. And it will happen at that time that the treasury of manna will come down again from on high, and they will eat of it in those years because these are they who will have arrived at the consummation of time. (2 Apocalypse of Baruch 29:1–2, 5–8)
We should not, therefore, be so sad regarding the evil which has come now, but much more (distressed) regarding that which is in the future. For greater than the two evils will be the trial when the Mighty One will renew his creation. (2 Apocalypse of Baruch 32:5–6)
One can easily see the similarities between the tradition reflected in these texts and Romans 8:19–22. Scholars generally agree that Paul was influenced by this apocalyptic movement in his understanding of and presentation of God’s work in Christ.
But we should not neglect a potentially more significant source for Paul’s idea of the fall and restoration of creation, namely, the latter chapters of Isaiah. No Old Testament passage had a greater influence on Paul’s theology. These chapters present the coming salvation of God as an event involving the entire universe. See, for instance, Isaiah 65:17–21, where the Lord promises:
“Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the works of their hands.
They will not toil in vain
or bear children doomed to misfortune;
for they will be a people blessed by the LORD,
they and their descendants with them.
Before they call I will answer;
while they are still speaking I will hear.
The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD.
The apocalyptic tradition itself builds on these new creation motifs from Isaiah. Thus, as is usually the case in the history of ideas, we find a trajectory of teaching on this matter beginning in the Old Testament and extending to Paul. Just what part of that tradition Paul himself draws on is difficult to say, and perhaps he himself would not have known his exact sources. The concept of a renewal of the world was “in the air” of Paul’s Jewish worldview.
Contemporary Significance
CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. Concern for the health and future of the world of nature is one of the most powerful forces in our culture. In twenty years, the environmental movement has moved from the fringe to the mainstream of contemporary life. It affects our lives in countless ways, influencing everything from the way we take out our garbage to the way we vote. Yet evangelical Christians in general have been slow to reckon with the movement, and what little many evangelicals know about the movement tends to be negative. Many believers, I find, view the environmental movement with suspicion, if not downright hostility.
I would argue, however, that passages such as Romans 8:19–22 should lead believers to be environmentalists. These verses make clear that God intends to liberate, or redeem, the created world along with his own children. Creation now is not what God intended it to be; it has been “subjected to frustration” (v. 20). But God will free the created world from this bondage one day, bringing it into the glorious freedom of his own children (v. 21). To be sure, human beings continue even in this passage to be the focus of God’s plan. But Paul reveals that God is also concerned about the entire world he has made. Simply understood, this leads to environmentalism, that is, concern for the environment in which we live.
Of course, everything depends on what we mean by environmentalism. Reason for Christian hostility is easy to understand if we brand environmentalism by some of its more extreme advocates. Indeed, an anti-Christian bias is evident in some early environmental thinking. Some theorists in the movement argued that the Christian worldview enshrined an anthropocentric view of the universe that justified unconcern for and, indeed, the exploitation of, the natural world.14 In its place, some environmentalists advocate a biocentric view that values all life equally. Edward Abbey, the most famous of the “eco-warriors,” signaled the logical extreme of such thinking when he said that he would rather kill a man than a snake. Believers who read such statements and hear about the worship of “Mother Earth” in pagan and New Age religions naturally conclude that Christianity and environmentalism are incompatible.
But such a conclusion is short-sighted and unfortunate. Properly understood, concern for the environment is a natural product of the Christian worldview, as some scholars have been pointing out for many years.15 God created the world, pronounced it good, and entrusted its care to human beings. True, God gave human beings the right to use its resources for our good. But in making us “rulers” (Gen. 1:26) of the created world, he does not give us the right to do anything we want with it. Rather, we are appointed as stewards of creation. We are to manage it not only for ourselves but for itself, for, as passages like Romans 8:19–21 make clear, it has value in itself, apart from what human beings may gain from it.
Indeed, I find that some Christian reaction against environmentalism is profoundly un-Christian, compounded of equal mixtures of selfishness and materialism. Catering to our pleasure and maintaining our present, often luxurious standard of living become more important than tending the world God has made and ensuring that its wonderful resources will be available for generations yet to come. Believers will naturally continue to debate what actions may be needed in order to fulfill the stewardship mandate God has given us. But we owe it to that mandate to become informed, from the best and most neutral sources we can find, about what the problems really are, and to be willing to make sacrifices to maintain the world he has entrusted to us.16
All things work toward the good. Christians in every generation have found inestimable comfort in the wonderful promise of Romans 8:28, and rightly so. This is surely one of the greatest promises of God to his people anywhere in the Bible. But it is also one of the most misunderstood. To appreciate what God promises here, we must first clear away two misconceptions about the meaning of the verse.
(1) As we briefly noted in the Original Meaning section, this verse may not be promising that all things will work together for good. I have heard the verse preached with just this point as the central emphasis. God, so the preacher argued, does not promise to bring good to us in every situation. Rather, as a cook combines ingredients to make a tasty dish of food, so God mixes together the circumstances of life in such a way as ultimately to bring good to us.
There are two reasons for hesitating to embrace this “mixing” idea. (a) The verb used here (synergeo) may not mean “work together.” To be sure, in its three other New Testament occurrences, it does seem to have this meaning (see 1 Cor. 16:16; 2 Cor. 6:1; James 2:22). But the verb often lost the “with” idea in the period when Paul was writing.17 Unlike the other places where the verb occurs in the New Testament, the context here does not readily supply an object for the “with” idea. (b) Even if we do translate “work together,” it is by no means clear that “all things” are working with each other. It is equally plausible that Paul means that all things work together with the Spirit, with God, or with believers to produce good.18 On the whole, then, an application of 8:28 that focuses on the “with” idea is built on an uncertain foundation.
(2) A second common misunderstanding of this promise is more serious. Most of us have probably heard someone (perhaps ourselves!) applying Romans 8:28 something like this: “Yes, you may have lost your job, but you can be sure of getting an even better one; because ‘all things are working for good.’ ” Or, “Don’t be upset about your fiancé breaking off your engagement, because God must have an even better life partner for you; Romans 8:28 promises….” The difficulty with this application is that it interprets “good” from a narrow and often materialistic perspective. From God’s perspective, “good” must be defined in spiritual terms. The ultimate good is God’s glory, and he is glorified when his children live as Christ did (v. 29) and attain the glory he has destined them for (v. 30; cf. vv. 31–39).
As we have seen in 5:3–4, God uses suffering to build Christian character in us, conform us to Christ, and prepare us for final glory. What he promises us in 8:28, then, is not that every difficult experience will lead to something good in this life. The “good” God may have in mind may involve the next life entirely. He may take us out of a secure, well-paying job in order to shake us out of a materialistic lifestyle that does not honor biblical priorities, and we may never have as good a job again. He may want to set us free from an engagement to be married because he wants to use us in a ministry that would be difficult or impossible for a married person. Remember that it is by sharing in Christ’s sufferings that we eventually will be able to share in his glory as well (8:17).
This is not to say that material blessings cannot be included in the “good” of Romans 8:28. As the Old Testament especially makes clear, God delights to give his people good things in this life as well as in the next. In an effort to avoid a materialistic interpretation of 8:28, we must not succumb to the opposite extreme of denying God’s interest in the material world. This would be to fall into a dualism far removed from the biblical perspective of a God who is both Creator of this world and Redeemer. Rather, the point I am making is that we tend to apply the promise of this verse in a purely materialistic way. This clearly fails to take into account the spiritual realm that is ultimately more important than the material.
We have suggested a couple of things that Romans 8:28 does not mean. But I do not want to leave this magnificent promise on a negative note. So let me conclude by reflecting again on what it does mean. Essentially, it promises that nothing will touch our lives that is not under the control and direction of our loving heavenly Father. Everything we do and say, everything people do to us or say about us, every experience we will ever have—all are sovereignly used by God for our good. We will not always understand how the things we experience work to good, and we certainly will not always enjoy them. But we do know that nothing comes into our lives that God does not allow and use for his own beneficent purposes. Paul’s overarching purpose in Romans 5–8 is to give us assurance for the life to come. But verses like 8:28 show that he also wants to give us assurance for the present life as well. God has ordained not only the ends but the means.
The great plan of God. If, then 8:28 gives assurance for the present life, verses 29–30 focus again on the future. God has a plan, Paul says. That plan begins with his foreknowing us, and then leads to his predestining, calling, justifying, and finally glorifying us. This series has been the focus of a lot of theological debate over the years. We cannot really apply the verses until we understand just what the theology is here.
Calvinist theologians think these verses provide evidence for two characteristic teachings in that view of salvation: that becoming a Christian is ultimately rooted in God’s free choice, and that those whom God chooses and then become his people will always be saved in the last day. We usually call these doctrines, respectively, unconditional election and eternal security. Calvinists insist that the verb “foreknow” means “choose beforehand.” Thus, the whole process by which God brings people into relationship with himself starts with him. He chooses, and because he does so, we believe and thus are justified. They also argue that the series of verbs in verses 29–30 is an unbreakable chain. All whom God chooses and then justifies he will also glorify. There can be no change or variation: Every justified believer will be saved in the end.
One can easily see how Calvinists can use these verses to support their distinctive view of salvation. But how would Arminians respond? First of all, the Arminian theologian insists on viewing these verses in light of the whole picture. Throughout Romans, Paul has proclaimed that believing in Jesus Christ is the way to be saved, and believing is a real choice that human beings must make. Thus, the whole process cannot simply be predetermined.
Arminians also note that the Calvinist interpretation of 8:29–30 rests on three key decisions. (1) First is the decision to interpret “foreknow” in terms of choosing. As we saw above in the Original Meaning section, this verb can also mean “know ahead of time.” What Paul may be saying, then, is that God knows about every person’s decision to believe or not believe ahead of time; and it is those who choose to believe whom he predestines, calls, and justifies. We do not believe because God has chosen us (the Calvinist view); we are chosen because we believe.
(2) Many (though not all) Arminians also contest the decision of Calvinists to interpret verses 28–29 in individual terms. What Paul teaches here, they allege, is that God has chosen the church. It is the body of Christ as a whole that God has elected by his grace, and individuals become members of that elect body through their faith.19
(3) Arminians also question whether it is fair to view the series of verbs in these verses as an unbreakable chain. What Paul describes, they claim, are the decisions God has made on our behalf. He is determined to glorify everyone whom he has justified. But Scripture teaches that believers have the freedom to refuse the gift God offers us, to opt out of the sequence of decisions he has made. A truly justified person may, indeed, fail to attain glory—not because God did not will it (for he did), but because that person chose to reject what God had willed.
The issue we raise here is massive, and we will have to return to it again when we comment on 9:6–29. As my interpretation above has revealed, I come down on the Calvinist side. I think that “foreknow” means “chose beforehand,” that Paul is talking about individual people, and that God’s will to glorify the believer cannot be thwarted—even by us. Naturally, this decision about the meaning of the verses affects my application. The idea that we can be “Calminians,” combining Calvinism and Arminianism in one system, is attractive but irrational. I can logically be a Calvinist in one doctrine and Arminian in another; but I cannot be both with respect to the same doctrine. I cannot both believe my faith is based ultimately on God’s choice and that God’s choice is ultimately based on my faith. Or, at least, I cannot believe it and remain rational. I may as well believe that black is white.
Thus, I want to include in my application of these verses some specific points stemming from my Calvinistic exegesis. For instance, the knowledge that God has chosen me on the basis of his own free will alone should stimulate awe and wonder at what he has done and a deeper sense of thanksgiving for his unmerited gift.
But I would like to leave this great passage on a practical application that both Calvinist and Arminian can agree on: God has done all that is needed to secure our eternal glory. He has already made the decision: “Those whom he justified he glorified.” We may disagree about whether believers can refuse to accept that decision. But from God’s side at least, the matter has already been determined. That means that no genuine believer need ever wonder whether he or she “has what it takes” to get to heaven. None of us does. But that doesn’t matter in the end. God himself has supplied all we need. As we have seen repeatedly in Romans 5–8, Paul is anxious to preserve a balance in which God’s gift to us does not cancel our need to respond to that gift. This passage is about that gift, and that is what we must emphasize in our application.
Original Meaning
God’s Provision for Our Time of Waiting (8:26–30)
THE PHRASE “IN the same way” that connects these verses to their context is often thought to relate to the “groaning” language Paul uses in this passage: creation groans (v. 22), Christians groan (v. 23), and “in the same way,” the Spirit groans.5 But a closer connection is with the immediately preceding verse: As hope sustains us in our time of suffering (vv. 24–25), so also the Spirit sustains us in our time of weakness.6 “Weakness,” then, refers to the limitations of our human condition. Because of these limitations, “we do not know what we ought to pray for.”
Our insight into God’s will is far short of perfect, and so in many situations we are puzzled to know what exactly to pray for. But the Spirit comes to our aid, interceding on our behalf with “groans that words cannot express.” A few interpreters think Paul may be referring to speaking in tongues here.7 But the gift of tongues is given only to some Christians (1 Cor. 12:30). Others suggest Paul is using vivid imagery to refer to the Spirit’s prayer in our hearts to the Lord.8 Still other commentators think Paul refers to the Christian’s own audible but wordless groanings as he or she struggles before the Lord in prayer.9
A decision between these last two alternatives is difficult. “Groaning” has been used metaphorically in the context (v. 22), so the former is certainly possible. Moreover, the word translated “that words that cannot express” in NIV
can mean either “unspoken” (not expressed at all) or “ineffable” (not expressed in words). Whichever it is, Paul’s main point is clear enough: These groanings of the Spirit are perfectly in accord with God’s will (v. 27). Thus God, who knows the heart, hears and answers those prayers. Our inability to pray as precisely as we would like is no hindrance to the working out of God’s perfect will in our lives. We may not know what to ask for in a given situation, but the Spirit does. His requests are in perfect harmony with the will of the Lord for us. As Jesus intercedes for us before the Father (cf. 8:34), guaranteeing our salvation, so the Spirit intercedes for us in our hearts, preparing us for that salvation.
In this time of expectant suffering, the Spirit’s intercession is one great support. Another is the providence of God. “Providence” is the word we use to describe God’s beneficial rule over all the events of life. The famous promise of 8:28 is one of the great biblical descriptions of providence. Translations, affected by a textual variant, differ considerably. Three questions must be answered. (1) What is the subject of “work”? The Spirit (the subject in vv. 26–27; see REB)?10 God (the subject of the last clause of v. 27; see NIV; NASB)?11 Or “all things” (NRSV)?12 The most natural way to read the verse is with “all things” as the subject. In the last analysis, however, the identity of the grammatical subject does not make much difference, for it is only God, through his Spirit, who can cause “all things” to work for our good.
(2) Another question is whether the verb (synergeo) should be translated “works together” (most translations) or simply “works” (NIV). The NIV is probably correct here. So we would translate, “We know that all things work toward the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose.” In this context, the “good” is especially the final glory to which God has destined us. But it also includes the benefits of being a child of God in this life (see Contemporary Significance section).
(3) Finally, for whom is this promise valid? All believers. Paul defines Christians from a human direction (“those who love [God]”) and from the divine direction (“who have been called according to his purpose”). “Those who love God” is simply a way of describing God’s people (see 1 Cor. 2:9; 8:3; Eph. 6:24); it is not a qualification of the promise, as if Paul means that God only works good if believers love God enough.
The “purpose” of God is outlined in 8:29–30. God has instituted a series of actions that create, sustain, and bring his people to glory. The first action is the most controversial. The Greek verb “to foreknow” (proginosko) generally means to know something ahead of time. Some interpreters insist it must therefore mean that here as well. God “knew something” about us ahead of time, and on that basis, he “predestined” us. Usually what God is thought to have known is that a certain person will respond positively to the gospel and believe.13
But the biblical use of “know” and “foreknow” creates a different picture. In Scripture God’s knowing often refers to his entering into relationship with someone. “You only have I known [NIV chosen] of all the families of the earth,” God claims (Amos 3:2). God knows everything about every family on earth, but Israel alone has he entered into relationship with. In four of its six New Testament occurrences, “foreknow” and its cognate noun, “foreknowledge,” has this sense (Acts 2:23; Rom. 11:2; 1 Peter 1:2; 3:17; cf. also Acts 26:5; 2 Peter 3:17). This is probably the meaning the verb has here. Adding to the probability of this interpretation is the fact that the verb has a personal object (“those”).
What Paul is saying, then, is that God’s plan for us began in a decision to enter into relationship with us. This led, in turn, to his decision to “predestine” us. As the English verb suggests, this word (proorizo) simply means to direct a person to a particular goal (the verb also occurs in v. 30; cf. Acts 4:28; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11). Paul spells out the goal: “to be conformed to the likeness of his Son.” The last stage of Christian existence is to be “conformed” to Christ’s own glorious body (see Phil. 3:21). God enters into relationship with us so that we may attain that goal.
Paul’s reference to conformity to Christ as the goal of predestination interrupts his sequence of verbs. In verse 30 he continues the sequence, beginning where he left off, with predestination. “Calling” is not a general gospel invitation. It is God’s effective summoning of us into relationship with himself through Christ (see 1:7). After setting us on the road to the goal of conformity to Christ, God in his grace and by his Spirit reaches out and brings us into his own people. He then “justifies” us, that is, declares us innocent before him (see chs. 1–4).
Finally, as the capstone to this series, he “glorifies” that person. This verb is in the same tense (aorist) as all the other verbs in this sequence, a tense that often (though not always) refers to action in the past. Why Paul uses that tense here for a verb whose action is yet future is not clear. Probably the best explanation is that he is viewing matters from God’s perspective. God has already made the decision to glorify all those whom he has justified.
This sequence of verbs is a famous debating ground over issues of soteriology—election, predestination, eternal security (see Contemporary Significance section). But we must not lose sight of Paul’s main point, namely, to assure believers that God has a plan he is unfolding, one that provides fully for our future glory. He wants us to come away from this text not with theological questions but with a renewed sense of assurance: that the God who began a good work in us will indeed bring it to completion in the day of Christ Jesus (Phil. 1:6).
Bridging Contexts
FOLLOWING THE ARGUMENT. One of the biggest mistakes we can make in reading the Bible is to read paragraphs in isolation from one another. Certain devotional books, by selecting daily readings from all over the Bible, unfortunately encourage this practice. But the biblical authors meant their books to be read as books. Reading a paragraph chosen at random from the middle of, say, 2 Kings is something like reading a paragraph in isolation from the middle of the latest John Grisham novel. To be sure, the various biblical genres are not really comparable to a modern novel, and some of the genres require far less sequential reading than others (e.g., the Psalms). But the point is still valid. We can get the full meaning from any text of Scripture only as we appreciate the way the author intended it to function in the context of his whole book.
The principle of contextual reading is particularly important in Romans. For in this letter Paul is mounting an argument. He is trying to convince the Roman Christians of the power and truth of the gospel as he preaches it. Once we understand the overall argument, we will have a much better appreciation for the meaning of its particular parts. Conversely, relating the parts accurately to one another will help us determine the overall argument.
Modern Western readers miss the nuances of Paul’s argument because we are used to reading in a linear fashion. That is, we are trained by our culture to assume an author will develop his argument in a straightforward sequence:
Consider A
and consider B
and C
and thus, the conclusion, D
But the culture of the biblical writers was much more accustomed to cyclical styles of argument. Especially common was what is called the “chiastic” form of argument:
Consider A
thus B
B′ again
Because of A′
In this particular example, the conclusion the author is driving at comes in the middle of his argument. But it can also work the other way, with the main point appearing at the opposite ends of the sequence. We have suggested in our exposition of both 5:1–11 and 8:18–39 that these two paragraphs function as the “bookends” to Paul’s argument in chapters 5–8. A comparison of vocabulary in these two sections provides further support for the relationship:
| 5:1–11 | (5:12–8:17) | 8:18–39 |
love (of God/Christ) | 5:5, 8 | – | 8:35, 39 |
justify | 5:1, 9 | 6:7 | 8:30 [2x], 33 |
peace | 5:1 | 8:6 | – |
glory | 5:2 | 6:4 | 8:18, 21, 30 (glorify) |
hope | 5:2, 4, 5 | – | 8:20, 24 [4x], 25 |
tribulation/suffering | 5:3 [2x] | – | 8:18, 35 |
save | 5:9, 10 | – | 8:24 |
endurance/perseverance | 5:3, 4 | – | 8:25 |
One can, of course, prove anything by means of selective statistics. But the words above are the key words in both paragraphs. While emphases differ, Paul makes the same basic point in each section: The justified believer can be confident that he or she will experience final salvation because of God’s love for him or her, the work of Christ, and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Recognizing the relation between these sections has three important consequences for our reading of this part of Romans. (1) It reinforces our belief that chapters 5–8 form an integral section within Romans. Without breaking these chapters off from their surroundings and recognizing that we need to appreciate the continuity between chapters 4 and 5 on the one hand and chapters 8 and 9 on the other, we must nevertheless understand these chapters in special relationship to each other.
(2) This will lead to a more accurate interpretation of the argument as a whole. Scholars have argued for centuries over the exact contribution of these chapters to Paul’s argument in Romans. Once we recognize the inclusio that frames these chapters, we can conclude with some confidence that their overall purpose is to convince justified believers that they have assurance for the last judgment.
(3) Having isolated the main point, we can then understand better the contribution of each individual section. As we have seen, we will be less inclined to think that 5:12–21 is about original sin when we recognize its connection to 5:1–11 and the unfolding defense of Christian assurance.
Creation and restoration. Paul’s interesting allusions to the subhuman creation in 8:19–22 have sparked considerable interest. Nowhere else in the New Testament do we have a text quite like this, dealing with the fall and the restoration not just of human beings, but of the world in general. As a first step toward the goal of applying this passage, we will consider here some of the teaching in Paul’s day that may have influenced him.
Particularly important were certain Jewish apocalyptic traditions. Apocalyptic is the term applied to a broad movement within the Jewish world of Paul’s day. Having its origins in the crises that the Jewish people experienced in the two centuries before Christ, the apocalyptic movement found comfort for God’s suffering people in the ultimate realities of the spiritual realm. On earth, God’s people were having a difficult time. But from heaven’s perspective, a plan of God was unfolding that would inevitably bring redemption to those loyal to God. The term apocalyptic comes from the Greek word meaning “revelation” (apokalypsis), and writers in the apocalyptic movement insisted that they possessed a revelation of just what God was up to in history. While it differs in some important respects from Jewish apocalypses, the book of Revelation is an example of a New Testament apocalyptic book.
What does all this have to do with Romans 8? In trying to make sense of the world, apocalyptic writers often sharply contrasted the new world of God’s redemptive work with the old world of sin and death. God’s vindication of his saints would not take place gradually through the processes of history, but would happen suddenly in a spectacular display of God’s power. So sharp was the move from this world to the next that the redemptive work of God was often pictured as a new creation that would affect the entire universe. As a reflex of this development, attention was also directed to the way human sin affected the cosmos. Note the following sample of texts:
For I made the world for their sake, and when Adam transgressed my statutes, what had been made was judged. (4 Ezra 7:11)
In those days, mountains shall dance like rams; and the hills shall leap like kids satiated with milk. And the faces of all the angels in heaven shall glow with joy, because on that day the Elect One has arisen. And the earth shall rejoice; and the righteous ones shall dwell upon her and the elect ones shall walk upon her. (1 Enoch 51:4–5)
That which will happen at that time bears upon the whole earth. Therefore, all who live will notice it…. The earth will also yield fruits ten thousandfold. And on one vine will be a thousand branches, and one branch will produce a thousand clusters, and one cluster will produce a thousand grapes, and one grape will produce a cor of wine. And those who are hungry will enjoy themselves and they will, moreover, see marvels every day. For winds will go out in front of me every morning to bring the fragrance of aromatic fruits and clouds at the end of the day to distill the dew of health. And it will happen at that time that the treasury of manna will come down again from on high, and they will eat of it in those years because these are they who will have arrived at the consummation of time. (2 Apocalypse of Baruch 29:1–2, 5–8)
We should not, therefore, be so sad regarding the evil which has come now, but much more (distressed) regarding that which is in the future. For greater than the two evils will be the trial when the Mighty One will renew his creation. (2 Apocalypse of Baruch 32:5–6)
One can easily see the similarities between the tradition reflected in these texts and Romans 8:19–22. Scholars generally agree that Paul was influenced by this apocalyptic movement in his understanding of and presentation of God’s work in Christ.
But we should not neglect a potentially more significant source for Paul’s idea of the fall and restoration of creation, namely, the latter chapters of Isaiah. No Old Testament passage had a greater influence on Paul’s theology. These chapters present the coming salvation of God as an event involving the entire universe. See, for instance, Isaiah 65:17–21, where the Lord promises:
“Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight
and its people a joy.
I will rejoice over Jerusalem
and take delight in my people;
the sound of weeping and of crying
will be heard in it no more.
Never again will there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not live out his years;
he who dies at a hundred
will be thought a mere youth;
he who fails to reach a hundred
will be considered accursed.
They will build houses and dwell in them;
they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
No longer will they build houses and others live in them,
or plant and others eat.
For as the days of a tree,
so will be the days of my people;
my chosen ones will long enjoy
the works of their hands.
They will not toil in vain
or bear children doomed to misfortune;
for they will be a people blessed by the LORD,
they and their descendants with them.
Before they call I will answer;
while they are still speaking I will hear.
The wolf and the lamb will feed together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox,
but dust will be the serpent’s food.
They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,”
says the LORD.
The apocalyptic tradition itself builds on these new creation motifs from Isaiah. Thus, as is usually the case in the history of ideas, we find a trajectory of teaching on this matter beginning in the Old Testament and extending to Paul. Just what part of that tradition Paul himself draws on is difficult to say, and perhaps he himself would not have known his exact sources. The concept of a renewal of the world was “in the air” of Paul’s Jewish worldview.
Contemporary Significance
CONCERN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. Concern for the health and future of the world of nature is one of the most powerful forces in our culture. In twenty years, the environmental movement has moved from the fringe to the mainstream of contemporary life. It affects our lives in countless ways, influencing everything from the way we take out our garbage to the way we vote. Yet evangelical Christians in general have been slow to reckon with the movement, and what little many evangelicals know about the movement tends to be negative. Many believers, I find, view the environmental movement with suspicion, if not downright hostility.
I would argue, however, that passages such as Romans 8:19–22 should lead believers to be environmentalists. These verses make clear that God intends to liberate, or redeem, the created world along with his own children. Creation now is not what God intended it to be; it has been “subjected to frustration” (v. 20). But God will free the created world from this bondage one day, bringing it into the glorious freedom of his own children (v. 21). To be sure, human beings continue even in this passage to be the focus of God’s plan. But Paul reveals that God is also concerned about the entire world he has made. Simply understood, this leads to environmentalism, that is, concern for the environment in which we live.
Of course, everything depends on what we mean by environmentalism. Reason for Christian hostility is easy to understand if we brand environmentalism by some of its more extreme advocates. Indeed, an anti-Christian bias is evident in some early environmental thinking. Some theorists in the movement argued that the Christian worldview enshrined an anthropocentric view of the universe that justified unconcern for and, indeed, the exploitation of, the natural world.14 In its place, some environmentalists advocate a biocentric view that values all life equally. Edward Abbey, the most famous of the “eco-warriors,” signaled the logical extreme of such thinking when he said that he would rather kill a man than a snake. Believers who read such statements and hear about the worship of “Mother Earth” in pagan and New Age religions naturally conclude that Christianity and environmentalism are incompatible.
But such a conclusion is short-sighted and unfortunate. Properly understood, concern for the environment is a natural product of the Christian worldview, as some scholars have been pointing out for many years.15 God created the world, pronounced it good, and entrusted its care to human beings. True, God gave human beings the right to use its resources for our good. But in making us “rulers” (Gen. 1:26) of the created world, he does not give us the right to do anything we want with it. Rather, we are appointed as stewards of creation. We are to manage it not only for ourselves but for itself, for, as passages like Romans 8:19–21 make clear, it has value in itself, apart from what human beings may gain from it.
Indeed, I find that some Christian reaction against environmentalism is profoundly un-Christian, compounded of equal mixtures of selfishness and materialism. Catering to our pleasure and maintaining our present, often luxurious standard of living become more important than tending the world God has made and ensuring that its wonderful resources will be available for generations yet to come. Believers will naturally continue to debate what actions may be needed in order to fulfill the stewardship mandate God has given us. But we owe it to that mandate to become informed, from the best and most neutral sources we can find, about what the problems really are, and to be willing to make sacrifices to maintain the world he has entrusted to us.16
All things work toward the good. Christians in every generation have found inestimable comfort in the wonderful promise of Romans 8:28, and rightly so. This is surely one of the greatest promises of God to his people anywhere in the Bible. But it is also one of the most misunderstood. To appreciate what God promises here, we must first clear away two misconceptions about the meaning of the verse.
(1) As we briefly noted in the Original Meaning section, this verse may not be promising that all things will work together for good. I have heard the verse preached with just this point as the central emphasis. God, so the preacher argued, does not promise to bring good to us in every situation. Rather, as a cook combines ingredients to make a tasty dish of food, so God mixes together the circumstances of life in such a way as ultimately to bring good to us.
There are two reasons for hesitating to embrace this “mixing” idea. (a) The verb used here (synergeo) may not mean “work together.” To be sure, in its three other New Testament occurrences, it does seem to have this meaning (see 1 Cor. 16:16; 2 Cor. 6:1; James 2:22). But the verb often lost the “with” idea in the period when Paul was writing.17 Unlike the other places where the verb occurs in the New Testament, the context here does not readily supply an object for the “with” idea. (b) Even if we do translate “work together,” it is by no means clear that “all things” are working with each other. It is equally plausible that Paul means that all things work together with the Spirit, with God, or with believers to produce good.18 On the whole, then, an application of 8:28 that focuses on the “with” idea is built on an uncertain foundation.
(2) A second common misunderstanding of this promise is more serious. Most of us have probably heard someone (perhaps ourselves!) applying Romans 8:28 something like this: “Yes, you may have lost your job, but you can be sure of getting an even better one; because ‘all things are working for good.’ ” Or, “Don’t be upset about your fiancé breaking off your engagement, because God must have an even better life partner for you; Romans 8:28 promises….” The difficulty with this application is that it interprets “good” from a narrow and often materialistic perspective. From God’s perspective, “good” must be defined in spiritual terms. The ultimate good is God’s glory, and he is glorified when his children live as Christ did (v. 29) and attain the glory he has destined them for (v. 30; cf. vv. 31–39).
As we have seen in 5:3–4, God uses suffering to build Christian character in us, conform us to Christ, and prepare us for final glory. What he promises us in 8:28, then, is not that every difficult experience will lead to something good in this life. The “good” God may have in mind may involve the next life entirely. He may take us out of a secure, well-paying job in order to shake us out of a materialistic lifestyle that does not honor biblical priorities, and we may never have as good a job again. He may want to set us free from an engagement to be married because he wants to use us in a ministry that would be difficult or impossible for a married person. Remember that it is by sharing in Christ’s sufferings that we eventually will be able to share in his glory as well (8:17).
This is not to say that material blessings cannot be included in the “good” of Romans 8:28. As the Old Testament especially makes clear, God delights to give his people good things in this life as well as in the next. In an effort to avoid a materialistic interpretation of 8:28, we must not succumb to the opposite extreme of denying God’s interest in the material world. This would be to fall into a dualism far removed from the biblical perspective of a God who is both Creator of this world and Redeemer. Rather, the point I am making is that we tend to apply the promise of this verse in a purely materialistic way. This clearly fails to take into account the spiritual realm that is ultimately more important than the material.
We have suggested a couple of things that Romans 8:28 does not mean. But I do not want to leave this magnificent promise on a negative note. So let me conclude by reflecting again on what it does mean. Essentially, it promises that nothing will touch our lives that is not under the control and direction of our loving heavenly Father. Everything we do and say, everything people do to us or say about us, every experience we will ever have—all are sovereignly used by God for our good. We will not always understand how the things we experience work to good, and we certainly will not always enjoy them. But we do know that nothing comes into our lives that God does not allow and use for his own beneficent purposes. Paul’s overarching purpose in Romans 5–8 is to give us assurance for the life to come. But verses like 8:28 show that he also wants to give us assurance for the present life as well. God has ordained not only the ends but the means.
The great plan of God. If, then 8:28 gives assurance for the present life, verses 29–30 focus again on the future. God has a plan, Paul says. That plan begins with his foreknowing us, and then leads to his predestining, calling, justifying, and finally glorifying us. This series has been the focus of a lot of theological debate over the years. We cannot really apply the verses until we understand just what the theology is here.
Calvinist theologians think these verses provide evidence for two characteristic teachings in that view of salvation: that becoming a Christian is ultimately rooted in God’s free choice, and that those whom God chooses and then become his people will always be saved in the last day. We usually call these doctrines, respectively, unconditional election and eternal security. Calvinists insist that the verb “foreknow” means “choose beforehand.” Thus, the whole process by which God brings people into relationship with himself starts with him. He chooses, and because he does so, we believe and thus are justified. They also argue that the series of verbs in verses 29–30 is an unbreakable chain. All whom God chooses and then justifies he will also glorify. There can be no change or variation: Every justified believer will be saved in the end.
One can easily see how Calvinists can use these verses to support their distinctive view of salvation. But how would Arminians respond? First of all, the Arminian theologian insists on viewing these verses in light of the whole picture. Throughout Romans, Paul has proclaimed that believing in Jesus Christ is the way to be saved, and believing is a real choice that human beings must make. Thus, the whole process cannot simply be predetermined.
Arminians also note that the Calvinist interpretation of 8:29–30 rests on three key decisions. (1) First is the decision to interpret “foreknow” in terms of choosing. As we saw above in the Original Meaning section, this verb can also mean “know ahead of time.” What Paul may be saying, then, is that God knows about every person’s decision to believe or not believe ahead of time; and it is those who choose to believe whom he predestines, calls, and justifies. We do not believe because God has chosen us (the Calvinist view); we are chosen because we believe.
(2) Many (though not all) Arminians also contest the decision of Calvinists to interpret verses 28–29 in individual terms. What Paul teaches here, they allege, is that God has chosen the church. It is the body of Christ as a whole that God has elected by his grace, and individuals become members of that elect body through their faith.19
(3) Arminians also question whether it is fair to view the series of verbs in these verses as an unbreakable chain. What Paul describes, they claim, are the decisions God has made on our behalf. He is determined to glorify everyone whom he has justified. But Scripture teaches that believers have the freedom to refuse the gift God offers us, to opt out of the sequence of decisions he has made. A truly justified person may, indeed, fail to attain glory—not because God did not will it (for he did), but because that person chose to reject what God had willed.
The issue we raise here is massive, and we will have to return to it again when we comment on 9:6–29. As my interpretation above has revealed, I come down on the Calvinist side. I think that “foreknow” means “chose beforehand,” that Paul is talking about individual people, and that God’s will to glorify the believer cannot be thwarted—even by us. Naturally, this decision about the meaning of the verses affects my application. The idea that we can be “Calminians,” combining Calvinism and Arminianism in one system, is attractive but irrational. I can logically be a Calvinist in one doctrine and Arminian in another; but I cannot be both with respect to the same doctrine. I cannot both believe my faith is based ultimately on God’s choice and that God’s choice is ultimately based on my faith. Or, at least, I cannot believe it and remain rational. I may as well believe that black is white.
Thus, I want to include in my application of these verses some specific points stemming from my Calvinistic exegesis. For instance, the knowledge that God has chosen me on the basis of his own free will alone should stimulate awe and wonder at what he has done and a deeper sense of thanksgiving for his unmerited gift.
But I would like to leave this great passage on a practical application that both Calvinist and Arminian can agree on: God has done all that is needed to secure our eternal glory. He has already made the decision: “Those whom he justified he glorified.” We may disagree about whether believers can refuse to accept that decision. But from God’s side at least, the matter has already been determined. That means that no genuine believer need ever wonder whether he or she “has what it takes” to get to heaven. None of us does. But that doesn’t matter in the end. God himself has supplied all we need. As we have seen repeatedly in Romans 5–8, Paul is anxious to preserve a balance in which God’s gift to us does not cancel our need to respond to that gift. This passage is about that gift, and that is what we must emphasize in our application.