Continued from PART ONE
Nothing will come between God and his children. The work which he has begun he will most certainly bring to completion.
It is against this background that Paul asks his four defiant questions:
If the question that precedes this question (“What, then, shall we say in response to this?”) refers back to all that Paul has been saying up to this point, then it can be said that God is “for us” in the grandest possible way. Cranfield is surely correct when he claims that the words “God is for us” are “a concise summary of the gospel.”24 This said, however, the immediate context highlights three specific ways in which it can be said that “God is for us”:
(a) God is for us in the way he providentially arranges the circumstances of our lives. The way things turn out for us shows that God is for us. Even difficult circumstances that are beyond our control demonstrate this. Paul makes this clear in v. 28: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” This claim is little short of astounding. In the lives of the children of God everything works out for their ultimate good. As John Murray has pointed out:
“All things” may not be restricted, though undoubtedly the things contemplated are particularly those that fall within the compass of believers’ experience, especially suffering and adversity. . . . Many of the things comprised are evil in themselves and it is the marvel of God’s wisdom and grace that they, when taken in concert with the whole, are made to work for good.25
24 C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
(The International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1975), 1: 435. The preposition uJpevr
with the genitive case, which is used here, is a construction found throughout Romans to convey some
key gospel truths: Christ died for us (5:6–8; cf. 14:15), Christ and the Spirit intercede for us (8:26–27,
34), and God gave up his Son for us all (8:32). |
(b) God is for us in his eternal purpose. Paul spells this out in vv. 29– 30: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined he also called, and those he called he also justified, and those he justified he also glorified.” This is the golden chain of God’s purpose that runs from eternity to eternity. In this chain there are no weak links. It is not broken by cancer or pain, nor even by death. Nothing in all the world— not “trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword” (v. 35)—can thwart the eternal purpose that God has for his children.
(c) God is for us in his timely providence and in his eternal purpose, but Paul marshals one more piece of evidence to show beyond the shadow of a doubt that God is on our side. He gave us his Son. “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all— how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?” (v. 32). Clearly God “gave up” his Son in the sense of v. 3, “by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.” This is a remarkable choice of language. The verb “give up” (paradivdwmi) was precisely the word commonly used in the Gospels for the betrayal, arrest and crucifixion of Jesus, both in his passion predictions and in the passion account itself (e.g. Mark 9:31; 10:33; 14:10–11; 15:1, 10, 15).26 But behind all the plots and intrigues of men Paul sees the mighty hand of God. At this point John Murray quotes the memorable words of Octavius Winslow: “Who delivered up Jesus to die? Not Judas, for money; not Pilate, for fear; not the Jews, for envy; but the Father, for love!”27 God “did not spare his own Son” is an echo of Genesis 22:16 (LXX). Abraham did not spare Isaac, and yet the lad’s life was saved. At Calvary God went farther than Abraham ever had to go. He “gave up” his Son to death.
26 Perhaps this was not the only reason for Paul’s choice of this verb. As Dunn, Romans, 1:500–
01, observes: “The active form of the verb differs from the passive in 4:25, and though the active is the
more regular Christian formulation, at this point it serves to answer the triple parevdwken of 1:24, 26, 28,
thus strengthening the impression that 8:31–39 is intended to round off the whole argument thus far . . . :
God’s handing over his Son in grace answers his handing over his creatures in wrath.” |
The nature of that death was clearly a vicarious death—“for us all.” He died on our behalf and in our place (cf. 5:6–8; 14:15).
If God is for us in his timely providence, his eternal purpose and the gift of his Son, then—asks Paul—“who can be against us?” Although the expected answer to this rhetorical question should be a strong negative, the immediate context would suggest that all kinds of hostile forces could rise up and oppose us (vv. 35–39). Paul is not denying that even the most violent and even deadly adversaries could be against us. He is fully aware of the realities of this present evil age, but the context in which he asks his defiant questions is heavily eschatological and forensic in character. Therefore it is clear that he is thinking of Judgment Day. When God is for us, then ultimately no adversary will be of any account. On the Day when it matters most, there will be no one to oppose us. This same eschatological thrust is present in Paul’s next defiant question:
The chosen or the elect are the sons/children of God who were introduced in vv. 14–17. They are also those who have been foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified (vv. 29–30). Paul again asks his rhetorical question in demonstrably legal terms.29 From a purely earthly point of view it could again be said that all kinds of charges might be leveled against God’s elect. Paul himself was probably the prime example. Time after time he is arraigned before magistrates and other legal officials. Accusations were made against him by both Jews and Gentiles. In fact, the verb that is used here is found again in the New Testament only in Acts (19:38; 23:28– 29; 26:2, 7), and in every case Paul is the one against whom the charges are leveled. So he of all people should have known that the elect can have charges brought against them! This background information throws Paul’s point into bold relief.
28 The tone of Paul’s question is accurately captured by Dunn’s comment in Romans, 1:510:
“Like a court officer seeking out witnesses for the prosecution, Paul challenges the whole galaxy of
created beings of all ages.” A similar question is found in Isaiah 50:8–9. |
He is again thinking eschatologically. Once more he has Judgment Day in mind. Schreiner has summarized Paul’s meaning well:
The main point of the verse is clear. Believers can face the day of judgement with confidence, for those whom God has chosen as his own will certainly not be accused on the day of judgement. God has declared them to be right in his sight, and thus those who would accuse believers will not successfully establish their case.30
The reason for this happy outcome for the believer is clearly
stated in the second half of the verse: “It is God who justifies.” Here
Paul is harking back to his earlier discussion, particularly in chapters
3–5, where he has so painstakingly established the doctrine of
justification by faith. In those chapters the verb “justify” occurs
eleven times. The key conclusion that Paul reaches in this context is
that “since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (5:1). Clearly this is a blessing
that believers in Christ already enjoy. Already they have been
justified. Already they have peace with God. This is an eschatological
blessing come early. Hence Paul can later argue that those whom God
justified, he also glorified (8:30). This means that those whom God
has already justified will also receive a “not guilty” verdict at the final
judgment. There is an unbreakable link between justification and
glorification.
This being the case, we need to view with some caution the claim
by Sanday and Headlam that the called or the elect are “not those who
are destined for final salvation, but those who are ‘summoned’ or
‘selected’ for the privilege of serving God and carrying out His
will.”31 Paul is not telling his readers—so the argument runs—that
their glory is assured. Rather his use of the term elect “only shows
that they are in the right way to reach it. At least no external power
can bar them from it; if they lose it they will do so by their own
fault.”32 This claim vividly articulates the crux of the matter. If, as the
context suggests, the elect are indeed the children of God (vv.14–17)
in whom God’s eternal purpose comes to personal realization (vv. 29–30), then it needs to be said that Sanday and Headlam’s definition of
the elect is deficient. They have indeed been chosen “for the privilege
of serving God and carrying out His will,” but the point is that they
have been chosen to far higher privileges as well.
30 Schreiner, Romans, 462. |
Those who have been justified by faith have peace with God (5:1) precisely because their eternal destiny is secure. This security has a firm anchorage—“it is God who justifies.” The conclusion reached by Charles Hodge is therefore to be preferred over that of Sanday and Headlam:
This passage . . . proves that those who are elect, and whose election has become recognised,33 are in a state in which they are free from condemnation. No one can lay anything to their charge. The demands of justice as regards them have been satisfied. This is not true of those who have been chosen merely to church privileges. There is an election, therefore, unto grace and salvation. The elect are safe. This is the grand theme of this jubilant chapter.34
The eternal security of the believer is thus intimately bound up with the doctrine of justification by faith. Those who have been justified by faith will most certainly be acquitted on the Last Day. In the words, “it is God who justifies,” Paul sums up much of what he has been saying throughout the epistle. In his earlier argument he has been laying the foundation for this assertion. The basis for the believer’s assurance is ultimately to be found precisely at this point. God justifies. As the supreme judge, he declares the claims of justice satisfied. He makes this declaration because of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (3:25). Because the demands of divine justice have been satisfied, God is both “just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus” (3:26). Once justified, always justified. The declaration made on the basis of the propitiatory work of Christ stands forever. Christ’s propitiation (which removes God’s wrath, cf. 1:18) is thelegal grounds for our justification. With this as its anchorage our eternal destiny could not be more secure.
33 Their election has become recognized through their sanctified lives, or their life in the Spirit,
which has been Paul’s focus particularly in 8:1–17. |
This is another rhetorical—and at the same time defiant— question. Again the question is not asked in a vacuum, but comes at the end of a well-developed argument. Because of the sin of our forefather Adam, and because of the imputation of that sin to his descendants, all of humanity is under condemnation (5:16–18). God, however, dealt with that sin. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, he condemned sin in the flesh (8:3). Therefore, “just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men” (5:18). This being the case, Paul can begin chapter 8 on the highest and most triumphant of notes: “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (8:1). Now towards the end of that same chapter he is able to ask equally triumphantly:
“Who is he that condemns?”
The remainder of v. 34 does not answer the question, but states the reason for its triumphant tone: “Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.”35 Paul’s confidence in asking the question as he does, lies in what Christ has done and continues to do for us. This is not a baseless triumphalism, but is securely founded on four redemptive facts. The first two facts that Paul selects indicate that he is briefly recapitulating his earlier argument at this point:
(a) Jesus died: Paul has already portrayed the death of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for our sins (3:25; 4:25; 5:6–8, 10). This has farreaching legal implications. As Charles Hodge explains: “By his death, as an atonement for our sins, all ground of condemnation is removed. The death of Christ could not be a proof that the believer cannot be condemned, unless his death removed the ground of condemnation; and it could not remove the ground of condemnation, unless it satisfied the demands of justice.”36
35 In some English translations this statement is treated as a question, i.e. “Is it Christ Jesus, who died . . . ?” (thus JB, LB, RSV). While this is possible grammatically, it hardly seems to be Paul’s intention. He is providing the basis for his confidence rather than asking further questions. |
(b) Jesus was raised to life: If Jesus’ death was an atoning sacrifice that paid for our sins, his resurrection shows that God accepted that payment. As John Stott observes: “It is not just that he rose, although this is affirmed in the New Testament, but that he was raised by the Father, who thus demonstrated his acceptance of the sacrifice of his Son as the only satisfactory basis for our justification.”37 In linking Jesus’ death and resurrection with the justification of believers, Paul is echoing his summary of an earlier argument: “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (4:25).
(c) Jesus is at the right hand of God: Because of his death and resurrection he has been exalted to a position of supreme power, and he holds sway over heaven and earth. Although this thought does not receive much emphasis in Paul (occurring again only in Eph 1:20 and Col 3:1), there is a clear allusion to Psalm 110:1, which is one of the most frequently quoted verses in the New Testament. Jesus’ session at the right hand of the Father is stressed repeatedly in the early chapters of Acts (2:25, 33–34; 5:31; 7:55–56). Because Jesus is at the Father’s right hand in his capacity as the crucified and risen one, humanity is represented in the highest place, at the very throne of God. Our (legal) representative could not be in a more exalted position.
(d) Jesus intercedes for us: With legal representation in the highest places we can also rest assured that Jesus is pleading our case. Once again the terminology is heavily legal in character.38 Christ is the intercessor who appears for the believer at the heavenly court. As such his activity appears to complement that of the Spirit who intercedes for us in our hearts (vv. 26–27).
36 Hodge, Romans, 289. |
With the
references to Jesus’ death and resurrection Paul has recapitulated
highlights of his earlier argument, but now when he refers to
Jesus’ intercession at the right hand of God he is introducing a
genuinely new element. The connection between the two
references would, however, appear to be clear enough. Paul is
connecting Jesus’ past redemptive activity (his death and
resurrection) and his present activity (his intercession at the right
hand of God). The former provides the basis for the latter (cf. Heb.
7:23–25). Hence Jesus is pictured as pleading our case before God
(cf. 1 John 2:1–2). He is our Advocate before the Judge. He pleads
our case on the basis of his death and resurrection. This is a truth
calculated to inspire believers with the highest sense of security
and confidence.
While the terminology in vv. 31–34 has been consistently legal in
nature, in v. 35 the language of law makes way for the language of
love. We have already explored the background for this shift and
found this to be a natural transition in the light of adoption practices
that were common in Paul’s day. Once the legal requirements had
been met, the adoptive father could lavish all his love on his adopted
children. It is to this boundless love of God that Paul now gives his
attention in the remaining verses.
In this transition from the language of law to the language of love, we detect Paul’s conviction that “Christ’s role in heaven is not merely as representative of his people on earth before the eternal Judge. He is also able to reach out and sustain his people still on earth. His love enfolds them as a power which hostile and untoward circumstances cannot disrupt or prevent.”41
39 In view of the list that follows it seems a little curious that Paul asks who? rather than what?
Morris, Romans, 338, suggests that “perhaps this is no more than a recognition of the fact that the nouns
he lists are all masculine or feminine; there are no neuters.” |
When Paul enlarges the above question it is clear that he is speaking from personal experience: “Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?” From Paul’s earlier letters there is ample evidence to suggest that he is speaking autobiographically (see especially 2 Cor 6:4; 11:23–27; 12:10). The only affliction in this list that he had not experienced was the sword!
If Paul is indeed speaking from his own experience, he hastens to add that his experience is not unique. He quotes from Psalm 44:22 to show that such suffering has strong scriptural precedent: “For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”42 This is a typical “righteous sufferer” Psalm where the Psalmists are not suffering because they had broken the covenant by forgetting Yahweh or turning to other gods (vv. 17–22). Instead, they were suffering for the Lord’s sake and because of their loyalty to him.43 Paul’s verbatim quote from this Psalm therefore demonstrates to his readers that the adversities of which he had spoken in the previous verse had always been the lot of God’s people.44 Should such affliction come his readers’ way, “it is not as though something strange or absurd is happening to them. It is as it is written.”45 At such times, “the affliction can become so sustained and all-oppressive that there seems no end to it (‘all the day’) and death an everyday commonplace (‘as sheep for slaughter’).”46 This was precisely the kind of tribulation that would befall Paul’s Roman readers within a decade of their receiving this epistle. Many of the troubles that Paul listed in v. 35 came upon them during Nero’s murderous pogrom that followed the great fire of Rome in the summer of A.D. 64. The Roman historian Tacitus writes that Nero made local Christians the scapegoats for the fire and punished them with “the utmost refinements of cruelty.”
42 Apart from a minor stylistic variation (from eneka to eneken), this quotation is in agreement
with the LXX, which in turn accords with the Hebrew of the Masoretic text. Somewhat surprisingly Moo
refers to this quotation as “something of an interruption in the flow of thought” (Romans, 543). This
misses the point of the citation, which is to support the claim implied in the last question, namely that
affliction by the ungodly has often been the experience of God’s children. Paul, being a wise pastor,
seems to think that this assumption needs scriptural backing. |
He then spells out these punishments in some detail. Even though Tacitus loathed Christians,
he cannot conceal his pity for their cruel fate:
First, then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested; next,
on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on
the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision
accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts’ skins
and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and,
when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero
had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in
his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer or
mounted on his car. Hence in spite of a guilt which had earned the
most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to
the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare
of the state but to the ferocity of a single man.47
In the face of such atrocities, to which he himself eventually also fell victim, Paul can confidently declare that “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (v. 37). Because these events fall within the mysterious providence of God (v. 28) they are more than conquered. For not only are they endured, they also work together for our good. Hence “they swell the glory of our victory.”48 This triumph is not ascribed to the will or strength of the believers but to the love of Christ.49 In the case of the Romans their noble victory in the face of state-sanctioned terrorism has been celebrated in early Christian literature. Writing towards the end of the first century, Clement of Rome recorded their victory for posterity: To these men who lived a holy life [i.e. the apostles Peter and Paul] there was joined a vast multitude of the elect who, having suffered many torments and tortures, set an illustrious example among us. Because of jealousy women were persecuted as Danaids and Dircae, suffering in this way terrible and unholy tortures,
47 Tacitus, Annals, 15.44, in John Jackson, trans., The Annals (Loeb Classical Library; London:
Heinemann, 1962), 283, 285. |
but they safely reached the goal in the race of faith, and received a noble
reward, their physical weakness notwithstanding.50
Clement has left us a ringing testimony to the truth of Paul’s
assertion that even in the most trying circumstances Christians can be
super-victorious through the love of Christ. Although it is unlikely
that when Paul penned these words in A.D. 57 he was intending to be
prophetic, nevertheless his words providentially foretold the kinds of
trials that the Christians in Rome could expect. There is little doubt
that they derived immense fortitude from his message. Even the worst
tortures that Nero could inflict did not separate them from the love of
Christ. The veracity of Paul’s claims was soon to be proven by his
own readers in the most dramatic possible way.
In vv. 38–39 Paul raises the stakes even higher. He goes beyond such external circumstances and physical extremities as trouble, hardship, persecution, famine, nakedness, danger and sword. He now transcends the kinds of sufferings that he and the Old Testament saints had already experienced and also the sufferings that his readers were soon to experience. In expressing his settled conviction about the love of God he brings chapter 8, and with it his whole argument up to this point, to a crowning crescendo: “For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Paul ends on a note of the deepest personal conviction.51 His opening words express utmost certainty. For Paul this is no passing whim, but an assured fact that does not allow even the shadow of a doubt. Dunn’s comment on these verses is superb: “The sweep of his faith is truly majestic. No longer simply situations of stress and suffering within life, but the boundary situations of life and beyond life, the powers that determine eternal destiny, all fall under his gaze,
50 1 Clement 6:1–2, in Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English
Translations of Their Writings, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 35. In a footnote Holmes explains
the reference to Danaids and Dircae: “[I]n ancient mythology the daughters of Danaus were given as
prizes to the winners of a race; thus it is likely that this is a reference to Christian women being raped
prior to being martyred. Dirce was tied to the horns of a bull and then dragged to death.” |
with no different result: nothing can loosen the embrace of God’s love in Christ.”52
For the most part Paul neatly pairs these mammoth forces that might be opposed to us. Not the greatest existential realities (“neither death nor life”), not the most powerful supernatural forces (“neither angels nor demons”), nothing in the realms of time (“neither the present nor the future”) or space (“neither height nor depth”) can come between the believer and the love of God. The only items in the sequence that are not paired are “powers” and “anything else in all creation.” By these terms Paul clearly intends to cover every possible eventuality. Nothing natural or supernatural can stand between us and the love of God. This list far surpasses that of v. 35, perhaps identifying the cosmic forces that lie behind our earthly troubles. Be that as it may, Paul’s list is so comprehensive that no possible exception can be mounted against the conviction that he articulates so eloquently. Nothing, but nothing, can separate us from the love of God.
Paul’s assertion is even more emphatic when it is seen as the close of the inclusio commenced in v. 35. There he had asked, “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” Here he states that nothing in all creation “will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” He therefore begins with the love of Christ and ends with the love of God. Is this significant? Is there a difference? The only earlier references to the love of God in Romans are in chapter 5, where “God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us” (v. 5) and where, moreover, “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (v. 8). The only other specific reference to the love of Christ in Romans is within the inclusio formed by vv. 35–39. With a probable reference to Christ’s death Paul declares that “in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us” (v. 37). Divine love in Romans therefore comes to its most focused expression in the gift of the Spirit and in the death of Christ. This makes Paul’s logic all the more compelling. How could God abandon those in whom he has made such a huge investment? How could he withhold his love from those to whom he has given his Spirit and for whom Christ died?
52 Dunn, Romans, 1:512–13. |
This is “the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Not only can God’s children not be separated from this love, these loves cannot be separated from one another. Essentially the love of God and the love of Christ are one. The love of the Father is preeminently the love that gave the Son, and the love of Christ is preeminently that he gave himself.53 In such love the believer is eternally secure.
In all the writings of Paul, the verses we have been considering stand unsurpassed in their beauty and majesty. They are also unmatched in the powerful conviction that they so vigorously express. Charles Hodge has crisply summed up their central message:
How wonderful, how glorious, how secure is the gospel! Those who are in Christ Jesus are as secure as the love of God, the merit, power, and intercession of Christ can make them. They are hedged around with mercy. They are enclosed in the arms of everlasting love.54
These verses leave us with the blessed assurance that those who are God’s adopted children now will be his children forever. Those who have been justified by faith in Christ will also be acquitted at the final judgment. The chain of God’s purpose, which extends from his foreknowledge to our glorification, is ultimately unbreakable. It is a chain that not even the child of God can break. Those whom the Father has adopted and loved through the death of his Son and the gift of his Spirit will be his own for all eternity. As Schreiner has pointed out:
Some scholars have argued that although nothing in creation can separate one from the love of God, people can themselves choose to depart from God and thereby fall outside the scope of the saving love of God. This interpretation should be rejected. As we have seen, Rom. 8:28–30 constitutes an unbreakable process. All those who are foreknown end up being glorified. No possibility is extended that some of those who are justified may not be glorified.
53 Thus Murray, Romans, 1:334. |
The category of the justified is inseparable from the category of the glorified. . . . Those whom God has chosen before history began will surely persevere and attain to glorification.55
In closing, we return to Paul’s ringing rhetorical questions that resound throughout this passage. With them he has defied every creature in time and space, whether natural or supernatural, benevolent or malevolent:
There is only one rousing answer to all of these questions: Nothing and nobody! Paul allows for no exceptions. In the saving love of God, every true believer in Christ is eternally secure.
(Glory to God Alone)
This fine article comes from TESTAMENTUM IMPERIUM and we want to express our gratitude.
UK APOLOGETICS