Romans 8:23

“ And not only only so, but we also,which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, we ourselves also groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. ”

The connection between this passage and the preceding one is obvious at a glance; it is found in the idea of groaning. The groaning of believers themselves, men already animated with the breath of God, rises as it were on that of nature. Of the three or even four readings presented by the documents, we must first, whatever Volkmar may say to the contrary, set aside that of the Vatic., which rejects the ἡμεῖς, we, in the middle of the verse; this pronoun is indispensable to emphasize the contrast between believers and nature. And whence could it have come into all the other texts? We may also set aside the Greco-Latin reading (D F G). By putting the pronoun: we ourselves also, at the beginning of the sentence, after the words: not only but, it obliterates the forcible reaffirmation which these words contain when placed in the middle of the sentence: “ We also...we ourselves also ”...The two other readings differ only in this, that the Alexandrine (א A C) places the ἡμεῖς, we, before καὶ αὐτοί, while the Byzs. place it between the two words: and we ourselves. The difference of meaning is almost imperceptible (we ourselves also; also we ourselves). It is probable that the Alexs. have displaced the ἡμεῖς, we, to bring it next the participle ἔχοντες. This is the reason why we have translated according to the received reading.

Several commentators have thought that in saying first we, then adding we ourselves also, the apostle meant to speak of two different subjects, for example, Christians and apostles (Mel.), or Christians and Paul himself (Reiche). But in this case the article οἱ before the participle ἔχοντες would be indispensable; and what object could there be in such a distinction in the context?

The logical connection between the participle ἔχοντες, having, possessing, and the verb στενάζομεν, we groan, should be rendered by the conjunction though: “Though already possessing, we still groan (ipsi nos habentes).”

The expression: the first-fruits of the Spirit, is so clear that it is difficult to understand how it should have given rise to dispute. How has it occurred to commentators like De Wette, Olshausen, Meyer, to apply it specially to the Spirit bestowed on the apostles and first believers, to distinguish it from the Spirit afterward bestowed on other believers? What importance can this difference have for the spiritual life, and where is a trace of such a distinction to be found in the N. T.? It would be preferable to regard the word first-fruits (with Chrys., Calv., Thol., Philip., Bonnet) as referring to the fact that Christians here below receive only a beginning, while there will be given to them above the entire fulness of the Spirit. In this sense the genitive would be the complement of the object: The first-fruits of that gift which is the Spirit. But the apostle is not here contrasting an imperfect with a more perfect spiritual state; he is contrasting an inward state already relatively perfect, with an outward state which has not yet participated in the spiritual renewal; this appears clearly from the last words: waiting for the redemption of our body. The genitive is therefore the complement of quality or apposition: “The first-fruits which consist of the Spirit Himself.” This meaning is proved, besides, by the attentive comparison of 2 Corinthians 1:22 and Ephesians 1:14. The apostle means: “We ourselves, who by the possession of the Spirit have already entered inwardly into the new world, still groan, because there is a part of our being, the outer man, which does not yet enjoy this privilege.”

Hofmann joins the regimen: within ourselves, to the participle ἔχοντες : we who have within ourselves. But is it not superfluous to say that the Holy Spirit is possessed inwardly? This regimen is very significant, on the contrary, if we connect it, as is grammatically natural, with the verb we groan: “We groan often inwardly, even when others do not suspect it, and when they hear us proclaiming salvation as a fact already accomplished.” The disharmony between the child of God and the child of the dust therefore still remains; and hence we wait for something.

This something St. Paul calls adoption, and he explains it by the apposition: the redemption of our body. No doubt our adoption is in point of right an acquired fact (Galatians 4:6). It is so in reality on its spiritual side, for we already possess the Spirit of our Father, as Paul has developed it, Romans 8:14-16. But the state of sons of God will not be fully realized in us until to the holiness of the Spirit there be added the glory and perfection of the body. It needs hardly be said that the expression: the redemption of our body, is not to be interpreted in the sense: that we are to be delivered from our body (Oltram.). For this idea, applied to the body itself, would be anti-biblical; faith waits for a new body; and if it applied to the body only as the body of our humiliation, as Paul says, Philippians 3:21, this specification would require to be added, or at least Paul would require to say τοῦ σώματος τούτου, of this present body. The complement of the body is therefore evidently the genitive, not of the object, but of the subject: it is the body itself which is to be delivered from the miseries of its present corruption. We see from 2 Corinthians 5:4 that Paul desired not to be unclothed, but to be clothed upon: that is, to receive his glorified body, by the power of which his mortal body was to be as it were swallowed up. It is by the transformation of the body only that we shall become completely sons of God. Comp. the affirmation, which is not identical, but analogous, made in reference to Christ Himself, Romans 1:3-4.