Renewal Cosmic

Chapter 7
EXEGESIS OF ROMANS 8 . 1 9 - 2 2
Theme and Relationship to Context
Romans 8.19-22 focuses on two major themes: (1) the present corruption of
the subhuman creation that resulted from the fall of Adam and (2) the escha-
tological deliverance of creation from corruption to be transformed into
freedom and glory. Paul repeatedly alternates between these twin themes of the
corruption and redemption of creation.
Romans 8.19-22 is a subsection of a larger passage (vv. 18-30)! that speaks
of the hope of future glory amidst present suffering. Although believers can
expect to suffer with Christ in this age (v. 17), their suffering is insignificant
compared to the glory that they will enjoy in eternity (v. 18). Christians groan
in suffering as they await the redemption of their bodies (v. 23), even as the rest
of creation groans because of the corruption that resulted from the fall (vv. 20-
22). Yet believers have hope (vv. 23-25) and confident assurance (v. 28-30) that
they will be glorified with Christ, even as the subhuman material creation will
be set free and transformed (vv. 19, 21). The Spirit of God helps believers
through life in this age and intercedes for them (vv. 26-27).
Verses 19-22 support and expand on the themes of vv. 17-18. (1) Paul
supports the thesis that believers w i l l enjoy eternal glory despite their present
suffering by showing that the created order also suffers, but will one day be
transformed to glory. (2) Paul expands the hope of glory to include the trans-
formation of the natural world when believers are glorified.
1. Most see the larger passage as VV. 18-30 (e.g. Kasemann, Romans, Pp. 231;
Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, p. 141; Balz, Heilsvertrauen, p. 93; Peter von der
Osten-Sacken, Romer 8 als Beispiel paulinischer Soteriologie [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and
Ruprecht, 1975], p. 139; Douglas Moo, Romans 1-8 [Wycliffe Exegetical Commentary
Chicago: Moody, 1991}, pp. 544-5). The shift to a series of rhetorical questions in v. 31 marks
the start of a new section (Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, p. 141). Moo believes the
inclusio formed by 80Ea in v. 18 andSof atco in v. 30 marks theboundaries of the section. A
few start the section at v. 17 (e.g. C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans {ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975}, p. 404). Some end the
section at v. 27 (Balz, Heilsvertrauen, p. 33) or v. 39 (Edwin Lewis, ?A Christian Theodicy.
A nExposition of Romans 8:18-30?, Int 11 [1957], pp. 405-20 [405]).
172 The Corruption and Redemptiono f Creation
The divine promise of the ultimate redemption of Creatig

supports the Christian hope of eternal glory (vy, 17-18)2 isan Thig
19.99)
yap that links v. 19 to v. 18.3 God plans that the natural order wil, pt by the
to its proper operation so that it may fulfil the purp Ose

forwhich
created. Creation eagerly awaits the time when believers will appe I t Wag
Christ in glory (v. 19), because when the children of Godare Pear With
creation also will be delivered from its slavery to corruption andf o i e ; en

I f God is going to deliver the natural world from the damage of sinand t 21),
he can also be trusted to redeem the material bodies of his children (y, 23 . 5
to glorify them with Christ (vv. 17-18) and

Christian hope €Ncompasses al]o f
.
creation, not only believers (vv, 19, 21). The redemption of believers?bodies
(v. 23) flows from the divine plan to deliver the material world from
to death and decay (v. 22). slavery
Verses 19-22 also develop further the theme of sufferin

gintroduced in wy,
17-18. Suffering is a normal part o f the Christian life. Beli
share in
the sufferings of Christ in order to share in Christ?s eschatol€vers must
ogical glory (y, 17),
Verses 20-22 extend this to a cosmic Principle. The suffering of believers ig not
isolated, but it is related to the corruption o f creation that is characteristic of
this age.* The whole creation was subjected to futility and enslaved to death and
decay due to the impact of the fall o f Adam. Adam?s sin not only brought sin
and death to all o f Adam?s descendants (5.12-21), it also put the whole created
order in bondage to death, decay, corruption and futility ( 8.20-22).5
Yet the present suffering is not purposeless or without hope. The sufferine-
leads-to-glory principle that is characteristic o f the Christian life (v. 17) is also
part of the operation of the cosmos in this age (v. 20-22).§ The eyes of faith
interpret the agony of the natural world in this age as birth pangs leading toa
glorious new world rather than the death Pangs of a dying creation (v. 22).
Lewis sees vv. 18-39 as a type of theodicy that justifies God?s ways with
humans in terms of suffering as a Prerequisite for glory. Focusing on glory as
the ultimate end of the suffering provides a basis for hope and a reason to
patiently endure suffering.?
2. Gibbs, Creation, pp. 36-7; Barrett, Romans, P. 165; Balz, Heilsvertrauen, p. 31.
3. Cranfield, Romans, p. 410, notes that all of vy. 19-30 supports v, 18.
4. Barrett goes too far when he says t h a t Paul is n o t concerned about creation for its
o w n sake (Barrett, Romans, p. 165; contrast C. E. B. Cranfield, ?Some Observations on
Romans 8.19-21?, i n Robert Banks [ed.], Reconciliation a n d Hope. N e w TestamentEssays
on A t o n e m e n t and Eschatology [Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1974], pp. 2 2 4 - 3 0 [229)).
Gager correctly notes that Paul universalizes the tension b e t w e e n suffering and glory in wv.
19-22, even though Gager limits x t i o i s to h u m a n i t y (Gager, pp. 328, 3 30).
5. D . M . Russell, ?New Heavens?, observes that ?movement f r o m individual to cosmic
concerns in Romans 8 mirrors the same emphasis i n 5.1-21?, Cf. N i l s A . Dahl, ?Two Notes
o n Romans 5?, ST 5S (1952), pp. 37-48.
6. Gibbs, Creation, pp. 36-7; Charles Gore, St. Paul's E p t s t l e t o t h e R o m a n s . A
Practical Exposition (London: John M u r r a y , 1899), pp. 2 9 8 - 9 .
7. Lewis, ?Theodicy?, pp. 405-8.
exegesis of Romans 8.19-22 173
and glory shared by believers and the rest of creation presup-

the sufferine "ween humanity and the rest of creation. Creation suffers
poses 4solid u m anity and will be transformed when redeemed humanity
rified.
rected and6 to counteract an overly realized eschatology that could
Paul eo m his teachings about victory in the Spirit earlier in Romans 8.
fertee of the Spirit in every believer (vv. 4-16) should not be understood
The nalistically as if believers have already obtained heavenly glory and will
C e or suffer in this life (v. 17). Even Christians face suffering and death in
ths ie, since the entire creation suffers from the consequences of sin in this
age (VV. 30-22). The time is coming when both believers and the naturalw o r l d
will experience freedom and glory (v. 19, 21, 23, 29-30). Glory and the
redemption of the bodies of believers will be part of the new world, which both
the material creation and believers eagerly await (v. 19, 23).
Structure of the Passage
There are several views of the structure of vv. 18-30.? Zahn?s analysisinfluenced
many later exegetes. He argues that the theme of the passage is the greatness
of the coming glory, which is stated in v. 18 and then developed in the following
yerses. The threefold groaning is the key to the structure:
1. Thesis: the greatness of the coming glory (v. 18)

2. Threefold groaning:
a. C r e a t i o n (vv. 1 9 - 2 2 )
b. Believers (vv. 23-25)
c. The Spirit (vv. 26-27)
3. Assurance of coming glory (vv. 28-30)?
One weakness of this approach is that the type of groaning is not the same in
each case. The groaning of the Spirit is quite different from the groaning of
creation and believers. The Spirit groans in intercession and thus hasa positive
function, while the groaning of believers is due to their anxiously awaiting the
redemption of their bodies. The groaning of creation is due to its enslavement
, pp. 229, 231, argues Paul?s teachings about suffermy 3s

8. Kaisemann, Romans hatol ? Hn
preparation f o r glory were w r i t t e n to counteract ano v e r l y realized eschatology. His

view.
however, that ?enthusiasts? interpreted glossolalia as proof of freedom in the Sprit bas noc been
widely accepted. .
9? Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, pp. 28-33, 141, yy TISCUSSTOT
j natives. . - .
.
of v O . ate Z a h n , D e r B r i e f d e s P a u l u s a n d i e R G m e r ( Li e i p a Iyp,h i a b. s
bao ctess- docdny
P e p e ,
_ 515;
cf. Anders Nygren, Commentary on Romans(Philade p |
1975930 Beker, ?Vision?, pp. 28-95 John Bolt, ?The Relation Between ° ' vnon and
Re ption i n Romans 8:18-27?, C T ] 30 (April 1995), pp- 34-51 (41-3); Balz, Heilsrerinaeent.
p - 33.
174 The Corruption and Redemption of CregtjOn
to corruption, but it also look

groaning o f childbirth." * Forward to ite redemption as the creas:
Another drawback o f Zahn?s scheme is that it does not do jner; =

themes o f suffering and glory that recur repeatedly,Z a h n h e e to the dual
overall theme focuses on glory, even though the large secti 0 believes that the
19-27) focuses on suffering. Even many who followZ a h n peroaings (Wy,
disagree about the central theme. M a n y agree withZ a h n t h basic structure
glory.? Others believe the focus is comfort for believers in suffe me theme ig
stresses the role of the Spirit,? but this is not effective as a unifyi i a r i l l e d a
i t only plays a part in wv. 23, 26-27 (contrast wv. 1-16, wher n e d since
i n n e rmajority o f verses). ° © MVEUUG! appears
A better theme combines suffering and the h
theme. Christoffersson agrees w i t h Zahn t h a t . . Oev o n i e
statement. His theme, however, more satisfactorily integrates the dual v o t ,
the present suffering is nothing as compared with the future glory?. v e s
25 emphasize suffering, vv. 28-30 emphasize glory, and wv. 26-27 isa rurni 5
p o i n t which focuses on the w o r k o f the Spirit: "
1 . Transition from the preceding and basis for the thesis (v. 17)
2. Thesis: the present suffering is nothing as compared with the future glory
(v. 18)
3. The present suffering (vv. 19-25)
a. Testimony from creation (vv. 19-22)
b. Testimony f r o m the believers (vv. 23-25 )
4. The turning p o i n t at the Spirit?s intercession (vv. 26-27)
5. The coming glory (vv. 28-30)
Christoffersson correctly notes that v. 17 serves both as a transition fromt h e

preceding section and a foundation for the following section: Sharing in Christ?s
suffering is essential for sharing in future glory with him. The thesis statement
o f v. 18 is based on this proposition.? Christoffersson summarizes thetheme
des Paulus (Munich: Kaiser, 1968), p. 377.
11. Cf. U. Luz, Das Geschichtsverstandnis
hn, Romer, p. 515; Henning Paulsen,
12. H o p e : M o o , Romans, pp- 5 4 4 - 5 ; Za
-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1974), p. 107.
Uberlieferung u n d Auslegung in Romer 8 (Neukirchen omans, p. 403; cf. JirgenMoltmann,
?Indwelling of the Spirit - the gift of hope?: Cranfield, R Christian Eschatology (trans.
e Ground and Implications o f 4
Theology o f Hope. O n t h o f salvation: Adolf Schlatter,
James W. Leitch; New York: Harper and Row, 1967). Certainty rt: Calwer Verlag, 3rd edn,
Gottes Gerechtigkeit: Ein Kommentar zum Rémerbrief (Stuttga. York: Herder and Herder,
1959), p. 264; Karl Kertelge, The Epistle to the Romans (New
1972).
13. Nygren, Romans, p. 335.
14. D u n n , Romans, pp- 4 6 5 - 6 , ?the Spirit as firstfruits?.
15. Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, p. 143.
16. Ibid., p. 1425 cf. Beker, ?Vision?, p. 30. Beker notes the shift from thepresent
triumph of the church through the Spirit (vv. 1-17b) to the hope of future glory (vv. 18-30).
Ve 1-17b describe the church against the world, but wv. 18-30 describe the church forthe
vane 17c marks the shift by introducing the theme of suffering
world in solidarity w i t h it. Verse
and glory.
Ne
Exegesis o f Romans 8.19-22 175
g) more accurately than Zahn, since he includes both suffering and

verse (1 ertheless, his outline does not go far enough to show that both
lory- N
o d glory appear in each of the major subsections. It misses the
suffering an
theme of hope and anticipation of glory found in vv. 19-25. The unifying
i f is neither suffering nor glory alone, but a combination o f the present
uffering and the hope of future glory. | |
| |
The following structural model better takes into consideration this dual
theme:
0. Transition: believers share in the present suffering of Christ and w i l l share

in the future glory of Christ (v. 17).
1. Thesis: the present suffering is insignificant compared with the future glory
of believers (v. 18).
2. Hope of future glory amidst present suffering:
a. All creation groans in suffering, yet looks forward w i t h hope to future
glory (vv. 19-22).

b. Believers groan as they await in hope the future redemption of their
bodies (vv. 23-25).
c. The Spirit?s groaning in intercession helps believers in this age of suffering
(vv. 26-27).
3. Confident assurance of the coming glory (vv. 28-30).
As this outline shows, present suffering and hope f o r future glory are t i g h t l y
intertwined t h r o u g h o u t the passage.?? Paul moves back and forth between the
t w o themes easily because his goal is t o give assurance o f future glory t o
believers w h o are in the midst o f suffering. Verses 19-22 shows this is true n o t
only for believers but also f o r the rest o f creation (see Table 7.1).
Table 7.1: Suffering and G l o r y i n Romans 8.19-22
Summary
Creation looks f o r w a r d expectantly to the revelation o f the sons
of God.
Creation is subjected to futility.
wv. 20c-21 | Glory Creation hopes to be set free and brought into the freedom of the
glory of the children of God.
Creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth.
There is implicit hope f o r future glory, since the agony o f child-
birth is a productive pain with a positive result.
T h e close interplay o f these t w o themes shows t h a t n o structural suggestion t h a t

focuses o n o n l y one m o t i f is adequate. The entire passage (vv. 1 8 - 3 0 ) focuses
o n e n d u r i n g present suffering w i t h a h o p e f u l expectation o f f u t u r e glory. Verses
17. Even though wv. 26-27 emphasize that the intercession of the Spirit hel .
through present suffering, it is still forward-looking and hopeful. pirit helps believers
176 The Corruption and Redemption o f Crear:
ton
19-22 both support this dual-sided central moti
tif .
o r d e r .on believers to show that God is also

only concerned forthe apevond focusin
veAumancre 8
Cteateg
The Meaning of Ktiois

1. L X X and N T Usage
The meaning of xtiois is one of the most important interpretive j
Passage. In classical Greek, KTiats does not necessarily have

connotation." In the L X X and NT, how. th .
which is created by God. ever, the

word consistently refers tothat
The meaning of kTiots in the LXX ig heavily j
I y influenced
Most often it refers to ?the creation of God in its totality? Ode s e
2.2, 75 6.25 Wis. 5.175 Sir. 16.17; 49.162), The LXX often uses expression,
such as ?the whole Creation? or ?every creature?. (2) In several Passages, kTiais
can be collective (Wis. 2.6; 16.24; 19.6, as shown by the succeeding verses even
though it says 6An 1) KTiots) or individual creatures (Tob. 8.15; Sir. 43,25).
The N T range o f meanings of kTiots is similar to that o f the LXX. (1) The
collective sense o f ?the sum total of everything created? is most common (Mk
10.6; 13.19; Col. 1.15, 23?; Heb. 9.11; 2 Pet. 3.4; Rev. 3.14 [possibly verbal]).
(2) Another common meaning is an individual creature, either humans and
animals (Rom. 1.25, cf. v. 23) or comprehensively for any created thing (Rom.
18. LSJ, ?xtiois?, p. 1003.

19. Although the Greek version that probably lies behind the Latin version of 4 Ezra
is n o t extant, it is interesting t h a t the L a t i n creatura i n 4 Ezra parallels this range of usages:
(1) the material w o r l d (5.44, 45, 5 5 , 56; 7.75 [possibly creation as a whole]; 8.45, (2) an
i n d i v i d u a l creature (e.g. 7.62; 11.6), (3) people: the people o f God (8.47; 13.26), a baby (8.8)
a n d (4) t h e verbal sense o f act o f creating (6.38).
20. N e l s o n , ?The Groaning o f Creation?, p. 142. ?

21. I n Sir, 49.16, x t i c i s probably refers to human beings, since Adam is said to have
been honoured above every created thing (Umép wav Copov év TH KTicet)i n a list ofh e b
honoured people. Nelson, ?The Groaning of Creation?, p. 152, however, believes it to refers
creation as a w h o l e . ;
22. Nelson, ?The Groaning o f Creation?, p. 143, believes Tob. 8.5, 15refer t o ational
creatures, i n c l u d i n g humanity. In Tob. 8.15, however, ?creatures? are distingt e e t
believers and angels (?Let the holy ones and all yourcreatures and all thea n g e an ?youre =
praise you?), indicating that x r i a i s here refers to creatures i n nature. Tobit 8.
m y
r a t i o n a l creatures, since they are called to bless God, but it is morel i k e l y a referene
S o a
creatures (animate and inanimate), in contrast to heavenly ones (?heaven? m a y
f o r creatures i n heaven).
23. B D A G , ? t i a l s ? , p. 573.
4.13%). It is never used in the N T in the plural, however, and the

8 39; H e b
7
meaning is never far from view, even in references to individual
collective
(3) A few instances limit the meaning to humankind ina collective
Cee
(Mk 16.153 Col. 1.23). (4) A variation of the human category refers to
sen aman transformed by God through the new birth, which is like a second
the tion (2 Cor. 5.17; Gal. 6.15). (5) Romans 1.20 uses the word in the verbal
se of ?the act of creation?. Galatians 6.15 also has a verbal nuance when
it refers to the new creation of God in transformingab e l i e v e r . (6) The only
secular usage in the N T refers to an authoritative institution or government
created by people (1 Pet. 2.13).
In both the L X X and the NT, apparently comprehensive expressions like ?all
creation? (Taoa f KTiots) or the whole creation (OAn 1 KTiots) sometimes refer
only to that part of creation in a certain class. I t can be limited to animals (Tob.
8.15; Wis. 19.6; Sir. 43.25) or humankind ( M k 16.15; Col. 1.23; Sir. 49.16).
These expressions sometimes indicate comprehensiveness within the portion of
creation that is in focus.
2. Romans 8.19-22
The diverse interpretations o f k t i c i s i n Rom. 8.19-22 have been similar f r o m

the church fathers through to modern scholars:?* (1) Universal: many understand
KTIoIs to include all creation.? (2) Cosmic: the most widespread v i e w is that
KTiots refers t o the subhuman creation, both animate and inanimate, or essen-
tially w h a t is called nature today.? (3) Anthropological: some f o l l o w the
24. Ibid. Heb. 4.13 describes a general principle that is applied to human beings. Cf.
NIV: ?nothing in creation?. Nelson, ?The Groaning of Creation?, p. 245, limits it to humans.
25. BDAG, ?ktiots?, p. 573.
26. For an in-depth history o f interpretation, see H a r r y A l a n Hahne, ?The C o r r u p t i o n
and R e d e m p t i o n o f Creation. A n Exegetical Study of Romans 8:19-22 in L i g h t of Jewish
Apocalyptic Literature? (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation; University o f Toronto, 1997), pp.
8 - 8 1 . The classification names are taken from Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, pp.
9 . 3 on, ?The Groaning of Creation?, pp. 1 9 2 - 3 , 2 4 9 - 5 3 ; John G. Gibbs, ?Pauline
Cosmic Christology and Ecological Crisis?, J B L 90 (1971), pp. 4 6 6 - 7 9 (471); Uwe Gerber,
?Romv i i i . 18ff als exegetisches Problem der Dogmatik?, N o v T 8 (1966), pp. 5 8 - 8 1 (64-8);
Barrett, Romans, p. 166; O t t o M i c h e l , D e r B r i e f an die Rémer,i i b e r s e t z t und e r k l a r t
(Géttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1955), p. 173;G r i f f i t h , ?Apocalyptic p. 178; Emil »
Brunner, The Christian Doctrine o f Creation and Redemption (trans. Olive Wyon;L o n d o n :
L u t t e r w o r t h , 1946), p. 439. But i nE m i l Brunner, Revelation and Reason. The Christian
Doctrine o f Faith and Knowledge( t r a n s . O l i v e Wyon; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1946), p.
72. he says KTIGIS means unbelieving humanity. Susan Eastman, ?Whose Apocalypse? The
Identity of the Sons o f G o d in Romans 8:19?, J B L 121 (2002), pp. 2 6 3 - 7 7 (273-6), argues
that Ktiats includes ?all creation and all unbelieving humanity, including most particularly
Israel? (p. 276). ;
28. Cranfield, ?Observations?, p. 225; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 506; M o o , Romans, p. 551;
D u n n , Romans, p. 469; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans ( N I C N T ; Grand Rapids, M I :
Eerdmans, 1959), p. 303; C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks (London: Hodder and
178 The Corruption and Redemption of Creatio
n
Augustinian view that limits ktiats to humanity, w i t h a f e w li
only to believers,? or (3B) only to unbelievers.31 (4) Cosi Miting i,(34

some believe it refers to both the subhuman creation and ube aPtPOlogig H
This is similar to the universal view, but it excludes angels, de ssving human?nity, 2
(5) Angelogical: Fuchs takes the unusual position that it referfe vn P l i e r
Bels,3
Stoughten, 1954), p. 108; Frederic Godet, Commenta on the Epi

A. Cusin and Talbot W. Chambers; Grand Rapids,M I Zondervan, 1950 Roma (trans,
Rémer, p. 400; H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the i025 Zahn,
Romans (trans. John C. Moore and Edwin Johnson; vol. 2; 2 vols.; Edinbur.oh: T e r 10 the
1874), p. 374; K. FA, Fritzsche, Pauli ad Romanos epistola (vol, 2; 3 vols.; Halle: 7 C l t ,
1836-43), p. 151; Otto Bardenhewer, Der R6merbrief des heiligen Paulus (Freibi " : rates
1926); William Manson, ?Notes on the Argument of Romans 1-8?, in A. J. B.H i n etder,
?~ iggi
2
New Testament Essays. Studies in Honor of Thomas WalterManson (Manchester Engleay
Manchester University Press, 1959), pp. 163-5 (163); E. Gaugler, Der Rémerbrief (vol, 1. >
vols.; Zurich: Zwingli, 1945-52), p. 299; David Francis, ?Terrestial Realities: Their Liberation?
Jeevadhara 8 (1978), pp. 148-58 (150); Patrick Canon Boylan, St. Paul's Epistle tot h e
Romans (Dublin: M . H. Gill and Son, 1934), p. 142; Marcus L. Loane, The Hope of Glory
A n Exposition o f the Eighth Chapter in the Epistle to the Romans (London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1968), pp. 81, 90; E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1977), p. 473; Bridger, ?Ecology?, pp. 299-300; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the
Romans (Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1988), p. 322; Thackeray, Paul, p. 40; KarlBarth,
The Epistle to the Romans (trans. Edwyn C. Hoskyns; London: Oxford University Press, 6th
edn, 1933), pp. 306-8. But in Karl Barth, A Shorter Commentary on Romans (Richmond, VA:
John Knox, 1959), p. 99, he says ktiots is mainly humanity.
29. Schlatter, Gottes, p. 274; Gager, ?Diversity?, pp. 328-9; T. W. Manson, Romans
(Peake?s Commentary on the Bible; London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962), p. 966; E. W.
Hunt, Portrait o f Paul (London: A.R. Mowbray, 1968), p. 163; Barth, Shorter, p. 99 (but he
takes the cosmic view in his longer commentary). Augustine was the first to consistently
interpret k t i o i s in Rom. 8.19-22 as humanity (Mor, eccl. 13.23; Fid. symb. 10.23; Nupt. 2.50;
Enarrat. Ps. 25.6). He describes ?the humiliation which took place in Adam, in whom the
whole human creature, as it were, being corrupted at the root, as it refused to be made subject
to the truth, ?was made subject to vanity?? (Enarrat. Ps. 119.66). See Thomas E. Clarke, The
Eschatological Transformation o f the Material World According to St. Augustine (Woodstock,
M D : Woodstock College, 1956), pp. 34-5.
30. John Reumann, Creation and New Creation (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973), pp.
98-9; Anton Végtle, ?Rém 8,19-22: Eine Schépfungs-theologische oder anthropologische-
soteriologische Aussage??, in A. Descamps and A. Halleux (eds.), Mélanges Bibliques en
hommage au R. P. Béda Rigaux (Gembloux, Belgium: Duculot, 1970), pp. 351-66;
Hildebrecht Hommel, ?Das Harren der Kreatur?, in Hildebrecht Hommel (ed.), Schopfer und
Erhalter. Studien zum Problem Christentum und Antike (Letter: Berlin, 1956), pp. 7-23; Hans
Wilhelm Schmidt, Das Brief des Paulus an die Romer (THKNT, 6; Berlin: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt, 1962), p. 145. Some argue that Paul used an apocalyptic fragment that origi-
nally referred to the world awaiting transformation. But Paul changes the meaning to refer
to believers awaiting glory (Reumann, Creation, p. 101; Gager, ?Diversity?, pp. 329, 337).
31. Brunner, Revelation a n d Reason, pp. 72, n. 16.
32. Kasemann, Romans, pp. 232-3; Franz J. Leenhardt, The Epistle tothe Romans
(trans. Harold Knight; London: Lutterworth, 1961), p. 219; Werner Foerster, ?xTiGco, KTIOIS,
KTioya, Ktiot?s?, in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), T D N T (vol. 3; Grand
i : Eerdmans, 1964-78), pp.
1000-35 (1031).
R a p e M t F u c h s , Die Freihe++ # 8 Glaubens Rémer 5-8 ausgelegt (Munich: Kaiser, 1949),
Exegesis o f R o m a n s 8 . 1 9 - 2 2 179
versal view is appealingb e c a u s e Vv.

22refers to ?all creation?.* N e l s o n
e uni aning ?is probably the widest possible, without intention to exclude
says the e o s The use of MAGA Nh kTiots, however, is not decisive. In the L X X
any a e or eation? and ?whole creation? can be less than comprehensive,

and NT, articular class of creature is in focus in the context. Most commen-
when t n d i t difficult to consistently maintain the universal view, and so tend
mari toward the cosmic view. Nelson, for example, contradicts his generally
mniversal position when he comments on v. 20, ?because of the presence of the
expression oux ekouoa the creation int h i s reference should probably be limited
to the non-human order?. Similarly Gibbs says ?n kticts undoubtedly refers to
the whole creation?, yet later he distinguishes ?creation? from humanity: ?There
isa solidarity between man and creation, so that the creation suffers under the
pain of man?s Fall?.*
Since KTials and even T A G 1 KTicIs have a wide range o f possible meanings
in the L X X and the N T , the c o n t e x t o f R o m . 8.19-22 m u s t determine the
meaning of k t i o t s . One can start w i t h the broadest meaning o f the w o r d and
then eliminate aspects of the created order t h a t are incompatible w i t h the
context.
Angels are excluded from k t i o t s here since good angels have not been
subjected to futility or corruption, either because of human sin or their own
actions (vv. 20-21). Demons are excluded since they will not be glorified (v. 21)
nor do they long for the revealing of the sons of God (v. 19). Furthermore,
demons were subjected to the consequences of sin because of their own disobe-
dience, so the expression ?not according to their own will? is not appropriate
(v. 20). Heaven also is excluded since it has not been subjected to futility or
decay (vv. 20-21).??
The N T occasionally uses k t i c t s for unbelievers ( M k 16.15). Hommel notes
similarities between Rom. 1.21 and Rom. 8.20. In Rom. 1.21 the Gentiles
became futile in their thinking because of their refusal to honour God. Hommel
argues that this is similar to the subjection of creation to futility in Rom.
8.20.2 In Rom. 1.21, however, Ktiots is not used,? so the verse does not
clarify the use of this word. More importantly, unbelievers should be excluded
from the meaning of xtiots in Rom. 8.19-22,because unbelievers are hardly
eagerly awaiting the revealing of the children of God (v. 1 9 ) . This view would
also imply that all people will be delivered from sin and its consequences (v. 21).
34. Nelson, ?The Groaning of Creation?, p. 253; Gibbs, ?Cosmic?, p. 471.

35. Nelson, ?The Groaning ofD reation? p. 192.
"Gibbs, ?Cosmic?, 471-2.
pp.
v e s . Plumes, Commentary on Paul?s Epistle to the Romans (New York:

A n s o n D. E Randolph, 1870), pp- 404-5.
38. Hommel, ?Harren?, p. 19.
39. Rom. 1.20 uses it in a verbal sense.
° 302.
180 The Corruption and Redemption of Creation
The NT use of koopyos would support this view better than ktioig
Since it jg
often used in the N T to refer to the world of unbelievers.? ,
The view that xtiots refers to believers fits the context, which des Cribes the
suffering and glory of Christians. Paul sometimes uses ktiots for bel;
(2 Cor. 5.17; Gal. 6.15),? although those passages refer to believers as i
creation.? Romans 8, however, frequently contrasts kTiots with believers ~
creation eagerly awaits the revealing of the sons of God (v. 19) and wills h .
the eschatological ?freedom of the glory? of believers (v. 21). The phrase ?ae
only so, but also we ourselves? (ov povov de, GAAG Kai a u t o , v, 23)contrasts
believers with xtiots as described in v. 22. Believers groan (v. 23) in a similar
way to the rest of creation (v. 22), but are not the same group.?
Some believe that the emotional and volitional language describes literal
human responses, not personifications o f the natural world. Schlatter argues
that eager expectation (v. 19), frustration, choice, hope (v. 20) and groaning (y,
22) indicate consciousness, which suggests that Paul has humanity in mind.?
This view, however, makes no sense o f the contrasts between ktisis and
believers (vv. 19, 21, 23), and it implies all people w i l l be saved (v. 21).
Furthermore, Paul w o u l d not be likely to say that humanity was subjected to
futility ?not of its o w n will?, when he just said in 5:12-21 that humanity was
subjected to futility because o f the disobedience o f Adam, its representative and
primal m e m b e r . In one sense, o f course, humanity was subjected to futility not
of its o w n w i l l , since the race inherited the curse f r o m Adam. Yet it is unlikely
that Paul w o u l d distinguish Adam from the rest of humanity without pointing
out sucha distinction.?
Since angels, demons, humanity and heaven are excluded, this suggests that
x t i o t s in Rom. 8.19-22 means the subhuman material creation, roughly equiv-
alent to the modern term ?nature?. The L X X uses k t i o t s in this sense both
collectively (Wis. 2.6; 16.24; 19.6) and of individual creatures o f the natural
world (Tob. 8.15; Sir. 43.25). Tlaoa i k t i c i s sometimes refers to all nature
(Tob. 8.15; Wis. 19.6; Sir. 4 3 . 2 5 ) .
The use of emotional and volitional language in Rom. 8.19-22 is not a
weakness of the natural world view. The natural world is frequently personified
41. Kasemann, Romans, p. 232; Cranfield, Romans, p. 411. Nelson, ?The Groaning of
Creation?, pp. 149-51, has an illuminating discussion comparing kOoyos and k t i o t s . ?Whereas
kOopos participates in the sin and is characterized by it, and thus in its estrangement from God
can only be transitory, the k t i o i s is said by Paul to be under a subjection f o r which it is not
responsible; to which it submitted in hope; and from which it expects to be delivered? (p. 151).
42. H o m m e l , ?Harren?, p. 19; Gager, ?Diversity?, p. 328.
43. Although in Heb. 4.13 x t i o i s refers to people, the verse applies to humanity a
general principle about the accountability o f all creatures to God.
44. Cranfield, Romans, p. 411; Murray, Romans, p. 302.
45. Schlatter, Gottes, pp. 2 6 9 - 7 0 .
46. M u r r a y , Romans, p. 3 0 2 ; C r a n f i e l d , ?Observations?, p. 225.
47. C r a n f i e l d , Romans, p. 411.
48. Godet, Romans, p. 102; Zahn, Romer, p. 400; Meyer, Romans, p. 374.
BhBook
Exegesis of Romans 8.19-22 181
..
the OT and Jewish apocalypticliterature.? Various aspects of nature are
in ibed emotions, intellect and will (Pss. 77.16; 97.4-5; 114.3-8; Isa.
12,cf. Uk 19.40). The earth and other parts of nature have sorrow or pain due
to human sin (Gen. 4.11; Isa. 24.4, 7; Jer. 4.28; 12.4). They rejoice at human
righteousness, the display of God?s glory, the vindication of God and the presence
of the righteous in the messianic kingdom (Pss. 65.12-13; 98.4, 7-9; Isa. 14.7-
g; 55.12). The OT also describes the suffering of the natural world due to
human sin (Gen. 3.17; Isa. 24.4-7; 33.9; Jer. 4.4, 11, 26-28) and the transfor-
mation of nature in a future golden age of righteousness (Isa. 11.6-9; 65.17-25;
66.22-23).
Thus, although the r h y t h m and structure of Rom. 8.19-22 are not poetic,
the language has colourful imagery, personification and emotional sensitivity.?
Although the descriptions are figurative, the suffering of the natural w o r l d due
to sin should not be demythologized or anthropologized. The present suffering
of creation is very real, and God w i l l bring this suffering to an end when
Christ returns.?
Verse 19
Creation anxiously longs (4troKapadoxia ... drrexSexeTat) as it awaits the

revealing of the sons o f God. The rare w o r d &troxapadokia is not found prior
to Paul, although the cognate verb &moKxapadoKec was occasionally used in
literary Koine starting in the second century BCE.? The w o r d means ?expectant
waiting? or ?eager expectation?. The etymology implies ?straining the neck (or
head)?, ?craning forward to see something?.? This suggests an image of a crowd
standing on tiptoe straining w i t h outstretched heads to catch the first glimpse
of a person or event eagerly longed f o r (such as the arrival of a victor?s
chariot).5 Both N T occurrences are associated w i t h éAtris (cf. Phil. 1.20),
49. For apocalyptic examples, see Chapters 2 - 5 above. Cf. Fritzsche, Pauli ad Romanos,
. 151.
P 50. C . H . D o d d , The Epistle o f Paul to the Romans ( M N T C , 6; London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1932), p. 1335 Cranfield, Romans, pp- 404-5. Deichgriber calls it a ?cosmic
liturgy? or a h y m n o f praise, cf. Rom. 11.36; 1 5 . 9 - 1 2 Phil. 2.10; Col. 1.20; Rev. 5.13; 19.5
(Reinhard Deichgrabet, Gotteshymnus und Christushymnus in der fritben Christenbeit
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1967], p- 211). Deichgraber correctly recognizest h e
passage?s poetic quality, b u t he overplays its liturgical function, which is more evident in his
other examples.
51. Cé£. Gore, p. 305. .
52. James Hope M o u l t o n and George Milligan, The Vocabulary o f the Greek Testament.
Illustrated From the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans,
1930), p. 63, believe Paul coined the noun. The root verb k a p a d o x e is found in sixth tof i f t h
century BCE classical writers such as Herodotus and Xenophon (LSJ, ?Atroxapadoxia?, p.
877).
53. BDAG, ?Aroxapaboxia?, p. 112.
54. Cranfield, Romans, p. 410.
55. Stacey, ?Paul?s Certainties?, p. 180; G . B e r t r a m , ?Arroxapadoxia?, Z N W 4 9 (1958),
Ppp- 2 6 4 - 7 0 ( 2 6 5 ) ; L o a n e , p. 82.
which suggests that aTroxapadoxic involves ?confident ex P € c t a t i o n ? s I

Romans 8 the forward-looking character of the word is shown
by the hopethat
creation will be delivered from subjection to decay and shar
€ in the freedom
of the glorified children of God (vv. 20b-21). Bertram se €s an element of
anxiety (?anxious, doubtful waiting?) due to the suffering that Creation is now
experiencing (vv. 20-22). The context, however, reflects a confidencethat
God?s promise will be fulfilled, which leads most interpreters to reject Negative
nuances for the word.?
The verb coKdéxopuai reinforces the idea of eager waiting. It means to
await eagerly or expectantly for somefuture event?, ?to look forward eagerly?.
It is always associated in the N T with the idea o f eschatological hope, partic-
ularly for the second coming o f Christ (e.g. Phil. 3.20; 1 Cor. 1.7; Heb. 9.28)
or the eschatological perfection of believers (Gal 5 . 5 ) . This context associates
the word with the hope of creation for deliverance from bondage to decay (y,
20) and the hope of believers for their adoption and the redemption of their
bodies (vv. 23, 25).
Grammatically &toxapadoxia rather than ktiats is the subject of the verb
atrexSexetai. This is somewhat surprising since the verb expects a personal
subject, not an abstract one. Many English translations, in fact, make ?creation?
the subject,? since logically (if not grammatically) the creation does the waiting
(atexdéxetat) for the sons o f God to be revealed. This is also confirmed by the
subjective genitive t h s Kticews, which indicates that creation performs the
i m p l i e d v e r b a l idea o f a t o x a p a d o x i a a n d t h u s ?eagerly expects?.
Christoffersson suggests that making dToKapadoxia the subject of the sentence
intensifies the longing of creation.?
Schlatter argues that the eager waiting o f creation suggests that kTiois refers
to humans rather than the natural world, since animals, plants and mountains
do not have emotional responses or consciousness.? As has been shown,
however, personification of the natural world is a common poetic device in the
OT and Jewish apocalyptic literature. In this passage, the personification
highlights the close relationship between the eschatological fate o f the natural
. v6. o e R y ocapaboxio?, in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), T D N T

vol. Grand
1;
Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1964-78), 393:° D. R. p.
? Boxia?
Z N W 73 (1982), pp. 138-40. ° yp : Denton, ?Amorapabonie
57. :Bertram, ?Atroxapadoxia? Pp. 264-70. . Theodor i
: » A
PP. 10",
e o f Mopsuestia (PG 66.824)

pelieved
T e e n a a t o n i r means ?to despair?, because the prefix a- negates kapadoxée (?to
Pe?) i e m ooeyi s lected by most modernscholars,
" 8 : Delling, ?Atroxapadoxia?, p. 393; Denton, ?A SoKia? 40;
Nelson, ?The Groaning o f Creation? a
anneP e RIas Pp. 138-405
9. I e ne of Creation? pp. 190-91;M o o , Romans, pp. 550, n. 15.
L o u w and Eugene A . N i d a G r e e k - E n g l i .
Testament Based on Semantic D o m a i n s ( N e w Y o r k :U n i t e d B i r e i s e e t i c o n o f the N e w
é1 B D A G , *AtroxSéxopuan?, p. 109, ble Societies, 1 9 8 8 - 8 9 ) , §25:63.
- RSV, NIV, N E B and NRSV.
render ?anxious longing? as subject On the other hand KJV and NASB are more literal and
62. Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, pp.
63. Schlatter, Gottes, p. 274, Pp. 103, n. 40,

d redeemed humanity. The naturalw o r l d ?eagerly awaits? the revelati

world af of God in glory, because at that time creation will be set freefrom
corruption and will share the freedom of the glory of the glorified
slavery ? § G o d( v . 21).
The meaning of ?the revelation of the sons of God? (Thy atroKaAup Teav
«ay cou G600) has been much discussed. The use of aTroKcAUpis with believers
as the object is unusual.In what sense will the sons of God be ?revealed??
Christoffersson sees this as an argument against the claim that Toov Vicav TOU
geod refers to believers. He argues that revelation implies that something is
hidden, which is not true of Christians.® It will be shown, however, that it is
quite reasonable to use garoxaAupis with believers.
The N T often uses GtroKaAupis concerning events surrounding the second
coming of Christ. In many cases, &rroKaduypis is not the revelation of a message
but the appearance Or unveiling of a person, i.e. Jesus Christ (2 Thess. 1.7 [?the
revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with angels?); 1 Cor. 1.7; 1 Pet. 1.7,
13).* The meaning of aroKaAuipis in these passages is close to davepoco and
cognate words. The word is used this way in Rom. 8.19 to refer to the revealing
of the sons of God. Other passages refer to eschatological events surrounding
the second coming: the glory to be revealed at the second coming (1 Pet. 4.13;
5.1), the final judgment (Rom. 2.5), and the final salvation of believers (1 Pet.
1.5). The eschatological use of &rroxcAuipis, therefore, encompasses the whole
complex of events surrounding the second coming of Christ, in which believers
will participate. f the sons of God is a complex idea with several dimensions.
The revelation 0
(1) Fundamentally, it refers to the appearance of glorified believers with Christ
at his second coming,? as shown by the frequent association of GTroKahuypts
with Christ?s second coming. (2) The event will also publicly reveal the identity
of the children of God (v. 23), whose sonship is currently veiled except to faith
(vv. 14-16).? A t any time, many are hidden on earth because of death* and
others have not yet been born. The unveiling of believers glory will be the
first time that the entire Church will be seen as 4 whole.? (3) This eventw i l l
show the true status of Christians.? ?Christians, suffering (v. 18) and weak (v.
PP- 10334.
st Expectation,
64. Christofferss0? w i n e e ssages refer to the Messiah being revealed in the sense
65. Several Jews apocal naled {revelabitur)?); 1 En. 52.95
? ?
the iah shall be rev Tr]
o f appearing: ¢ kavat e ( e d t 0 the elect); 69.275 2 Bar. 39.7 (his dominion).
acher, Patl?s L e t t e r to the Romans
62.7 (Son of M a n 507-8; Peter
66. Sanday 3ndF i uit Kentucky: tminster/JohnK n o 1994), p. 134.Cf.
ne a e tie 3.21 (both use pavepdoco)s 1 Thess: 4.16-17; 1 Cor 15.23.
.3.45
67. Cranfiele: R o m e ovett onj Romans (Miami Springs, FL: Conley and Schoettle,
68.
1), p-
Ro
329: > pp.
264-725 argues that the revealing of the sons

1987 Rastman, ?Whose Apocalypse??s PP i r ?deemed Israel (cf. Rom. 11.30-32).
, eschatologicalredemption "
of God aval p- 470;Moo, Romans, p. 5503 cranfield, Romans, p. 412; Murray,

184 The Corruption and Redemption o f Creation
26) l i k e a l l o t h e r people, di o n o t ? a p p e a r ? i n t h i s life m u c h like

i ?
Sons o f
but the last day will publicly show our real status.?? (4) It also , ;
revelation of the glory of the children of God in their resutrectinn the

Believers will be transformed into glory in their new resurrectionbodi bodies,»
21, 23) and publicly unveiled in their glorified state. Thatw h i c h b a y 18,
have ?in preliminary form and in hiddenness will be brought to its im
and made publicly evident?.? (5) Although believers are alreadychildren rant
(vv, 14-17), their adoption will not be completed until their bodies aret Sod
rected and hence redeemed (v. 23). When believers are revealed as sonso f Ge 1
will be the first time that they are fully sons of God, with all the associated oti
leges. "
Most scholars believe that Tcov vicov Tov b o d refers to glorified believers
in light of the references to believers as sons of God in the context (vv. 14-17,
2 3 ) . Christoffersson, however, argues that the phrase refers to the angels of
the judgment who will come with Christ at his second coming. His arguments
against interpreting the phrase as a reference to believers are: (1) No other NT
passage speaks of a revelation of Christians.? (2) The revelation of the sons of
God is a revelation to the subhuman creation, but revelation usually is directed
to people. (3) There is nothing in 8.18-27 that identifies the sons as believers.
Christoffersson argues that this passage comes from a different background
than the context, so it is not appropriate to use vv. 14-17 for the identification
of the sons of God in v. 19. (4) Believers long for their adoption as sons,
which they do not yet have, at least in full measure.?
Christoffersson offers several arguments for his interpretation of T a v vidv
Tod B 0 0 as angels: (1) Elsewhere Paul says angels will come with Christ (1
Thess. 4.15-17; 2 Thess. 1.7; cf. M t . 25.30-31; Jude 14 [citing 1 En. 1.9?]).?
2 Thess. 1.7 is particularly important because it speaks o f the revelation (TH
&mroxaAtwer) of the Lord Jesus with angels. (2) Several Jewish apocalyptic
passages refer to the coming of angels with the Messiah (e.g. 1 En. 38.1-4; 4
Ezra 7.28). (3) Some Qumran texts refer to good angels as sons of God (1QS
4.22; 9.8; 1QH 3.22). Although no apocalyptic passage directly calls angels
?sons o f God?, 1 En. 6.2 calls the fallen Watchers ?angels, the children of
heaven?.?
Christoffersson?s helpful study shows many parallels between Romans 8 and
Jewish apocalyptic literature. Nevertheless, his arguments for theinterpretation
71. M o o , Romans, p. 550; cf. Schlatter, Gottes, p. 268.

72. Boylan, Romans, p. 143; Govett, Romans, p. 329. Govett says the glory o f believers
shall appear in the resurrection even as Christ?s glory was shown in his resurrection (1 Cor
15.42-43).
73, M o o , Romans, pp. 550-51; cf. Murray, p. 303.
74, Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 507; Cranfield, Romans, p. 412; Dunn, Romans, pp. 459, 470.
75. Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, pp. 104, 120; cf. Balz, Heilsvertrauen, p. 38.
76. Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, pp. 120-21.
77, In1 Thess. 3.13, T o v &yicov ovTou may mean believers, not angels.
78. Christofferssonsdummest Expectation, pp. 122-4.
€
af ay
Bp) B w ?
ay
£00 as angels are not persuasive. There is strong evidence
yiggy TOU
T e V v i a Tod Geou refers to believers in this passage:

v
of believers as sons of God, both using viot and téexva

(1) TheCon ae i o d o ) , I t is believers w h o w i l l be glorified (vv. 17-18).
(ve , roffersson claims wv. 14-17 refer to believers, but v. 19 refers toangels.
o e ehanee, however, from Vios (vv. 14, 19) to Tekvov (vv. 16, 17, 22) is not
significant,? since both utot (v. 14) and téxva (v. 16) refer to believers.
Elsewhere Paul consistently uses the singular ?son of God? (0 utos t o t B00)
to refer to Christ and the plural ?sons of God? (uiot 800) to refer to believers.
He never uses either singular or plural to refer to angels.?
(2) While Christoffersson is correct no other passage associates GTroxéAupis with
believers, a similar concept occurs in different words. As has been shown,
amroKxahuipis and atroKaduTTo are used elsewhere almost in the sense of
?manifest? or ?appear?. In eschatological contexts, &moxaAimteo is roughly
equivalent to davepoco. Louw and Nida classify davepoco in the same
semantic domain as OTroKaAupis and &troKaAumteo: primary domain ?know?
and subdomain ?well known, clearly shown, revealed?. In this sense avepoco
means ?to cause something to be fully known by revealing clearly and in some
detail - ?to make known, to make plain, to reveal, to bring to the light, to
disclose??, which is basically the same definition they give for aTroKaAUTrTe.2
Mundle observes, ?in the N T the meaning of both words is virtually inter-
changeable, so that . . . any attempt at precise conceptual distinction only leads
to artificial demarcations?.? In several passages believers appear (avepoco)
with Christ: Col. 3.4 says that when Christ appears, believers will ?appear with
him in glory?. The promise of &0£« is the same as in Rom. 8.18, 21. 1 John
3.2 also refers to the appearing of transformed believers with Christ.? 1 Pet.
79. ? Ibid., pp. 98, n. 21, acknowledges that there is no basis for distinguishing between
the two words in the N T (cf. F. E. Bruce, The Epistle o f Paul to the Romans. An Introduction
and Commentary [TNTC; Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1963], p. 167). Nevertheless,
Christoffersson tries to press a distinction in Romans 8.
80. I n the Pauline corpus téxvov always refers to Christians (Rom. 8.16, 17, 21; 9.8;
Eph. 5.1; Phil. 2.15), except w h e n it refers t o ordinary children o r when it isusedmetaphor-
ically (spiritual children, children of wrath). Except for references to ordinary children o r
metaphorical usages (e.g. ?children of Israel?), vios refers either to believers (Rom.8.14, 19;
9.26 [quoting Hos. 1.10]; 2 Cor. 6.18 [quoting 2 Sam. 7.14]; Gal. 3.26; 4.7) or Christ (Rom.
1.4, 9; 5.10; 8.3, 29, 32; 1 Cor. 1.9; 15.28; 2 Cor. 1.19; Gal. 1.16; 4.4, 6; Eph. 4.13; Col. 1.13;
1 Thess. 1.10). The plural vioi Geo always refers to believers (Gal. 3.26; Rom. 8.14, 19) and
the singular 0 vids Tod Geou always refers to Christ (Rom. 1.4; 2 Cor. 1.19; Gal. 2.20; Eph.
4.13).
81. ®avepow can mean ?reveal?. A divine ?mystery? is revealed using gavepoc (Col.
1.26) and atroxaduypis (Rom. 16.25; Eph. 3.3). 4

82. L o u w and N i d a , Lexicon, §28.28-28.56].
83. Wilhelm Mundle and C o l i n Brown, ?Revelation?, in Colin Brown (ed.), N I D N T T
(vol. 3; Grand Rapids, M I : Zondervan, 1978), pp. 309-40 (312).
84. Cf. R u d o l f K a r l Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles (Hermeneia; Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1973), p. 120.
5.1, 4 refer to the eschatological glory of believers at the time Of the

coming (atoxapadoxia) ofChrist, The passage shifts from &troKanni, nd
(5.1) to davepoeo (5.4), while still speaking about Christ?s secondcomin mea
the believer?s future glory, showing the close similarity of thesewords, A l i n e ?
passages say believers will appear in glory at Christ?s coming. se
(3) Although several N T passages refer to angels coming at Christ's second
coming (2 Thess. 1.7 is the clearest), Paul never refers to them as ?sons of
God?, Despite the OT precedents (Gen. 6.2, 4; Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7), theN T
does not pick up this usage.
(4) While Christoffersson is correct that there are Jewish apocalypticPassages
in which angels appear at the coming o f the Messiah, angels are notcalled
?sons o f God? in these passages, nor elsewhere in the writings he cites,* Some
o f these references more l i k e l y refer to the redeemed coming with the
Messiah. 1 Enoch 38.1 (parable 1) probably refers to believers who come
with the Messiah:* ?The congregation o f the righteous? is explained in y, 4
as ?the holy, the righteous and the elect?, w h o w i l l possess the earth (cf. y,
2). 1 Enoch 62.7-8 (parable 3) uses a similar expression: ?The congregation
of the holy ones shall be planted and all the elect ones shall stand before
him?.? This shows that the ?congregation of the righteous? refers to believers,
who will be gathered with the Messiah (v. 7). 4 Ezra 7.28 says ?the Messiah
will be revealed with those who are with him?, which in context fits the
righteous better than angels.
This evidence supports the conclusion that in Rom. 8.19 creation eagerly
awaits the appearance of glorified believers with Christ. Although Christ's
second coming is not specifically mentioned in vv. 19-22, vv. 17-18 say that
believers will be glorified with Christ and v. 23 refers to the redemption of their
bodies. These verses establish the eschatological context for the appearing of
the sons of God (v. 19).
Verse 2 0
The y a p in v. 2 0 shows t h a t wv. 20-21 explain w h y creation waits eagerly for

the revelation o f the children o f God. Since creation was subjected to f u t i l i t y
and is enslaved t o corruption, i t looks f o r w a r d t o being set free to share i n the
freedom o f the glorified children o f God.
Creation was subjected to futility ( u a t o i d t y t t 1 KTiols Utetayn). Paul
stresses the present futility of creation, by putting patoiommi first in the
85. Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, p. 123, acknowledges this weakness of his

position.
86. Christoffersson acknowledges this possible interpretation (ibid., p. 122).
87. Cf. 1 En. 51.4-5 (parable 2), the ?righteous ones? and ?elect ones? are believers who
will dwell on the earth during the messianic age. The passage mentions ?angels in heaven? but
not on the earth, as are ~? people.
Exegesis o f R o m a n s 8 . 1 9 - 2 2 187
Creation has changed from its original state; it is not as God originally
1 , Futility is not part of ?createdness itself?, contrary to Barth?s claim.
clause
dese ve are several Views of who subjected (umetayn) creation to futility. (1)
ost common vieW is that God subjected creation as a judicial
The vncement in response to Adam?s fall. The passage reflects the curse on
O n n din Gen. 3.17-18.? (2) Others believe that Adam subjected creation
w e he fell.? Since Adam was given dominion over the world, his sin subjected
"he world t0 futility.? (3) A few argue that humanity in general causes the
eutility.? (4) Barth takes the unusual position in his later Shorter Commentary
on Romans that Christ subjected creation t o f u t i l i t y by the judgment
pronounced on the cross.? (5) A few believe Satan caused the futility.?
38. Barth, Romans, p. 308, claims the futility is part o f the way the material world was
created. C. F, D. Moule, Man and Nature in the New Testament. Some Reflections on Biblical
Ecology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967), pp. 11-12, believes death was inherent in nature from
the beginning. Cf. R. H. Allaway, ?Fall o r Fall-Short??, ExpTim 97 (1986), pp. 108-10
(109-10).
89. Cranfield, Romans, p. 413; Kasemann, Romans, p. 235; Murray, Romans, p. 303;
Francis, ?Realities?, p. 152; Gaugler, R m e r b r i e f , p. 303; Bruce, Romans, p. 172; Sanday and
Headlam, Romans, p. 208; Edmund Hill, ?The Construction of Three Passages From St. Paul?,
CBO 23 (1961), pp. 296-301 (297); Gwilym O. Griffith, St. Paul's Gospel to the Romans
(London: Blackwell, 1949), p. 95; Dodd, Romans, p. 134; Stacey, ?Paul?s Certainties?, p. 179;
Loane, Hope, p. 179; Charles Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York:
Armstrong and Son, revd edn, 1896), p. 272; M . J. Lagrange, Saint Paul: Epitre aux Romains
(Paris: J. Gabalda, 1950), p. 208; Leenhardt, Romans, pp. 220-21; Nelson, ?The Groaning
of Creation?, pp. 196-8; Ernest Best, The Letter o f Paul to the Romans (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 198; Boylan, Romans, p. 143; James Denney, ?St. Paul?s
Epistle to the Romans?, in W. Robertson Nicoll (ed.), Expositor?s Greek Testament (vol. 2;
Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1970), pp. 555-725 (449); Rust, Nature, p. 733; Govett,
Romans, pp. 336-7; Robin Scroggs, The Last Adam. A Study in Pauline Anthropology
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), p. 913 Barth, Romans, p. 309. But in his later Shorter
Commentary on Romans, Barth says it is Christ. George Philip, ?Creation Waiting for
Redemption. A n Expository Study of Romans 8:19-22°, ExpTim 5 (1893-94), pp. 315-19,
415-18, 509-12 (415), believes Satan tempted, Adam transgressed, but God pronounced the
sentence and subjected creation tofutility. _
90. _E. Fuchs, Rémer, p. 109; G. W. H. Lampe, ?TheNew Testament
458); B a l z , Heilsvertrauen, p.
po
tanislas Lyonnet,
415
of R t s
Kedemp
Conmica?O P O i e nom O i s e " VD 44 (1966), pp- 225-42(228); Giblin, In Hope, p.
394; Stauffer, Theology, p- 743 Hunt, Portrait, p. 96; Foerstes, ?cribs?, p. 10915 Delling,
?Téoot, TAYUG, AVATGCCC, amotédaw, Siatacoco, diatayn, EMITOYN, r e x e l and
sTOThGGC, UMOTAYN, AVUTOTAKTOS, GTAKTOS, (araKteos), ecraKteoo?, inGertar 8
Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), TDNT (vol. Grand Rapids, MI:
8; Eerdmans, 1964-78), pp-
(41). x c s , p. 458
32. SeautfetTheology, p. 743 Zahn, Romer, p. 221; Paul Evdokimoy, ?Nature?, S/T 18
1963» Pea1 orter
orter,
pp. 99-100
pp.
99-100.
34 Satan: Alex Pallis, To the Romans (Liverpool: LiverpoolBooksellers, 1920).K a r l
Heim, The World: Its Creation and Consummation (trans. Robert Smith; Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg, 1962), p. 125, says it is the ?satanic power of sin?, although he rejects the
existence of apersonal devil.

Christoffersson sees the fallen-Watcher tradition from 1 Eno ch as th

background. The fallen angels taught humanity forbidden, sinfy| knowled ¢
leading to the deformation of the world.? ? Be,
It is most likely that Paul has the fall of Adam in view. In Rom,
5.12-19
Adam?s sin brought sin and death to humanity.I n Rom. 8.20-22, the impact
of the fall extends to the sub-human creation. Creation is now enslaved tp
corruption (p8opa) and futility (uata1oTs) due to Adam?s sin. Yet God,not
Adam, subjected creation to this futility. In a judicial Pronouncement, Goq
cursed the ground (Gen. 3.17-18). Only God could subject creation tofutility
with a hope for its future redemption (v. 20, e eAmidi). Neither Adam, no;
humanity nor evil spirits have this ability.% The term Utotéooc suggests an
authoritative action, which is not suitable for Satan, Adam or humanity.?
The view that Adam subjected creation to futility is nearly correct. InGen.
3.17, however, the curse on the ground is n o t a natural consequence of Adam?s
disobedience, nor was it something that Adam directly caused. Rather it was
God?s judicial response to Adam?s sin. Since Adam was accountable to God for
his rule of the earth and tending o f the garden, his sin affected the natural world
that he cared for.* Due to the solidarity between humanity and the natural
world, human sin affects the rest of creation.
It is partially true that human sin in general subjects creation to futility,
Nature is a victim of human sin.? But the aorist UmretTayn better fits a single
event than an ongoing process, particularly in light o f Paul?s prior discussion
of the consequences of Adam?s ?one trespass? in 5.18.
Barth?s view that Christ?s crucifixion subjected creation to futility turns the
work of the cross on its head. The cross brings life, not death and futility. The
cross, in fact, is the solution for the situation described in Rom. 8.20.?
It is unlikely that Paul has Satan or evil spirits in mind, because they could
i subject creation ?in hope? (v. 20). This view is also close to an un-Pauline
i o ustoffersson 18 correct that creation was subjected tof u t i l i t y
background hnR e v i d <nee is weak that the fallen Watcher story is the
. Paul ?oes not mention the fall of angels, but he
Previously in Romans 5:12-21.
?not of its own will? (ody éxodoa , but
?cording to the will of God who subjected it (4AN& 1 g t v inordbegra)
95 i
3 Leen ersson, Earnest Expectation Pp. 130-31
tdt, Romans, :
152; H i l l «, Mstruction? PP. 226-31, urray, R o m a 3 ?Realities?
is,
97, i n
Cranfield, Romans, i o n 413 MS, p. 303 | Francis, ?Realities?, | p.
58 Lampe, ?Ktisis?, p. 453.
00 Evdokimoy, ?Nature?, p 1
so Nelson, ?The Groaning o Cr

- Bruce, Omans, p. 173 sation
of human s i n . ? The personification giving the non-rational

rim
a o o l suggests that the natural w o r l d primarily acts according to

non é except where it has been damaged due to human sin.
God's T e face dia plus accusative (?because of the one who subjected it?)
O n to indicate the reason for the subjection of creation to futility. This
ould support the view that the subjection was because of Adam?s sin.?
BD AG, however, says that 510 plus accusative of person indicates the efficient
cause for the subjection of creation, not the reason." The contrast to Ekovca
suggests that creation was subjected not of its own will, but according to the
will of God who subjected it. p e e
Hill takes the unusual position that aAAa S10 Tov uTotaEavta is a paren-
thetical phrase that explains €$ eAridi: ?The creation was subjected to vanity,
not willingly (indeed) but (nevertheless) in hope because of him who subjected
it; for this reason creation shall be set free?. The basis of the hope of creation
is the one who subjected it.? This makes little grammatical sense of O A , since
?in hope? is not a good contrast with ?not willingly?.
What is the ?futility? ( u a t o 1 o m s ) to which creation has been subjected?

BDAG says y a t a i o t n s means ?emptiness, futility, purposelessness, transi-
toriness? and in Rom. 8.20 ?frustration?."? I t has the sense of being ?without
result? (ua T v ) , ?ineffective?, ?not reaching its e n d ? . The underlying idea is ?the
ineffectiveness of that which does not attain its goal?. Creation is not able to
fulfil the purpose for which it was m a d e . This is an anthropopathism that
implies that the created w o r l d wants to act as God designed, but is restricted
due to the damage o f human sin.
The background of Gen. 3.17-19 suggests that futility refers to the changes
to the natural order as a result of the f a l l . " Since the ground was cursed, it now
brings forth weeds more easily than crops and requires hard andpainful labour
to produce crops. Cranfield says ?the subhuman creation hasbeen subjected to
the frustration of not being able properly to fulfill the purpose of its existence,
103. Cf. Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), p. 142.
. Romans, ?by314.
p.
;
105. BDAC. ua p - 126. the one who subjected it?. Cf. Kasemann, Romans, p. 235;
Moo, Romans, p. 552.
106. Hill, ?Construction?, p. p i
107. BDAG, ?yatoiotms?, p- . ;
, . 208; cf. Francis, p. 152.
108. a n y R o w a n , o p 413-145 Murray, Romans, p. 303; Stacey, ?Paul?s
Certainties? p- 179; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 208; Hunt, PS O L . p- 6. that Paul
110. Cranfield, Romans, p. 413, By contrast, Gibli, In Hope, pp. 394 5, argues thatPau
4 . that the physical world was actually changed afterthe fall (cf. Allaway, n e
o e 0910. t ld was always an imperfect world that had hope of glorification.) The
Pp- 109-10 * thevective is fundamentally theological, not phenomenological. Pauldescribes
apocalyptic Pe eecon o f God?s powers in creation, but not an actualdeteriorationo fcreation
a c e r a s o l e wisely cautions about taking everything ?literally? in apocalyptic literature.
after the fall h e believes there will be an eschatological transformation of thenaturalworld.
Nevertheless, not do justice to the strong language about the present state of creationa n d
His view Oe EW, which suggests that the subjection began at a certain time. It alsoimplies
her Paul does not accept the curse on the ground in Gen. 3.16-17.
God having appointed that without man it should not be made perfec
humanity was given dominion over nature (Gen. 1.26-28), when Ada " Since
the world for which he was responsible became frustrated in its p M sinne
is no longer all it was created to be. Creation looks forward tot h e t and
of the glory of the children of God? (v. 21), because when humanity ig r eedom
to its proper obedience to God, the rest of creation will benefit. ?stored
There have been many attempts to refine the understanding of the ?futility
of the creation within this basic picture. Leenhardt refers to thefutility v
existence and its lack of meaning.?? Gaugler says creation was deprived of the
glory that it should have received.?? Rust notes the seemingly meaningless
struggle for existence and the process of repeated death:
The great wastage in which the generative powers of nature seem involved, the internecine
warfare in which nature seems red in tooth and claw, the seemingly meaningless and even
evil forms of organic life which the process of nature has produced, the unending struggle
for existence which underlies the whole natural order . .. The whole process of nature seems
subject to emptiness, futility. In the animal order and in the realm of plants, the cycle of birth
and death repeats itself, continuing ever onwards in an unending stream of descendants.
Some believe Ecclesiastes is the background for p a t a i o t n s in this passage."

Bauernfeind calls Rom. 8.20 ?a valid commentary? on Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes
has 32 o f the 47 occurrences of y a t o r o t n s in the L X X and shapes the OT
understanding of the term. This book stresses the ?vanity? of all of life apart from
God. Romans 8.20 agrees w i t h Ecclesiastes that vanity exists in the world. Yet
it goes beyond Ecclesiastes by explaining t h a t the present futility had a
beginning and it offers hope by promising that it w i l l end.? In addition,
Ecclesiastes mainly focuses on the vanity o f human experience, but Rom. 8.19-
22 extends the picture to the present futility of the whole created order.
Other suggestions about the meaning o f p a t o i s are less likely:
(1) Some assume that pato1otns is a simple synonym for ?corruption? (p8opa;
v. 21), in light o f the parallel ideas ?subjected to futility? and ?slavery to
corruption?, It refers to the mutability and mortality o f creaturely existence.?
Certainly part o f the futility of life is that death is inevitable and creation is
continually decaying. However, p a t a i o t n s is a broader term than B o p a . *
Futility and frustration are results of the slavery to death and decay.
111. Cranfield, Romans, pp. 413-14.

112. Leenhardt, Romans, p. 220.
113. Gaugler, Rémerbrief, p. 303.
114. Rust, N a t u r e , p. 234.
115. O t t o B a u e r n f e i n d , ?patoios, patoidéms, p a t a i d e , p a n y , p a r r a t o A ta,
oy
pataiohdyos?, in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), T D N T (vol. 4; Grand Rapids,
M I : Eerdmans, 1964-78), pp. 519-24 (523); Francis, ?Realities?, p. 152; Gibbs, Creation, pp-
42-3; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 208; Cranfield, Romans, p. 413.
116. Bauernfeind, ?udtaios?, p. 523.
117. D u n n , Romans, p. 470: the w o r d s are ?nearly equivalent?. Boylan, Romans, P-
144, combines this idea w i t h idolatry.
118. Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 8 9 7
* ., = ,
. dnc
refers to evil spiritual powers that rule the

another view is tha OTS to refer to false gods and idols in Ps. 31.6
(mn The LXX Paul calls this ?subjection to the elements of the
where
( 30.7) E s Paul certainly sees evil forces at work in the cosmos,?
world? (Ca ?that they are in view in this context. Although the L X X
put it 18 ? es the adjective y a t a t o s to refer to idols, Ps. 30.7 is the only
occasiona Y h e noun PAaTAIOTHS means this. I n the L X X the w o r d predom-
Jace whee to the futility of following a life of sin. In contexts t h a t speak
i a n s o d s , udctatos refers to the vanity of following idols (2 Chron. 11.15 ;
isa. 44.9; Jer. 10.35 Ezek. 8.10). M o s t references to false gods refer to idols,
not demons.? In addition, if God is the i m p l i e d agent behind the passive verb
Smetayn, this would mean God subjected creation to evil powers.
(3) A variation of this view says PATIOSrefers to idolatry and false gods.
Romans 1.21 uses the cognate verb p a t a t o c to refer to the futile thinking
of people who worship idols.? Although Rom. 1.21 is related, Rom. 8.20
refers to the futility of nature, not the vain ways o f humanity. This view has
similar weaknesses to the evil-spirits view. Furthermore, when the adjective
yatatos functions as a noun referring to idols it is always plural. The noun
yaTaLOTHS is only used of idols once in the L X X (Ps. 30.7; cf. Acts 14.15)
and that use fits within the larger picture of the futility of a sinful life apart
from God. I f the subjection to futility refers to the divine curse as a result
of the fall, it cannot refer to human idolatry since God did not cause the
idolatry.
(4) Kasemann believes that p a t a t o t n s refers to the ?spiritual emptiness? that
is the status quo of fallen creation. ?It misses existence and opts for
illusions.? This existential interpretation focuses on human experience
and misses the broader implications of the fall for all o f creation. It is not
consistent with Kasemann?s view that God subjected creation, although it
fits the anthropological interpretation of Végtle and others.?
119. Hans Lietzmann, A n die Rémer (HINT, 8; Tiibingen: M o h r , 4 t h edn, 1933), p. 85;
James D. Hester, Paul?s Concept o f Inheritance (SJTOP, 14; Edinburgh: O l i v e r and Boyd,
1968), pp. 8 1 - 2 ; W i l f r e d L. K n o x , Saint Paul a n d the Church o f the Gentiles (Cambridge
University: Cambridge, 1939), p. 107; D e n t o n , ?Atoxapadoxia?, p. 166.
120. E.g. Gibbs, Creation, p. 43, lists Rom. 7.21-23; 1 Cor. 5.3; Eph. 2.2; 6.12; Col. 1.13;
1 Thess. 2.18.
121. There are comparatively few references to idols using p a t a i o s (1 Kgs 16.13, 25; Isa.
2.20; Jer. 8.19; H o s . 5.11). Lev. 17.7 may refer t o demons.
122. Boylan, Romans, p. 143. H e also sees the m u t a b i l i t y o f creaturely existence. D u n n ,
Romans, p. 470, says the futility of creation is in its being deified o r seen solely for humanity?s
use,
123. Kasemann, Romans, p. 235; cf. Delling, ?taoow?, p. 523 (?the meaninglessness o f
existence w i t h o u t God?).
124. A n t o n Végtle, Das Neue Testament u n d die Z u k u n f t des Kosmos (Diisseldorf:
Patmos-Verlag, 1970), p. 194; Heinrich Schlier, ?Das, w o r a u f alles wartet. Eine Auslegung von
R o m e r 8, 13-30?, in H e l m u t K u h n (ed.), Interpretation der Welt. Festschrift f i i r Romano
G u a r d i n i zum achtzigsten Geburtstag (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1965), pp. 5 9 9 - 6 1 6 (603); Gerber,
?Rom?, p. 68.
192 The Corruption and Redemption Of Creation
This passage raises the important question o

f w h e t h e r onesave.C2N «speak oy
?fallen creation?. (1) Bruce, who believes creation to be fallen, Peak o

a
creation must be redeemed because, like man, Creation hasbees. i k eMan,
fall?. Humanity was put in charge of the ?lower? creation and was i J€ct tp
. - a. : :
. INVolyedi
its fall, which is described in Genesis 3 when the ground was Cursed,2¢.
Heim says since nature is fallen, animals attack one another and thew h arly,
nature is perverted to an unnatural s t a t e . (2) Others such as Lampe and f e of
say nature is not fallen and is incapable o f falling intodisobedience, 7 B Orde
goes further and says there is nothing wrong with creation, since decay was .
of the original design.? (3) Paul?s position is probably somewhere inbetwee
Rom. 8.19-22 speaks of the damage that human sin caused to the non-humar
creation. Creation is not in the state in which i t was originally created, Yo, it
is not correct to speak o f a fallen creation, as i f the subhuman Creation
disobeyed God. Foerster correctly says: ?It is better not to speak of a fallen
creation but of a creation which is subjected to corruption?. Evdokimoy
says that nature is morally neutral, but the repercussions of the fall of Adam
perverted not only the relationship of humanity to God but also the relationship
of humanity to the c o s m o s . The subjection of nature to futility was not due
to its own will (obx EkoGaa) or any sin it committed. Rather, nature is a victim
of human sin. Although creation is not ?fallen?, Paul says nature was corrupted
by human sin and is not the way it was originally created due to the curseG o d
made after the fall.
Although creation was subjected to futility, it still has hope for redemption
( ¢ éAmtdt). This alludes to Gen. 3.15, where God promised that the seedo f
the woman would bruise the serpent?s head." When God pronounced judgment
for the sin of Adam and Eve, he also promised that redemption would come
in the future. This promise is the basis for hope both for fallen humanity and
the rest o f creation. This hope is the reason for the eager waiting
(AtroKapadokica) o f creation (v. 19). The personification again stresses the
close relationship between humanity and the natural w o r l d in its present state
and future redemption. Creation eagerly awaits the revelation o f the sons of
God, because at that time the promise w i l l be fulfilled and creation will be
delivered from futility and slavery to corruption and will share the glory of the
glorified children of God (v. 21)
125. Bruce, R o m a n s , p. 169; cf.Stacey, ?Paul?s

Certainties?, p. 179; Kasemann, Romans,
Pp. 2 3 5 ; S t u h l m a c h e r , R o m a n s , p. 132.
126. Heim, World, pp. 103-4.
127. Lampe, ?Ktisis?, pp. 452, 461; Gerhard O. Forde, ?Romans 8:18-27?, I n t 38 (1984),
pp. 2 8 1 - 5 (284-5); Gowan, ?Fall and Redemption?, pp. 100-1.
128. Brunner, Creation and Redemption, p. 128; C. FE. D. M o u l
e, Man, pp. 11-12.
Brunner admits Rom. 8.20-21 may be anexception,
but he does not make use o f the passage
because it is ?obscure and there is much controversy about its meaning?.
129. Foerster, ?kri{oo?, p. 1031.
130. Evdokimov, ?Nature?, p. 1; cf. Plumer, Romans, p. 490.
131. Cranfield, Romans, p. 414 ~ F
e
p y Book
atically it is best to see eh ehmidu'®asconnectedw i t h UTreTayn rather

?
oragavTa.? WhenGod subjected creation to futility, he also gave hope
Ch its future deliverance. This fits Genesis 3 perfectly, where God
by P o r ground in response to Adam?s sin (3.17-18) and at the same time
: iverance (3.15).
mies: n o n e parallel between t h e Present statea n ef u r u r e n o p e o fb o t h
--v
and the wider material creation. Ihe hope for re e m p t i o n o the
Majo i contingent upon the redemption o f humanity (v. 19, 21). The hope
o f redeemed humanity for its final resurrection and g l o r i f i c a t i o n (8.24-25) is
part of the larger hope of creation for deliverance ( 8 . 2 0 - 2 1 ) . * God subjected
the material order to futility and slavery to decay, in anticipation of its final
transformation in glory. Romans 8.20-21 anticipates 11.32, which is the climax
of Romans 1-11. God shut all under disobedience so he c o u l d s h o w mercy t o
all (11.32), a principle extended in R o m . 8.20-21 t o the entire c r e a t i o n . ?
Verse 2 1
This verse represents the climax of this section. I t describes the glorious future
to which creation looks forward.
The textual evidence is fairly evenly divided between o t t or 51071 as the
initial word. There are good-quality, early MSS with either reading.'* The
difference is largely stylistic and does not affect the meaning, since both words
can mean either ?that? or ?because?.??
Scholars are divided between translating o t i as ? t h a t ? o r ?because?.?? (1)
If o t t means ?that?, v. 21 explains the content o f the hope o f creation: creation
132. Some MSS have Ew éAmiéi, due to evolving aspiration of the word. F. Blass and A.
Debrunner, A Greek Grammar o f the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
(trans. Robert W. Funk; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), pp. 10-11.
133. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 208; Cranfield, Romans, p. 414; Nelson, ?The
Groaning of Creation?, p. 196. Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 508, believes hope goes with the nearer
verb, UnotaEavra. Hill, ?Construction?, p. 247, says the hope is based on the nature of the
person who subjected creation (umotaGavta).
134. Kisemann, Romans, p. 236, believes the hope o f the enslaved creation for redemption
is the cosmic basis for the hope o f the enslaved person crying f o r deliverance (7.21-25).
135. Foerster, ?xtiCos?, p. 1032; Kasemann, Romans, p. 236; Rust, Nature, pp. 237-8.
136. Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 509, says that 51- was added to o t t by dittography from the
ending of tAmidi. Cranfield, Romans, pp. 414-15, says 51- was deleted from S10T1 by haplog-
raphy. Although Paul prefers Ot1 (250 to 10), 40% of usages of S101 appear in Romans. Most
modern scholars slightly favour OT1, since most early uncials and the t w o oldest papyri have
this reading. See Nelson, ?The Groaning o f Creation?, pp. 124-7.
137. M M , p p . 1 6 4 - 5 ; A . V i a r d , ?Expectatio creaturae ( R o m . V I I , 19-22)?, R B 6 9 ( 1 9 5 2 ) ,
pp. 3 3 7 - 5 4 (334).
138. Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 208; Denney, Romans, p. 644; Bruce, Romans,
p. 173; Francis, ?Realities?, p. 153; M o o , Romans, p. 553; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 509.
139. Dunn, Romans, p. 471; Hill, ?Construction?, p. 297; Boylan, Romans, p. 144;
Barrett, Romans, p. 166; Cranfield, Romans, pp. 414-15. Most who translate oT! ?that?place
a comma before 4? EAmi81. Those who translate it ?because? place a comma after ed eATids.
(Nelson, ?The Groaning of Creation?, p. 128.)
194 T h e Corruptiona n dRedemption
O f Creating
was subjected in hope that it would be |j
(2) If ov: is causal (?because?), aerated
y,
( ~ subjected to futili
Only
v. 20), b
corruption ($80pas, y 21). Th itive
indy. ) a s o mms
but
enslaved (objective
iti h creati
(genitive of e w e ) >? rather than that in which the slavery wish
genitive apposition)" or the slavery that comes from corruption (subject;
140. M o o , Romans, p. 553.

141. Loane, H o p e , p. 84.
142. Godet, Romans, p. 315; J. P Lange, The Epistle of P a utol the Romans (ed. P. Schaff
and M . B. Riddle; trans. J. FE Hurst; New York: Charles Scribner?s Sons, Revised edn, 1888),
P. 272; M o o , Romans, p. 553.
143. Murray, Romans, pp. 304, n. 30; Meyer, Romans, p. 77. Murray says this is the
same as the genitive thy éAcubepiav THs 86Ens. This is not compelling, because the latter could
be interpreted as the freedom i .
_ . .
146. Giinther Harder, ??pétipw PMlaprtis, apbaptos, adGapoia, diagGeipen,

SiapBopa, KatapGeipe?, in Ger .@° % Gerhard Friedrich (eds), TDNT (vol. 9;
Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, ? aw
4 me
in Rom. 8.21, Bopa primarily refers? t o death a n d decay? and perhaps by

aplication to the transitoriness of life. In Paul?s writings, the noun is never
nF in the sense of moral corruption, although the cognate verb b0Eipeo
us etimes means ?corrupt morally? (1 Cor. 15.33; Eph. 4.22), ?deceive? (2
o n 11.3) of ?cheat? (2 Cor. 7.2). The consistent Pauline use of the noun in a
non-moral sense supports the conclusion that @80pa is death and decay rather
than moral evil. Only 2 Peter uses the word morally. This is reinforced by the
fact that in Rom. 8.19-22 kTiots refers to the non-human material world, which
s not capable of moral evil. Being ?enslaved to corruption? is close to the sense
of ?perishability? as used in 1 Cor. 15.42, 50, where the term is applied to
perishable earthly human bodies. Creation is in bondage (SouAEta) to
corruption and has no power to free itself from the cycle of death and decay.
Paul probably has i n m i n d the p u n i s h m e n t o f death described i n Gen,
3.19,? which fits the other allusions t o Genesis 3 i n the context. Paul also
alludes to the curse i n R o m . 5.12, 14, a l t h o u g h i n relationship to humanity.
Although Genesis apparently l i m i t s death as a consequence o f the fall t o
humanity, Paul extends it to the natural world. The fall of Adam had cosmic
consequences.
In Isa. 24.3-4, 8 0 p a and the cognate verb p8eipco are used similarly to Rom.
8.21. The earth w i l l be completely corrupted (p80p% p8apncetat) by the sins
of the people (v. 5). I n v. 4 the corruption (or devastation) of the earth is
associated with ?the earth mourns? (érév6noev fh y i ) , just as Rom. 8.22 says
?creation groans?. Another similarity is that God causes these changes to the
?earth as a judgment for human sin (v. 1, 6), although Isa. 24.1-6 refers to earthly
results of divine judgments for human sin in history and Rom. 8.20-21 refers
to the results of the divine judgment after the fall. Both describe the changes
that human sin brings to the natural world as a result of God?s judgment.?
H e i m believes this slavery t o c o r r u p t i o n includes the fact that various parts
of nature are constantly attacking and destroying eachother. If this is what
Paul had in mind, the eschatological transformation of creation will involve a
fundamental change in the operation o f the natural world.?* By contrast, C. F
unn omans, p.
414; Moo, Romans, p. 553;
147. D om n o m a 9 1 8 Cranficlt 407, Fitcmyet Romans, p. 509. Fitzmyer
hagrange, R ms, p- 2095hewn h e n o r » erefaction, but also powerlessness, lack of
extends it to include ?not only p e r i l s serine creation?s present condition?.
beauty, vitality and strength that character eA
148. Cranfield, Romans, p. 414; Rust,a e s a e
149. Govett, Romans, Pr 340; h o a pocabea The Historical and Sociological Roots
150. Paul D. Hanson,T h e e a r n phia: o n e s , revd edn, 1979), pp. 313-14,argues
i ic
Eschatology ?
i i
to chaos,
of JewishApocalyptic Ese ocalyptic. Themes such as worldwidedestruction, retum chaos re
that Isa. 24-27 8 o e ae imprisonment of the heavenly host andresurrect * certain r o apocw
inauguration of the new tp writings. It is probably more accurate to oy t ; P (Missoula,
its affinity to later apoca mR. Millar, Isaiah 24-27 and the Origin of poca ? ie Misso
Wer scha r e s 1976), p. 1145 cf, D. M. Russell, ?New Heavens?, pp. 90)
D- >©
MT: ss
Schova
World,
pp. 108-9. hs
451. Heim, Wor 2 BP CE. Loane, Hope, pp. 84-5; Boylan,Romans, p. 144, who argue
hac physical death will end (cf. 1 Cor. 15.54).
D. Moule argues that death, including predation in nature9 isan;

bo
.
. . 8 an in
of the natural world in God?s initial design.? This assumes that the ent par
operates now is the way it always operated, Paul, however, cays way Nature
was subjected to futility at a certain historical time (v, 20). This i n reat
nature is now different than it was prior to the fall, even asR o m .S t thar
indicates that death became part of the human experience after e e l
Nevertheless, Paul is not explicit about the changes that took place in © fall
aftert h e fall, nor does he describe the exact eschatological changesthat w i t
occur in nature.
Moule argues that corruption refers to the human abuse of nature. When
humanity treats nature properly as God?s vice-gerent, nature will be set free,'s
Moule raises some valid ecological implications of humanity?s dominionover
nature, but this is not what Paul has in mind by o8opa.
Lewis acknowledges that 8o0pa primarily has the physical sense of
but he also believes that death as alienation from God is also in view.? Romans
certainly uses death in this sense (6.23), but only in relationship to sinning
humanity. Nothing in Rom. 8.19-22 suggests that the subhuman creation
?sinned? and thus experienced alienation from God. Rather, nature is a victim
of human sin (v. 1 9 ) . '
A l t h o u g h ?subjection? (umetayn, v. 20) is r e l a t e d conceptually to
?enslavement? (SouAias, v. 21), the enslavement o f creation to corruption is not
the same as the subjection o f creation to futility. Rather the futility is a result
of the enslavement of creation to death and decay. Since death is an inescapable
part o f the cycle o f nature since the fall, futility is a pattern o f life in this age.
This present enslavement o f creation to corruptibility is contrasted to the
future freedom that creation w i l l share with glorified believers.
As discussed earlier, ?children o f God? (tc&dv Téxveov Tot Beou) refers to
Christians (cf. vv. 16-17). Paul uses tékvov interchangeably with vids to refer
to believers in the context (cf. vv. 14-17). Believers are the ?children o f God? who
w i l l be glorified with Christ (v. 17). The ?glory o f the children o f God? ( t i s
50Ens Tadv Téekveov Tol Geou) refers to the eschatological glory that believers
will share with God.'? A t Christ?s second coming, believers will share in and
reflect Christ?s glory (v. 17; cf. Col. 3.4) and the unspeakable glory of God will
be revealed to them (v. 18).
Creation eagerly awaits the revealing o f the children o f God (v. 19), because
at that time creation itself will be set free from slavery to corruption (v. 21). The
eschatological redemption of the material world is connected with the final
glorification of believers because o f the stewardship that humanity was given
over the earth (Gen. 1.26-28). Just as the dominion o f humanity resulted in the
153. C. E D . Moule, Man, pp. 11-12; cf. Leenhardt, Romans, pp. 223-6.
154. C . E D . M o u l e , M a n , pp. 12, 14.
155. Lewis, ?Theodicy?, pp. 409-10.
156. Barrett, Romans, p. 166, believes that G o p refers to corrupt spiritual powers, but
this does not fit the use of the word elsewhere i n Paul?s letters. He admits the personification
o f creation ?not impossible?.
157. Kasemann, Romans, p. 2 3 4 , ? ?
R a n
|) pOUu? s s - - - .
Rane
of
when Adam fell (v. 20), so itw i l l result in the redemption
creation
ruption humanity assumes its proper role in God?s plan.
of Cr
of creation Wilowed by Kasemann) argues that the Parousia is uniquely

vogtle (to ?n exclusively anthropological terms as the manifestation of the
described God 8 This is partially true, but it misses the main point of the
children The expectation here focuses on the glorification of believers, rather
a e appearing of Christ, because the most significant eschatological event
n e the perspective of creation is theglorification of humanity. When believers
are exalted, creation itself will share in thatglory. )
The eschatological freedom (eheubepcabnoetar, eheuSepiav) o f creation is

sharply contrasted with its present slavery (SouAeias). This freedom involves
both negative and positive dimensions.? Creation w i l l be set free from slavery
to corruption. The ongoing cycle of death and decay that characterizes the
created world in this age will end. Creation w i l l also experience the ?freedom
of the glory of the children of God? (thy éheuBepiav t h s SENS T v TéKVeav TOU
Qeou). One aspect of the glory that believers will enjoy in eternity is freedom,
which the material creation will share with them.
The freedom of the subhuman material world, however, is not exactly the
same as the freedom of believers. It is a freedom and glorification appropriate
to its non-rational nature.? Creation will become all that God intended it to
be, but was prevented from becoming due to the impact of human sin. All of
nature will bring glory to God. Cranfield correctly says that creation will have
?the freedom fully and perfectly to fulfill its Creator?s purpose for it, that
freedom which it does not have, so long as man, its lord (Gen. 1.26; Ps. 8.6)
is in disgrace?.?' Tennant observes that the present condition of creation is
?neither original nor final?. The w o r k of Christ in redemption finishes the
work of God in creation, by bringing the creation to its intended state so itmay
fulfil the purposes for which it was c r e a t e d . Christ?s redemption does not
merely affect humanity, but also has cosmic consequences.
The significance of the genitive t h s 50Ens is debated. (1) Some Bible versions
(KJV, RSV, NIV, TEV) translate t h y éAeudepiav t h s S0Ens as ?glorious freedom?.
E is a genitive of quality or an adjectival genitive, perhapsbased
In this case, 5 0 Ns
on a Semitic i d i o m . ? Sanday and Headlam correctly observe, however, that this
turns things around by making the freedom the primary term. Freedom is one
aspect o f the eschatological g l o r y . ? (2) M u r r a y and Nelson see it as appositional:
158. V é g t l e , Z u k u n f t , p. 187; K a s e m a n n , Romans, p. 234.

159. M o o , R o m a n s , p. 553.
160. M u r r a y , R o m a n s , p. 304.
161. C r a n f i e l d , Romans, p. 416.
e n n a n t , T h e Sources of the D o c t r i n e s o f the ball anid O r i g i n a l Sin ( C a m b r i d g e :
C i d e e Oeahocsity Press, 1 9 0 3 ) , p. 274s G r i f f i t h , R o m a n s , p. 115; D o d d , B i b l e , p. 106:
amor :
Leenha o m a n s , p. 2 2 2 . |
S a r a t a r i e l B . W a l l a c e , G r e e k G r a m m a r B e y o n d the B a s i c s ( G r a n d R a p i d s , M k :
1996), p p . 8 7 - 8 ( a t t r i b u t i v e ) .
c o e e G a n d a y a n d H e a d l a m , R o m a r i s , p. 2 0 8 ; ct. M o r r i s , R o m a n s , p. 3 2 2 .
~
198 The Corruption and Redemption of Creatjon
?the liberty that consists in the glory of God?s children?,*«

however, are related but not the same. (3) Cranfieldbelie Freedom and
50Ens should be the same type of genitive as Ths $0 eves that sructualy
from, is the necessary accompaniment of, the (revelation The liberty vesuh:
children of God?.'* (4) Moo believes the sense is ?ooseh ve ee) Blory of te
?the freedom that belongs to, is associated with, the a e d , Meanin
freedom that comes with the coming eschatologica I glory. 1?M of glory?. It ig g
about the meaning, although it is better classified as ?a genitive of
rather than possession. Liberty is one aspect of the eschatological, of s a
Regardless of the precise classification of the genitive, the sca ony .
nation of the third and fourth views. The freedom is both an s p e a r
eschatological glory (content) and the freedom will result from thes p i n the
of believers ( s o u r c e ) . The non-rational creation will join with believersinthe
freedom that is part of eschatological glory.

Id is the resurrection bodies of
O n e aspect o f this glory o f the material w o r
believers (v. 23). 1 Corinthians 15.42-43 also contrasts the perishability of the
present human body with the glory of the future resurrection body. The
perishable bodies of believers are part of the perishable material creation that is
enslaved to corruptibility. Both believers? bodies (Rom. 8.23, cf. 17-18; 1 Cor
15.42, 50) and the rest of the material creation (v. 21) will be delivered from
enslavement to corruptibility and will share in eternal glory. Ronald Knoxi s
d as representatives
correct that the bodies of believers will be redeeme of the
material world,?? but he goes too far when he claims that this is primarily what
Paul has in mind here. The redemptive w o r k o f Christ does not merely affect
bhuman material creation also will be delivered fromslavery
s new glorified, redeemed
humanity. The su
to corruption and death to share in eternal glory. Thi
world will be a suitable dwelling for glorified humanity (cf. Isa. 65.17; 2 Pet. 3.135
Rev. 2 1 apparently
Paul .1). does not conceive of the destruction of the presentw orldand
the creation of a new w o r l d . ? Rather the present material world will be
redeemed and transformed. Creation does not look forward eagerly to its own
165. Murray, Romans, p. 304; cf. Nelson, ?The Groaning of Creation?, p. 204;Kaseman,
Romans, P- 234 (apposition and content).

166. C r a n f i e l d , Romans, pp- 4 1 6 - 1 7 ; cf. Barrett, Romans, p- 166.
167. M o o , Romans, Pp. 554.

168. Godet, Romans, p. 3 5 . ;
169. Fitzmyes Romans, p. 509: freedom is a characteristic ofthe glory. Kaseman?s
Cé.
Romans, P- 234: ?Bschatological glory isperfected freedom and this in turn is the content ©
t h eeschatological
170. Ronald glorification
A. Knox, A Nofethe children ofCommentaryf
w Testament God.? o r English Readers (vol. 25
Oates and Washbourne, 1954), p. 100.

p- 554.
London: Burns, omans, P- 649; Nygren, Romans, P- 331.
170; Murray, Romans, pp. 304, n. 28; Moo, Romans, P - >"
Romans (CBSC, 37;Cambridge:

172. Bruce, Romans, istle
Pp- ie? (bedestroyed)
o f 5Paul the Apostle to the ( n d
however, 83* creation ?
3.10 (?destroyed
wi
H. Cc. G
Cambrid University Press 1896), p. 150,
and be arrected? t o a new beavens an earth. This view better fits 2 Pet.
oe
beyond R o m . 8.19-22.
b y fire?) and M t . 24.35, b u t goes
a
e
E Exegesis o f Romans 8.19-22 199
Sestruction, but it anticipates its future liberty and glory. This certainly will
involve fundamental changes in the Operation o f the Natural w
and decay are integral to the operation of orld, since death
nature as it now exists. Pa
only alludes to these changes and does > however,
not elaborate on their nature.
+» An important question is whether Paul anticipates the Festoration of the pre.
fall conditions of the material w o r l d ? or the transfor p
even greater state than the original creatio mation of creation to an
) :
n.??* Several things Suggest that the
?final state of creation will be even Breater than its pre-fall condition. , (1)
|
Creation does not look back with
0€8
1
nostalgia at what it lost, but it looks forward
?with anticipation to what it w i l l gain (vy, 19, 21). (2) The final state of
_
redeemed humanity will involve greater glory than that which Adam lost.
Believers will share in the glory of Christ (vv. 17-18) and creation will partic-
ipate in this glory (vy, 2 1 ) . ' (3) The childbirth met
creation of a new life o metaphor (v, 22), suggests the
1
ne
Previous condition. Thust a new state of affairs, rather than the return to a
|
the damage to creation from sin will not simply be
-
removed, but the future State of creation will be even greater than that of the
pre-fall world.1%
Verse 2 2
This verse supports (yap) what Paul has said about the present state and the
future hope o f creation. I t
supports the present futility and slavery of creation
to corruption (vv. 20-21) by showing that all of creation groans in agony. I t
reinforces the hope of v. 21, by indicating that the
can be interpreted as birth p i ing
observes that ?these groans and travails ar

e n o t death pangs but birth pangs?.!?
The present s u f f e r i n g o f creation c o n f i r
creation. ms the future hope o f the glory o f
?We know? (oiSapev) introduces something that the writer assumes is

generally accepted by the readers and thus serves as a common ground on which
he can base his argument.? This is understood in two major ways. (1) Some
believe this refe rs t o g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e , based o n the o b s e r v a t i o n o f nature.
Anyone w h o looks sensitively at the natural w o r l d can see the cycle o f suffering,
173. Achtemeier, Romans, pp. 1 4 2 - 3 ; Stacey, ?Paul?sCertainties?, P. 8 0 5 D a b , Christ,

4 4 1 Francis ?Realities?, p. 154, notes the rabbinic tradition that one ot h Heasixt h i n, g sRomans,
Tosta t t h e fall was the divine glory reflected on his face (cf. Sanday and
p e enna: 1 ?The Groaning o f Creation?, pp. 276-7; Griffith,

Sources, p. 271; Nelson,
Roman 9 1 1 5 , b i H o p , P pelioves t h a t aincs the g l o r i f i c e t o n o f creation will be
a t t e d p.
socinved w i t h the s hHope, ieves
395,rather
* In be
'Gibli
Christ than Adam, its glory w i l l be of a different type

as .
a r e nd a mNelson,
knew in?TheParadise. _
Groaning of Creation?, pp. 276-7.
177. M u r r a y , Romans, p. 305.

178. Cranfield, Romans, p. 143.
death and decay that grips nature in its relentless hold.» ( 2 ) I t i s m o

that this is something generally known among Christia ns, based on qi
revelation in the Old Testament and refined through Christian divine
Paul normally uses oi5apev to refer to something known to believe ti? 1%
through revelation, not something that is commonknowledge,"A l e faith
sensitive person could perceive the suffering of nature, only the eyes of e n
light of divine revelation can see that the suffering of creation is the te aith in
birth, not the agony of death. Genesis 3.17 indicates the damage the aval of creas;
suffered due to the fall. Other OT passages refer to sin?s Creation

effect on nature (e
Isa. 24.4-7; 33.9; Jer. 4.4, 11, 26-28). Both O T and N T promise the future trane
formation of creation, which is a basis for hope despite its present condition
(Isa. 11.6-9; 65.17-25; 66.22-23; Acts 3.21; 2 Pet. 3.13; Rev. 21.1-2). Jewish
apocalyptic literature further refined the O T understanding of the impact of sin
o n nature.'?@
The whole creation (1t&i0a f kTiots) groans and suffers. The entire creation
was affected by the fall, not simply h u m a n i t y . All creation is ?groaning
together? (ovotevate1) throughout the ages. Although ovotevates is only used
here in the NT, the cognate otevalco occurs 6 times in the N T and 17 times in
the L X X . The basic meaning of otevatca is ?to sigh?, ?to groan? or ?to wail?. It
expresses a deep distress of spirit in response to an undesirable circumstance
(e.g. Lam. 1.1; Job. 24:12; Isa. 19.8).1* Creation groans due to its subjection
179. B D A G , ?ola?, p. 693 (?a well k n o w n fact that is generally accepted?); H. C. G.

Moule, Romans, p. 151; Godet, Romans, p. 315; R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation o f St.
Paul?s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), p. 539; Sanday and Headlam,
Romans, pp. 208-9; M o o , Romans, p. 554; Loane, Hope, p. 87; W. A. Whitehouse, ?Towards
a Theology o f Nature?, SJT 17 (1964), pp. 129-45 (140-1); Boylan, Romans, p. 144 (both
k n o w n to the senses and by revelation).
180. Cranfield, Romans, p. 416; Boylan, Romans, p. 144; Lampe, ?Ktisis?, p. 458;
Breech, ?Fragments?, p. 76; Meyer, Romans, p. 326; Bernard Weiss, Der B r i e f an die Romer
(Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 9th edn, 1899), p. 365; Leenhardt, Romans, p. 222;
Gaugler, R6merbrief, pp. 306-9. Stuhlmacher, Romans, p. 134 (knowledge the Romans
gained from experience andf a i t h ) .
181. Rom. 2.2 (the judgment of God falls on hypocrites); 3.19 (whatever the law says it
says to those under the law); 7.14 (the law is spiritual); 8.28 (God causes all things to work
together f o r good); cf. 1 Cor. 8.1, 4; 2 Cor. 5.1; 1 Tim. 1.8. 2 Cor. 5.16 may be an exception,
since the knowledge is limited to Paul and a few others. Paul, however, never uses thew o r d
to refer to a generally k n o w n truth evident to all people. Contrast M o o , Romans, p. 554.
182. C r a n f i e l d , R o m a n s , p. 4 1 6 ; Stauffer, T h e o l o g y , p. 74; D u n n , Romans, p. 472.
N e l s o n , ?The G r o a n i n g o f Creation?, pp. 2 1 1 - 1 2 , cites, f o r example, 4 E z r a 7.31-33; Sib. Or.
3.752.
183. W i t h an articular noun tras generally means ?the whole?, but w i t h an anarthrous
noun it means ?each? or ?every? (Nigel Turner, Syntax [ed. James Hope Moulton; vol. 3;
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1963], pp. 199-200). Although this rule is sometimes broken in
biblical Greek, it is followed here (Moo, Romans, p. 555).
184, J. Schneider, ?oTevate, otevayyos, ovotesvates?, in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard
Friedrich (eds.), TDNT (vol. 7; GrandRapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-78), pp. 600-3 (600).
a
to corruption as a result of thef a l l (vv. 20-21).'*T h e

dage
often has a positive expectation o f an imminent
Y of oTEVALO
ce
the cause of distress. Creation eagerly awaits the day when the
resolution 0 will be revealed and creation will bedelivered from its bondage
gons of The groaning is not futile, but is associated w i t h the eager expec-
(vv. 19521). oma future (v. 19), since God subjected creation to futility in hope
ofa B r verance (v. 20). This positive expectation isa l s o suggested by

isth-pangs metaphor (v. 22), which suggests an imminent joy after the
the i s complete (cf. Jn 16.21). Indeed, the groaning is naturally associated
h t the birth pangs and suggests the cries of a woman in labour. Thusthe
groaning has a two-way focus: it cries for release from t h e presentcorruption
of creation and looks forward with hope to its deliverance. This vision trans-
forms the groaning so it does not indicate despair.?
Isaiah 24.4-7 also says that nature groans in pain due to human sin. The
earth mourns (TrevOéco) due to human sin, which ?pollutes? the earth (vv. 4-5).
The LXX uses otevatco, much like Paul uses ovotevatco in Rom. 8.22, to refer
to the groaning of the natural order due to the devastation of sin (v. 7). The new
wine groans in sorrow due to its inability to produce a fruitful harvest. The
entire natural order groans and suffers since it is spoiled by human sin.
Paul personifies the natural world and says it suffers and groans due to
human sin. This anthropopathism stresses the damage that human sin causes
to the natural world. Creation has been seriously damaged and it was set o f f
course from its original created purpose. Even though Paul uses personifi-
cation, this does not mean the suffering of creation is not r e a l .
There are three dimensions to the groaning i n this passage. (1) A l l creation
groans as it longs f o r deliverance f r o m slavery t o corruption (v. 22). (2) Believers
groan as they await the redemption o f their bodies (v. 23; cf. 2 Cor. 5.2-4). (3) The
Spirit groans in intercession for believers (v. 26). This structural device stresses the
solidarity between believers and the rest o f creation. Both groan f o r complete deliv-
erance from the corruption of the physical world. The Spirit supports the longing
of believers as they express in prayer their desire for deliverance.
Paul also says that creation suffers the pains of childbirth (ouvesdivei).
Although this ouv- compound form is unique in the NT, the root verb wédiveo
185. Barth, Romans, p. 310, misses the p o i n t w h e n he says the groaning is due to ?creat-
edness? and the temporal nature o f things. Cf. Clarence J. Glacken, Traces on the Rhodian
Shore. Nature and Culture in Western T h o u g h t F r o m Ancient Times to the E n d o f the
Eighteenth Century (Berkeley: University o f California Press, 1967), p. 163: the groaning is
part of God?s design for nature and is n o t related to sin.
1 8 6 . N e l s o n , ?The G r o a n i n g o f Creation?, pp. 2 2 2 , 2 5 5 . E.g. Ps. 38.9 (expects G o d to
deliver h i m f r o m t h e crisis); E x o d . 6 . 5 ; Ps. 1 1 . 6 ; Isa. 5 1 . 1 1 ( r e d e m p t i o n is a b o u t to be a c c o m -
p l i s h e d ) ; Jn 1 6 . 2 1 ( c h i l d b i r t h ) ; 2 Cor. 5 . 2 - 4 (believer?s g r o a n i n g t o be c l o t h e d w i t h the
heavenly b o d y ) .
1 8 7 . H e i l , R o m a n s , pp. 8 6 - 7 ; N e l s o n , ?The G r o a n i n g o f Creation?, p p . 2 5 6 - 7 .
188. G o r e , R o m a n s , p. 305, believes there is actual suffering, p a r t i c u l a r l y a m o n g animals.
V o g t l e , Z u k u n f t , p. 1 9 3 and P a u l A l t h a u s , D e r B r i e f a n d i e R G m e r ubersetzt u n d e r k l a r t
( G é t t i n g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k and R u p r e c h t , 1 9 7 8 ) , p. 82, however, c l a i m o n l y believers can hear
a n d i n t e r p r e t this g r o a n i n g .
(Gal. 4.19, 27; Rev. 12.2) and the cognate noun wdiv appear ¢
24.8; M k 13.8; Acts 2.24; 1 Thess. 5.3). The birth-pangs mne v e ltimes
t
intense and prolonged pain that leads to a joyous andPOSitive Phor Teferg
is a bipolar metaphor combining pain and a Positive future outeo, UtCome, ts
be more precisely broken down into several aspects that are eme. Thi
P h a s i z e g in
various degrees in particular passages: (1) intense pain, struggle and
(2) an extended period of suffering, (3) future joy, often sharplycomm ting
the sorrow and pain and (4) the development of new life or a new State ante to
that is better and more glorious than the present. affairs OF
Table 7.2 shows the significance of birth pangs in the NT.

TikTeo is included
because it semantically overlaps with cdSiveo. In most cases
(13 times) rixtes
means literally ?give birth? or ?be born?. But when it is used
metaphorically (4
times), it functions much like cStveo. In Gal. 4.27 (quoting Isa. 54,1),Tiktes
is in poetic parallelism to 81v0o, showing the close similarity in meaning. This
table shows t h a t either o r both aspects o f the b i p o l a r metaphor may be in view
i n context.
Table 7.2: Birth Pangs In the N e w Testament
Positive o u t c o m e
Literal b i r t h | Summary
Extended New, better
future state
x Paul?s intense labour to bring

a
disciples to maturity.
Barren woman has more children

Gal. 4.27 xX
x than married woman: metaphor
of the Church and Israel.
p o n e [ x [ [ e| s | i m e ewoman
Symbolic gives birth to
m cre
:
Cosmic disasters as signs of the
.
second coming of Christ.
e i
d e
Cosmic e as signs of the
disasters
Acs224 | x [ | | | AgonyofJesus? death.
1 5.3 sudden
: Sudden coming8 of the day of the
.
ma a
Jesus? death and resurrection.
Barren woman has more children

than married woman: metaphor
o f t h e C h u r c h a n d Israel.
189. L e e n h a r d t , R o m a n s , p. 2 2 2 .
oy
p " 203
Exegesis 0 f Romans 8.19-22

aning and
; metaphor shows that the oo evon
fers ©
e n ain. From one vantagepoint, -aterprets

fn Rom: ©?
sn will not be nV ue to the fall. But the metaphor interp

fer ence of thedivine cue sign that glorious changes are soon
s U . Oo . . . ife.1!
45 a cons of creation 4s - _ area productive pain resulting in n e w life
ni a :
the ae che world.Birth
pan wever, does not necessarily
imply that Paul has
opeb c pane meta he created.? As has been shown, v. 21 suggests
? chat the earch will be re ?al creation. The birth-pangs metaphor
in rind ation of the present material cre ?thout requiring the
eno to include a positive future outcome wi
pe) ing
new. . .
something the
creation of birth-pangs metaphor only refers to intense pain, not
Genetvansformed world. Although the passage as a whole speaks of hope,
a ah-panes metaphor only refers to the present pain of thew o r l d . H eargues
that the metaphor often refers to helpless pain, frustration andf u t i l i t y . Gempf
correctly demonstrates that birth pangs often focus on greatpain, particularly
in the LXX, where the outcome of the pain is frequently not in view.?? He
overstates his case, however, since the birth-pangs metaphor inherently has
nuances of expectation and orientation to the future." Birth-pangs passages in
the LXX can focus on any phase of the process or outcome of b i r t h . In many
cases, the outcome of the pain is of major interest.? Furthermore, as the
above table shows, in the NT d i v e and @8tv are usually concerned with the
outcome of the pain, with two exceptions that focus on the pain itself (Acts
2.24; 1 Thess. 5.3). Tixtes always focuses on the outcome w h e n i t is used
metaphorically. The context determines which as
thar Although the result here is

Process or any pain.
4, o k 13; cf. 1 Ey, 62.4-6); (2) helpless pain (Isa. 13,4-8.

Gay
cts (3) Productive pain (Jn 16.21; tna, 6

: . .
" 4;
39-59-45
cf.
cf.
10H 3 ; b. Sanh
t hre?
e b i r t hc o t h helplessness
e r than thep r o c c s s (Rev. 12 1 - 6 G a r a n S e t 8s Hos. 13.13);( 3 b )
to (Mic. 4.9-10: van ( 4 ) p a i n that m u s t
5.3, ha t)s
its co
194. CE. Heil, Romans, p87.) o t MK 13.8 Mt, 24), mun #88 course,
Ye : c r a m , ?Biv?, pp. 668-70,
1 Q H3 ; b .S a n b , 9 7 - 9 8 w a g (productive Pain): Ysa, 66.6-9,M i c 4 10:
121-6; Gal. 4.19, ?*°BOry 3b (focus on the b i r t h rather
7"?
a c i d ? 16.21; ef. thin
er than the Process): Rey,

all of these images of extended suffering and final glory. The };

metaphor is ideally suited for this purpose since it naturally combines pit Pang
It also implies that although the suffering of creation is intense an d th sides
it will not continue forever. This too reinforces the theme of hope PTolonged,
Tsumura argues that the birth pangs allude to Gen. 3.16, in which _
childbearing is part o f the punishment for the fall. Keesmaat also none in
?groaning? in the L X X has the same r o o t in Gen. 3.17 (OTevayLOV) and r e
8.22 (ovotevatet). Paul uses the language o f the curse to show that crea
suffers the anguish o f the fall.?? I f this is true, it strengthens the linkb e t w e n
Rom. 8.19-22 and Genesis 3, since both the curse on the ground (Gen, 3 7
19) and the pain of childbearing (Gen. 3.16) are in view. Although the LXX
uses AUrmedsdiveo rather than c d i v for the pains of childbirth, Paul may have
thought of this metaphor for the pains o f the earth because Genesis 3 was in
his mind. Nevertheless, the pains o f childbirth in Rom. 8.22 are metaphorical
not literal as in Gen. 3.16.
Birth-pangs are often an eschatological symbol in the Bible and non-
canonical Jewish literature. In the OT, eschatological suffering is often
compared to the pains o f childbirth (Isa. 13.8; 21.3; 26.17-18; 66.7-8; Jer. 4.31;
22.23; Hos. 13.13; Mic. 4.9-10). In the NT, M a r k 13 and Matthew 24 are
especially significant, because they refer to cosmic disasters, such as earthquakes
and famines, that will precede Christ?s second coming (cf. 1 Thess. 5.3). Many
scholars believe the cosmic suffering in Rom. 8.20-22 is similar to the ?birth
pangs of the Messiah? (BPM) in the O T and Jewish literature.?* BPM refers to
a period of cosmic disasters and suffering at the end of the age that are a prelude
to the coming of the Messiah.? There are certain similarities between Rom.
8.20-22 and BPM passages: Both speak of eschatological cosmic disasters that
precede the coming of the glorious new age. In many BPM passages, the cosmic
disasters are a consequence of increasing human sin.
The differences, however, are significant enough that Rom. 8.20-22 cannot
be used as an example of BPM. (1) In BPM passages, the intense cosmic tribu-
lation occurs over a short period prior to the coming of the Messiah. But in
Rom. 8.20-22 the creation suffers throughout the age from the fall to the end
times, as shown by axpi Tov viv.2? (2) Most o f the O T and rabbinic passages
197. D. T. Tsumura, ?An OT Background to Rom 8:22?, NTS 40 (1994), pp. 620-21.
Keesmaat, Exodus?, p. 392, also notes similarities to the Exodus accounts of Israel?s groaning
in bondage (Exod. 2.23-24; 6.5; cf. Jer. 38.19).
R "s. Cranfield, Romans, p. 416; Bruce, Romans, p. 173; Best, Romans, p. 98; Francis,
i ea neg >P. 155; Kasemann, Romans, p. 232; Vogtle, ?Rém?, pp. 191, 198, 206;Richard
Batey, e iter of Pault o t h e Romans (Austin, TX: R. B. Sweet, 1969), p. 114; Gerber,
»
Pp. Ol, 75;
Balz, Heilsvertrauen, p . 52: ier,
?RO 3
' ; i
R o e ae P. 52; Schlier, ?Rémer?, pp. 600, 606; Michel,
199. T h e c o n c e p t is f o u n d i n Q u m r a n a n d J e w i s h i (e.g.
;
apocalyptic 1QH
3:7-18; 1 En.
62.4, but the focus is human suffering, not creation; 4 Ezrg16.37.39 ?thew o r l d will groan?)
a Christian addition, possibly dependent upon Rom. 8.22). It is fully developed in more
rabbinic literature (e.g. Tg. Pss. 18.4; Tg. 2 Sam. 22.5; cf. StrackandBillebeck, ?ommentat
men
vol. 1, p. 950; vol. 4, pp. 564, 1042, 1067). K erbecks
200. Meyer, Romans, p. 326; B. Weiss, Romer?, p. 366; Lange, Romans. p. 273
BJ) Benet?
ffering of humans rather than the natural w o r l d . A l t h o u g h

focus on theiy tic writings look further at the eschatological sufferings of
Jewish e m p h a s i s is still how this causes human suffering. (3) In later
nature, es, the tribulations are part of a process of bringing about the
CH a age a concept less clear in Romans 8 . ? Thus although Paul?s idea
messi °
mic groaning and birth pangs is not exactly the same as BPM, it is a
o d type of cosmic travail.
There are two views of significance of the ouv- compound verbs ( c v o t e v aoo
C
and ovvesdives). (1) Some believe that the subhuman creation groans with
believers, since v. 23 describesthe groaning of believers awaiting the redemption

of their bodies.? The expression ?not only this but we also? (ov udvov be, AAG
kai avTOI, v. 23), however, distinguishes believers from the rest of c r e a t i o n .
(2) Most scholars believe that the ouv- compounds indicate that creation in its
entirety suffers ?together? or ?in one accord?. This is supported by the subject
?all creation? (T&G0 f KTiots)
The phrase &xp1 TOU viv indicates that the suffering and groaning of creation
has gone on continuously for a long time, presumably since the fall.2% This
expression shows that the sufferin:
g o f creation is not an eschatological increase
in trials just prior to the end o f the age (unlike M t . 24.6-8, 29 and B P M
passages). The suffering is a characteris
tic o f this age and w i l l continue until
believers are glorified (v. 21).
Kasemann, Barrett and others believ e
vuv has an eschatological meaning.
Kasemann says it refers to ?the eschatological moment which precedes the
parousia?, when the suffering of creation
w i l l end.? The eschatological context
in Romans 8 may suggest the w o r d has
an eschatological nuance. Yet Paul is
not saying the new w o r l d order has arrived, so this eschatological dimension
201. E.g. Isa. 26.17; 66.8; Jer. 4.31; Hos. 13.13; Mic. 4.9-10; 1 En. 62.4; b. Ket. 111a;
b. Sanh. 98b; 118a. Bertram, ?obi?, p. 672; Joseph Klausner, The Messianic Idea in Israel
from Its Beginning to the Completion o f the Mishnab (trans. W. E. Stinespring; New York:
Macmillan, 3rd edn, 1935), pp. 440-50.
202. Loane, Hope, p. 88; Bertram, ?wdiv?, p. 672. R. Eliezer (ca. 90 CE) says the goal is
Preservation through the sorrows and afflictions of the lasttime.
203. Eastman, ?Whose Apocalypse??, p. 274; Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 509; Frederich August
Gottreu Tholuck, Exposition o f St. Paul?s Epistle to the Romans (trans. RobertMenzies;
Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1844), p. 263; John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle o f Paul
the Apostle to the Romans (trans. John Owen; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1959), pp. 302-3.
204. S a n d a y a n d H e a d l a m , R o m a n s , p. 209.
205. D u n n , Romans, p. 472; C r a n f i e l d , Romans, p. 417; M o o , Romans, p. 555;
Schneider, ?otevateo?, p. 601, n. 5; Boylan, Romans, p. 145; M u r r a y , Romans, p. 305;
Denney, ?Romans?, p. 650; Kasemann, Romans, p. 236; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Baker
E x e g e t i c a l C o m m e n t a r y o n the N e w Testament; G r a n d R a p i d s , M I : B a k e r , 1998), p. 4 3 7 .
206. Cranfield, Romans, p. 417. The expression refers to the ?uninterrupted nature o f the
process? (G. Stahlin, ?viv (dipt1)?, in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich [eds.], T D N T (vol.
4; Grand Rapids, M I : Eerdmans, 1964-78), pp. 1106-23 {1007}).
207. Kdsemann, Romans, p. 236; cf. Barrett, Romans, p. 166 (?the decisive moment,
when God?s purposes are fulfilled?); Balz, Heilsvertrauen, p. 52; Dunn, Romans, p. 473;
Stahlin, ?viv?, p. 1110; Nelson, ?The Groaning o f Creation?, p. 217.
208. M u r r a y , R o m a n s , p. 305.
must not be overplayed.? Believers anda l l Creation are stil] t l nos («
of the suffering, corrupted state o f affairs, looking forward tO 4 ) Pare the
cosmic deliverance. In the only otherN T usage of the phrase (Phil Ls i of

not indicate that the state o f affairs is ending. Furthermore, theStatemen, Oeg
the suffering of creation is self-evident (?we know?) would be mean: sless, x t
it was equally apparent that the change had alreadybegun, Thep se of a
Tou vuv is to stress that the long-anticipated transformation of creation hae xo
yet come, even though there is a basis for hoping that itw i l l comesoon
phrase denies an overly realizedeschatology,since the promised redemption of
creation has not yet occurred. It is the ?not yet? aspect of the Present ratherthan
the eschatological fulfillment that is in view (cf. v. 18 ) ? Neverthelessthe
because the birth Pangs anticipat
of of creation include hope,
ongoing sufferings creation,2?
the redemption
Summary of Major Themes
Romans 8:19-22 is Paul?s fullest discussion of the corruption and redemption of

the natural world (see Table 7.3). In this context, KTIOls refers to the subhuman
creation, both animate and inanimate, or roughly equivalent to ?nature?,
Table 7.3: Summary o f Romans 8.19-22

Redemption o f Nature
1. The fall o f humanity Personification ofN a t u r e
1. G o d w i l l one day restore
corrupted the natural 1. Nature is describedw i t h
world. nature to its proper Operation.
emotions, intellect and will.
2. God subjected 2. The redemption o f creation
2. The subhuman Creation is
is associated w i t ht h e
creation to corruption personified collectively, not as
fesurrection and
as part of the curse
eschatological] glorification individual parts,
due to the fall
o f believers, 3. Creation groans due t o its
(Gen. 3.17-18). 3. Nature w i l l be freedf r o m slavery
t i l i t y . to c o r r u p t i o n and
3. Creation was slavery to Corruption and the 4. C r e a t i o n eagerly awaits the
enslaved todeath, cycle o f death and decay, e s c h a t o l o g i c a l revelation o f the
f a c i l Corruption and | 4. Nature wil] share in the children o f G o d w h e n it w i l l be
ility, eschatological glory o f th rcupti
4. Nature suffers due children o f G o g ? v e n t e f a t f o m c o r r u p t i o n and
° human sin. 5. The resurrection o f believers?| 5 Perso
m. e t n d of bodies is ONE aspect o f t h e ;
?reation is like
birth redempti i
pangs leading to « Wot n d On o f theM a t e r i a ]
glorious Dew world, 6. God w i t r a
e ¢g l o r y of Creation
will beSteater :
due tothe f a l l , ? WAAt it lose
209, Cra
210. M n f i e l d , R o m a n s , PP. 416, n, 2.
u r r a y , Romans, P. 305,
Bi pene
207
Exegesis of Romans 8.19-22
tion of Creation |
vo consequences. Adam?s sin not only brought

had cosmic
ll of humanity cohad 2-21), but it also placed the natura
(1) The humanity (Rom. 5.1 » Dl
lity. The passage
sin and seat da ge to death, decay, corruption and futility. p The
w o r ' vy allusions to Gen. 3.15-18. |
has manyallusio oresently in the state in which it was created. N a t u r ew a s

(2) Creation ; subject to death, decay and futility. Corruption is n part o
a I n e s itself but a consequence ofGod?s cursea f t e r the fall. r h
C r e tion is not fallen, in the sense of being evil or disobedient tor o e e
(3) a world is a victim of the human fall. Although nature has been
ni .
is
in, it not evil.
e e e wascabjoned to futility, so the natural w o r l d i s no longer able to
| fulfil completely the purpose for which it was made. This alludes t o G e n .
3.17-18, where the ground was cursed after the fall, so that it brings f o r t h
weeds more easily than food crops. The futility of life apart f r o m G o d
described in Ecclesiastes may also be part of the background. N a t u r e is
subject to a futile cycle of death and struggle for existence. .
(5) Creation is enslaved to corruption. A l l life i n the n a t u r a l w o r l d is subject

to death and decay. Although corruption is n o t used i n a m o r a l senseh e r e ,
the physical aspect o f corruption j
fall. This alludes to Gen. 3.
The suffering of believers (Rom. 8.17-18) is p
creation. art of the c o r r u p t i o n of
(6) God subjected creation to corruption and futility as part of the curse due
to the fall (Gen. 3.17-1 8). Only God could subject creation while giving hope
of its future redemption (v. 20; cf. Gen. 3.15).
(7) The natural w o r l d suff
distress due to its slavery a t i o n groans i n deep
(8) The suffering of creati to corruption and futility,
on is like birth-pangs leadin.
world, rather than the
Canonical literature, the birth-pangs ha:

fall and are n
l
ot eschatological cosmic
Messiah.
(9) The Corruption of
of creation
uManity over the due t o1.26).
earth (Gen. h u m aSni sin is connected t o the d o m i n i o n
2. Redemption of Creation
(1) The redemption brought by Christw i l l have cosmic CONSequence,

plans that the natural order will be restored to its proper Operation
it may fulfil the purpose for which it was created. §0
that
>
(2) The subjection of creation to futility was done wit

hope for
the future redemption of creation (cf. Gen. 3.15) . h a view to the
(3) Creation eagerly awaits the eschatological revelation of the children of Gog
At that time the natural world w i l l be set free from futility and Corruption
and it will share in the eschatological glory o f the children ofGod. on
(4) The redemption of creation is associated with the resurrection
a n d escha.
tological glorification of believers. Due to the solidarity between humani
and the natural world, the natural world will only be redeemed when
redeemed humanity assumes its proper role in God?s plan inglory.
(5) The eschatological freedom of creation is contrasted with its present slave
to corruption. This freedom involves both negative and positive dimen-
sions: (1) freedom from slavery to corruption and the end o f the cycle of
death and decay and (2) sharing in the eschatological glory o f the children
of God, in a manner appropriate to its non-rational nature. There will be
fundamental changes in the operation of nature.
(6) The resurrection o f the bodies o f believers is one aspect o f the redemption
o f the material w o r l d (v. 23).
(7) The passage implies the redem
ption and transformation of the present
material world, rather than the d
a new one. estruction of the world and the creationo f
(8) The redeemed creation wil] n o t simply be restored t o its pre-fall state, but
it will be even greater than the original creation. Creation will gain more in
the new age than it lost due to the fall o f Adam.
3. Personification o fC r e a t i o n
ah
intellect and w i l l . It
»
the ability t o choose, hope f o r future

Om, groaning in agony and suffering pain
(2) The subhuman creation is personified Cc
i
o l l indivi
Parts, such as the sun, stars or wind. *etivelys rather than individual
(3) The Personification o f n i
(c)
of creation th long for release from corr uption.
and bo
d) The n a t u r a l w o r l d p r i
where It is
creation has been
not duei dtopor iem aar s aacts a c cof
result o r hu
d i n g toGod?s design
) There .¢ certainty that e disobedience o f th man sin. The c o n , except
with hope to that nature will be re e natural world. ption of
(e
( f )T h e r e
i s ac l
ose relationshi
c a y d e e m e d . C r e a t i o
n I looks
whole creation and tre slo berween the eschatol forward
orification of beli
elievers.ological redemption of the
.
(c) personification emphasizes the solidarity between humanity and the rest
of creation. Both humanity and the natural world suffer and groan due
to sin, and both long for release from corruption.
d) The natural w o r l d primarily acts according to God?s design, except
where it has been damaged asa result of human sin. The corruption of
creation is not due to the disobedience of the natural world.
(e) There is certainty that nature w i l l be redeemed. Creation looks forward
with hope to that day.
(f) There is a close relationship between the eschatological redemption of the
whole creation and the glorification of believers.
6. Solidarity Between Humanity and Nature
Jewish apocalyptic literature fre

quently recognizes a solidarity between
h u m a n i t y and the natural w o r l d (BW 6-16; Jub.; 2 B a r ; 4 Ezra; Apoc.,
Mos./LAE). This is due to several factors: (1) humanity was made from the dust
( 2 ) God gave humanity dominion o r stewardship over the earth
>
books, the world was made for humanity, particularly the

righteous people o f God. The earth, animals and sometimes even the heavenly
les were made to serve humanity.
Due t o this solidarity,
W h e n A d a m sinned the
history depending on whether the people of Israel

srael?s
were obedient to God (BW 6-1 6; Jub.; 4 Ezra; 2 Bar.). This is rooted in biblical
passages that indicate that sin defiles the land.
idea so t h a t h u m a n sin damages the entire
promise. Jewish apocalyptic writings also follo earth, not simply the land o f
is often reflected in the personification o f crea this cosmic pattern.Solidarity
Ww
tion: the natural world has pain

a n d s o r r o w about human sins and intercedes
on behalf o f humanity.
Romans 8.19-22 also recognizes a solida
natural w o r l d . The ovv- compound verbs e t i t y between humanity andthe
xpress the suffering o f creation
together w i t h humanity (v. 22). This solida r i t y explains why the humanfall
subjected creation to futility and corruption (v. 2 0 ) . Since G o d gave h u m a n i t y
comes. (4) When creation is corrupted becauseo f pre-flood sin, either that ,
the fallen Watchers or widespread human evil, the corruption usually ends afer
the flood. Although nature suffers intensely due to this sin, the changes are not
permanent. (5) In two works, however, the sins of the Watchers caused funda.
mental changes to the operation oft h e cosmos throughout this age (2 En; Bp
III). In general, when there is great sin the proper operation o f the natural world
is disturbed. The fall of humanity, however, and sometimes the fall of the
Watchers, produce permanent changes in the natural world, which will not be
reversed until the new age comes.
Rom. 8.19-22 focuses entirely on corruption and futility as ongoing charac.
teristics of creation. This is consistent with apocalyptic writings in which the
fall causes the corruption of creation (Jub.; 4 Ezra; 2 Bar.; Apoc. Mos./LAE),
This condition will continue until creation is set free in the eschaton.
On the surface it might appear that the birth-pangs metaphor in y. 22
implies a temporary, eschatological period of intense suffering, as in M k 13.8,
Birth-pangs imagery sometimes describes a period of eschatological suffering
(the ?birth pangs of the Messiah?) in rabbinic literature and toa l e s s e r extent
in Jewish apocalyptic writings. In Rom. 8.22, however, the birth-pangs
metaphor does not refer to the eschatological human suffering implied by the
?birth pangs of the Messiah?. Rather it stresses the intensity of the suffering of
the natural world and points to a positive outcome ?t h e eschatological trans-
formation of the world.
6. Solidarity Between Humanity and Nature
Jewish apocalyptic l i t e r a t u r e frequently recognizes a s o l i d a r i t y between

humanity and the natural w o r l d ( B W 6 - 1 6 ; Jub.; 2 Bar.; 4 Ezra; Apoc.
Mos./LAE). This is due to several factors: (1) humanity was made f r o m the dust
of the earth, (2) God gave humanity d o m i n i o n o r stewardship over the earth
and (3) in some books, the w o r l d was made for humanity, particularly the
righteous people of God. The earth, animals and sometimes even the heavenly
bodies were made to serve humanity.
Due to this solidarity, everything humanity does has an impact on the world.
When Adam sinned the ground was cursed. The promised land was cursed o r
blessed several times in Israel?s history depending on whether the people o f Israel
were obedient to God (BW 6-16; Jub.; 4 Ezra; 2 Bar.). This is rooted in biblical
passages that indicate that sin defiles the land. The O T prophets extended this
idea so that human sin damages the entire earth, n o t s i m p l y the land o f
promise. Jewish apocalyptic writings also f o l l o w this cosmic pattern. Solidarity
is often reflected in the personification o f creation: the natural w o r l d has pain
and sorrow about human sins and intercedes on behalf o f humanity.
Romans 8.19-22 also recognizes a solidarity between humanity and the
natural world. The ovv- compound verbs express the suffering o f creation
together w i t h humanity (v. 22). This solidarity explains w h y the human fall
subjected creation to futility and corruption (v. 20). Since God gave humanity
and bodily resurrection of believers suggests that the transformation of

CTeati
w i l l be p e r m a n e n t . Hon
6. Two-Age Dualism
Two-age historical dualism is a defining featureo f Jewish apocalyptic theo|

This present evil age, which is corrupted by sin, is sharply contrasted with the
future perfect age of righteousness and glory. Life in this age is characterized
by vanity due to the problems of life.
Although Jewish apocalyptic writings are pessimistic about the world in this
age, most are hopeful about the world in the future perfect age. Frequently the
end of this age is marked by an eschatological cataclysm, with cosmic disasters
and radical changes in the operation of nature. In the new age, only the
righteous will dwell on earth. All corruption and evil will be removed, and the
whole created order will be transformed so that it functions harmoniously and
perfectly. In most writings, the transition from this corrupt age to the new age
will be instantaneous at the end of history. This transition involves (1) the recre-
ation or transformation of heaven and earth by a divine act and (2) a decisive
change from the present age of evil and corruption to a new eternal age of right-
eousness and blessing.
Although the typical apocalyptic term ?age? does not appear in Rom. 8.19-
22, Paul uses aicov elsewhere.? The context of Rom. 8.19-22 uses language close
to apocalyptic two-ages language: ?The sufferings o f this present time? (v.
18,1a TabHYATa TOU Viv KaIpoU) parallels the apocalyptic language of ?this age
of suffering? (e.g. 4 Ezra). Concepts that are part o f apocalyptic two-age
dualism are dominant in Rom. 8.19-22: Creation is not presently as it was origi-
nally created, because it was corrupted at a particular time by human sin. The
present suffering and futility is contrasted to the future glory, when all of
creation will be glorified with believers. Then the suffering, corruption and
futility that are characteristic of present life will be brought to an end.
7. Solidarity Between H u m a n i t y and N a t u r e
In Jewish apocalypses the eschatological destiny o f the natural world is

closely related to the destiny of the righteous. Since the w o r l d was made for
humanity, in the last days when the people of God return to righteousness and
obedience to God?s law, the world itself will be redeemed and perfected, and
nature will become more fruitful (BW 6-16; Jub.; BP Il; 4 Ezra). Nature is
3. Paul says believers are living in an evil age (aicv), > looking forward rfect
t
future age (Rom, 12.25 1 Cor. 1.20; 2.6-85 3.18; 10.11; 2 Cor. 4.4;G al. 1.4),Apocalyptic two.
agetheology is also in Eph. 1.21 (?this age and the one to come?); 2.2, 7; 3.9. Beker, Paul, p
146 notes that Paul also uses other language to express two-agetheology. , P-
Romans 8.19-22 and Apocalyptic Literature 219
i: when the Messiah comes and h u m a n i t y is

it
rejoices
0
Genpersonified in the new world.Natural object
onese
S sOmetimes
stored Norhuman sins and the land protects the righteous
nterce € . f r o m eschato-
gical O O the solidarity of humanity and nature in redemption is
In Rom. everal ways. (1) The redemption of
creation is associated with the
nda he sons of God? will appear with
Christ, Thus creation eagerly
a e sthe revelation of the children of God in glory. (2) Creation will share in
Te eedom of the glory of the children of God. (3) The redemption of the
Oe a l world includes the redemption (i.e. resurrection) of the bodies of
The personification of the natural world f

believers. (4)
human sin and the glorification of redee ocuses on the effects o f
med humanity. Creation eagerly awaits
the revelation of believers, and it hopes to share in their ev
entual freedom and
chieve its full potential when redeemed humanity is
resurrected and glorified.
Personification o fC r e a t i o n
1. Aspects of Nature Personified
Jewish apocalyptic writings and Rom. 8.19-22 both frequently personify the
natural world. This stylistic feature plays an importa
the apocalypticmessage. nt role in communicating
Jewish apocalyptic writings
personify nature i n several ways. (1) M o s t
equently, natural objects are given individual personalities. Nearly every part
of nature is personified at some point: the earth, heavenly luminaries (sun,
Moon, stars), weather (lightning, rain, hail, snow, wind), seasons,mountains,
trees and animals. (2) Sometimes, the natural w o r l d is personified together as
a whole. (3) In several writings angels control the operation o f nature. This
ures that it operates according to God?s will or explains the eschato-
gical corruption of creation if the angels disobey God. ?
The personification of nature also plays an important role i n communicating
the message of Rom. 8.19-22. The only type of personification in this passage
is the personification of creation as awhole ( c f . BW 1-5; BP I). Collectively
?reation eagerly awaits, was subjected, w i l l s , hopes, groans and suffers.
Individual parts of the natural w o r l d are notpersonified, in contrast to Jewish
apocalyptic literature, in which this is the primary type of Personification, nor
0 angels control the operation of the natural world,
2. Types o f Personification
A n t h r o p o p a t h i s m is the mostfrequent type of personification in

t i c w r i t i n g s . A variety o f emoti Jewish apoca-
Y P a t e objects: (1) fear o f God, (2 Ons are ascribed b o t h ¢ O animals and
) j o y in the fulfilment o f
God?s design, (3)

Renewal Cosmic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renewal Cosmic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 7

Theme and Relationship to Context

The divine promise of the ultimate redemption of Creatig

to its proper operation so that it may fulfil the purp Ose

creation also will be delivered from its slavery to corruption andf o i e ; en

to glorify them with Christ (vv. 17-18) and

Verses 19-22 also develop further the theme of sufferin

and glory shared by believers and the rest of creation presup-

Structure of the Passage

1. Thesis: the greatness of the coming glory (v. 18)

, pp. 229, 231, argues Paul?s teachings about suffermy 3s

preparation f o r glory were w r i t t e n to counteract ano v e r l y realized eschatology. His

to corruption, but it also look

Another drawback o f Zahn?s scheme is that it does not do jner; =

Christoffersson correctly notes that v. 17 serves both as a transition fromt h e

g) more accurately than Zahn, since he includes both suffering and

0. Transition: believers share in the present suffering of Christ and w i l l share

glory (vv. 19-22).

Table 7.1: Suffering and G l o r y i n Romans 8.19-22

T h e close interplay o f these t w o themes shows t h a t n o structural suggestion t h a t

o r d e r .on believers to show that God is also

The Meaning of Ktiois

The meaning of xtiois is one of the most important interpretive j

Passage. In classical Greek, KTiats does not necessarily have

which is created by God. ever, the

18. LSJ, ?xtiois?, p. 1003.

20. N e l s o n , ?The Groaning o f Creation?, p. 142. ?

4.13%). It is never used in the N T in the plural, however, and the

The diverse interpretations o f k t i c i s i n Rom. 8.19-22 have been similar f r o m

9 . 3 on, ?The Groaning of Creation?, pp. 1 9 2 - 3 , 2 4 9 - 5 3 ; John G. Gibbs, ?Pauline

Augustinian view that limits ktiats to humanity, w i t h a f e w li

only to believers,? or (3B) only to unbelievers.31 (4) Cosi Miting i,(34

Stoughten, 1954), p. 108; Frederic Godet, Commenta on the Epi

versal view is appealingb e c a u s e Vv.

any a e or eation? and ?whole creation? can be less than comprehensive,

34. Nelson, ?The Groaning of Creation?, p. 253; Gibbs, ?Cosmic?, p. 471.

v e s . Plumes, Commentary on Paul?s Epistle to the Romans (New York:

Exegesis of Romans 8.19-22 181

Creation anxiously longs (4troKapadoxia ... drrexSexeTat) as it awaits the

which suggests that aTroxapadoxic involves ?confident ex P € c t a t i o n ? s I

. v6. o e R y ocapaboxio?, in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich (eds.), T D N T

e o f Mopsuestia (PG 66.824)

63. Schlatter, Gottes, p. 274, Pp. 103, n. 40,

d redeemed humanity. The naturalw o r l d ?eagerly awaits? the revelati

264-725 argues that the revealing of the sons

of God aval p- 470;Moo, Romans, p. 5503 cranfield, Romans, p. 412; Murray,

26) l i k e a l l o t h e r people, di o n o t ? a p p e a r ? i n t h i s life m u c h like

revelation of the glory of the children of God in their resutrectinn the

71. M o o , Romans, p. 550; cf. Schlatter, Gottes, p. 268.

Exegesis of Romans 8.19-22 185

T e V v i a Tod Geou refers to believers in this passage:

of believers as sons of God, both using viot and téexva

1.26) and atroxaduypis (Rom. 16.25; Eph. 3.3). 4

5.1, 4 refer to the eschatological glory of believers at the time Of the

The y a p in v. 2 0 shows t h a t wv. 20-21 explain w h y creation waits eagerly for

85. Christoffersson, Earnest Expectation, p. 123, acknowledges this weakness of his

existence of apersonal devil.

Christoffersson sees the fallen-Watcher tradition from 1 Eno ch as th

so Nelson, ?The Groaning o Cr

of human s i n . ? The personification giving the non-rational

a o o l suggests that the natural w o r l d primarily acts according to

What is the ?futility? ( u a t o 1 o m s ) to which creation has been subjected?

Some believe Ecclesiastes is the background for p a t a i o t n s in this passage."