Romans 8:33 ff. It is impossible that this σὺν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα ἡμῖν χαρίσεται should be frustrated, either on the side of God, with whom no accusation of His elect can have the result of their condemnation (Romans 8:33, down to κατακρίνων in Romans 8:34), or on that of Christ, whose death, resurrection, etc., afford the guarantee that nothing can separate us from His love (Romans 8:34, Χριστὸς ὁ ἀποθανὼν, on to Romans 8:36). In the analysis of this swelling effusion we must return to the method for which Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and other Fathers paved the way, and which Erasmus followed: namely, that to the question τίς ἐγκαλέσει κ.τ.λ. the answer is: Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν· τίς ὁ κατακρίνων; and then follows, moulded in similar form to that answer, the expression, passing over from God to Christ, Χριστὸς … ἡμῶν· τίς ἡμᾶς χωρίσει κ.τ.λ.; so that after δικαιῶν, and also after ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, only a colon is to be inserted. Who shall raise accusation against the elect of God? Answer, in a boldly triumphant counter-question,

God is the justifier, who the condemner? (there is consequently no one there to condemn, and every accusation is without result! Comp. Isaiah 50:8.) And as regards Christ: Christ is He that has died, yea rather also has risen again, who also is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us: who shall separate us from the love of Christ? This view (followed also by van Hengel, but by Hofmann only with respect to the first portion as far as κατακρίνων), though abandoned by nearly all modern expositors, is corroborated by its entire accordance with the sense, by the harmony of the soaring rhetorical form, and by its freedom from those insuperable difficulties which beset the modes of division that differ from it. Of the latter, two in particular fall to be considered. 1. Luther, Castalio, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Wolf, and many others, including Ammon, Tholuck, Flatt, Fritzsche, Philippi, Reithmayr, and Ewald, take Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν as affirmative answer to τίς ἐγκαλέσει κ.τ.λ.; then τίς ὁ κατακρίνων as a new question, and as the affirmative answer thereto: Χριστὸς ὁ ἀποθανὼν κ.τ.λ., thus: Who shall accuse, etc.? God is the justifier (consequently no accuser shall succeed). Who is the condemner? Christ is He that has died, etc. (so that He cannot, therefore, condemn us in judgment). But against this view it may be urged, (a) that Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν and τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν are, as regards both substance (δικαιῶν and κατακριν.) and form (Paul has not written τίς κατακρινεῖ to correspond with τίς ἐγκαλέσει), correlative, and therefore may not, without arbitrariness, be separated; (b) that in Romans 8:34 Christ is not at all described as a judge, which would be in keeping with the ὁ κατακρινῶν, but, on the contrary, as redeemer and intercessor; (c) that, if τίς ἐγκαλέσει is at once disposed of by Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν, it must be already quite self-evident that there can be no κατακρίνων, and consequently τίς ὁ κατακ., as a new question, would be something superfluous and out of keeping with so compressed an utterance of emotion; (d) and, finally, that in the entire context there is no mention of the last judgment. 2. The theory, that came into vogue after Augustine, doctr. Chr. iii. 3, and Ambrosiaster (adopted in modern times by Koppe, Reiche, Köllner, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, and Maier, also by Griesbach and Lachmann; Tholuck is undecided), consists in supplying ἐγκαλέσει with Θεὸς ὁ δικαιῶν, and taking it as a question, and dealing in a corresponding manner with Χριστὸς … ἡμῶν also: Who shall accuse? Shall God do so, who justifies? Who shall condemn? Shall Christ do so, who has died, etc.? But against this view it suffices to urge the decisive reason, that to conceive of God as accuser (before Christ) is destitute of scriptural analogy, and could not at all have occurred to the apostle. Hofmann takes Χριστὸς … ἐντυγχ. ὑπὲρ ἡμ. as a question with two dissimilar relative adjuncts, of which the first declares how it was possible, after the question τίς ὁ κατακρ., to subjoin the further question, whether it might not be feared with regard to Christ that He should condemn where God acquits; while the second shows the impossibility of such a fear. But this artificial interpretation, in connection with which the first and second καὶ (see the critical remarks) are condemned as not genuine and this condemnation is acutely turned to account, fails, so far as the substance is concerned, on the very ground that the thought of its being possible perhaps for Christ to condemn where God acquits would be an absurd idea, which could not occur to a Christian consciousness; and, so far as form is concerned, on the ground that the second relative clause is annexed to the first with entire similarity, and therefore does not warrant our explaining it, as if Paul, instead of ὃς καὶ ἐντ., should have written ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐντ.

In detail, observe further: The designation of Christians in Romans 8:33 as ἐκλεκτοὶ Θεοῦ is selected as having a special bearing on the matter, and renders palpable at once the fruitlessness of every ἔγκλησις; while Θεός coming immediately after Θεοῦ has rhetorical emphasis.

κατὰ ἐκλ. Θεοῦ] i.e. against those whom God has chosen out of the κόσμος (John 17:6) to be members of His Messianic peculiar people to be made blessed for Christ’s sake, according to His eternal decree (Ephesians 1:4); comp. on Romans 8:30. This is the Christian conception (comp. 1 Peter 2:9) of the Old Testament ἐκλεκτ. (Psalm 105:43; Psalm 106:5; Isaiah 42:1; Isaiah 65:9; Wis 3:9, al.). The elect constitute the Israel of God, Galatians 6:16. Regarding the genitive Θεοῦ (ἐκλ. is used quite as a substantive; comp. Colossians 3:12; Matthew 24:31 al.), see Fritzsche, Diss. II. p. 31; Pflugk, ad Eur. Hec. 1135. The absence of the article (comp. Romans 8:27) in the case of ἐκλ. Θεοῦ brings out the quality of the persons.

The predicates of Christ in Romans 8:34—under which His death is to be conceived as an atoning death, His rising again as having taken place διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν (Romans 4:25), and His being at the right hand of God as personal participation in the government of the world (Ephesians 1:20, Colossians 3:1, al.; comp. also Dissen, ad Pindar. Fragm. xi. 9) in the heavenly dwelling-place of the Father’s glory (see on Matthew 6:6)—exclude the possibility of any one separating us from the love of Christ. For, as regards His past, He has proved by His death the abundance of His love (Romans 5:6 f.; Ephesians 3:18 f.), and this demonstration of His love has been divinely confirmed by His resurrection; and as regards His present, through His sitting at the right hand of God He possesses the power to do for His own whatever His love desires, and through His intercession He procures for them every protection and operation of grace from the Father (Hebrews 7:25; Hebrews 9:24; 1 John 2:1). But this intercession (comp. Romans 8:26 f.) is the continuous bringing to bear of His work of atonement, completed by His ἱλαστήριον, on the part of Christ in His glory with the Father; which we are to conceive of as real and—in virtue of the glorified corporeity of the exalted Christ, as also in virtue of the subordination in which He even as σύνθρονος stands to the Father—as request properly so called (ἔντευξις) through which the “continuus quasi vigor” (Gerhard) of redemption takes place. Comp. John 14:16. There has been much dogmatic and philosophical explaining away of this passage on the part of systematists and exegetes. Some apt observations are to be found in Düsterdieck on 1 John 2:1, who nevertheless, without assigning his exegetical grounds, calls in question that the intercession is vocalis et oralis. As such, however, it must be conceived, because it is made by the glorified God-man; though the more special mode in which it takes place is withdrawn from the cognizance of our earthly apprehension. Comp. Philippi, Glaubensl. IV. 2, p. 336, ed. 2.

μᾶλλον δὲ is the imo vero, vel potius, by which the speaker amends his statement (see on Galatians 4:9); for what would Christ’s having died have been of itself? how could it have been to us the bond and the security of His love against all distresses, etc., Romans 8:35 f., if the divine resurrection had not been added to it? Paul therefore appends to the bare ἀποθανών, by way of correction: imo vero etiam resuscitatus, in which the καὶ, also, signifies: non solum mortuus, sed etiam resusc.; comp. Ephesians 5:11. It is thus clear that (contrary to Hofmann’s view) this καί was quite essential and indispensable; for it was not the ἀποθανών itself, but its having been mentioned alone, and without the resurrection belonging to it, that needed correction. It is, moreover, self-evident that all this application of the corrective expression is here merely of a formal nature, serving to bring into marked prominence the two elements in their important correlation.

The ὃς καὶ occurring twice has a certain solemnity.

Romans 8:35. τίς] Paul puts the question by τίς, not τί, in conformity with the parallel τίς ὁ κατακρίνων. The circumstance that he subsequently specifies states and things, not persons—which, however, naturally suggest themselves to the conception of the reader—cannot lead any one astray, least of all in such a bold flight of rhetoric.

ἀπὸ τῆς ἀγάπ. τ. Χριστοῦ] Most expositors take τοῦ Χ. (comp. Ephesians 3:19) as genitive of the subject, and rightly, because this view was already prepared for by Romans 8:34 (in which the great acts of Christ’s love toward us are specified), and is confirmed by Romans 8:37 (διὰ τοῦ ἀγαπ. ἡμᾶς), and by Romans 8:39, where the ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ἐν Χριστῷ comes in the place of the ἀγάπη τοῦ Χ. This excludes the interpretation of others, who understand it of the love to Christ (Origen, Ambrosiaster, Erasmus, Majus, Heumann, Morus, Köllner, and Ewald). Köllner’s objections to our view do not touch its true sense, since the point in question is not a possible interruption of the love of Christ to us, nor yet the hindering of our access to it (Philippi), but a possible separation from the love of Christ (that helps to victory, Romans 8:37) through hindrances intervening between it and us, which might nullify its manifestation and operation upon us and might thus dissolve our real fellowship with it. It was therefore very unwarranted in de Wette (comp. Calvin, Rückert, and Tholuck) to convert, in accordance with Romans 8:33 f. The punctuation here is a very difficult problem: see the text and margin of R.V. The reminiscence of Isaiah 50:8 f. in Romans 8:33 makes it more difficult; for it suggests that the normal structure is that of an affirmation followed by a question, whereas Paul begins with a question to which the affirmation (with at least a trace of Isaiah’s language in it) is an answer. It is even possible to read every clause interrogatively, though that is less effective. τίς ἐγκαλέσει κατὰ ἐκλεκτῶν θεοῦ; who shall bring a charge against persons who are God’s chosen? The absence of the article (cf. ὑπὲρ ἁγίων, Romans 8:27) brings out the character in which the persons in question figure, not their individual personality. For the word see Colossians 3:12; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1; for the thing cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Ephesians 1:4; John 15:16. It describes Christians as persons who owe their standing as such to the act of God’s grace. All Christians are conscious that this is the truth about their position: they belong to God, because He has taken them for His own. To say that the word designates “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” (S. and H.), is to leave the rails of the Apostle’s thought altogether. There is nothing here (Romans 8:28-30) about the privilege of serving God and carrying out His will; the one thing Paul is concerned with is the security given by the eternal love of God that the work of salvation will be carried through, in spite of all impediments, from foreknowledge to final glory. The ἐκλεκτοὶ θεοῦ are those who ought to have such security: they should have a faith and an assurance proportioned to the love of God. Paul is one of them, and because he is, he is sure, not that he is called to serve God, but that nothing can ever separate him from God’s love in Christ. The question τίς ἐγκαλέσει is best answered by taking both the following clauses together: “It is God that justifieth: who is he that shall condemn?” (cf. Isaiah 50:8 f.). But many make τίς ὁ κατακρινῶν a new question, and find the answer in Romans 8:34 : Χριστὸς [Ἰησοῦς] ὁ ἀποθανών = the only person who can condemn is the Judge, viz., Christ, but He is so far from condemning that He has done everything to deliver us from condemnation. What Christian, Paul seems to ask, can speak of κατάκριμα with his eye on Christ, who died for our sins? μᾶλλον δὲ ἐγερθεὶς [ἐκ νεκρῶν]: cf. Galatians 4:9; and chap. Romans 4:25. The correction in μᾶλλον is formal (Weiss): Paul does not mean that the resurrection is more important than the cross; he improves upon an expression which has not conveyed all that was in his mind. Our position depends upon Jesus Christ who died, nay rather, over whom death no more has dominion (Romans 6:9), who is at God’s right hand (this phrase, which describes Christ’s exaltation as a sharing in the universal sovereignty of God, is borrowed from Psalm 110:1, and is oftener used in the N.T. than any other words of the Old), who also makes intercession on our behalf. ὂς καὶ ἐντυγχάνει: a solemn climax is marked by the repetition of ὃς, and by the καὶ which deliberately adds the intercession to all that has gone before. The Christian consciousness, even in an apostle, cannot transcend this. This is Paul’s final security—the last ground of his triumphant assurance: Jesus Christ, at God’s right hand, with the virtue of His atoning death in Him, pleads His people’s cause. cf. Hebrews 9:24; Hebrews 7:25, 1 John 2:1 f.

33. Who shall lay any thing to the charge] The Gr. word is technical and legal. The legal ideas of accusation, condemnation, acquittal, which have been so prominent through the Epistle, here reappear, in a final statement of the certainty of the Divine Acquittal of those who are in Christ.—No doubt the great “Accuser of the Brethren” (Revelation 12:10) is in view in this phrase, though not exclusively.

God’s elect] The persons chosen by Him and belonging, as such, to Him; identical, manifestly, with the “foreknown, foreordained, called, justified, and glorified.” The phrase occurs Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27 : Luke 18:7; Colossians 3:12; Titus 1:1. The word “elect,” (chosen,) is always used in N. T. in connexions that indicate the highest dignity and worth in the sight of God. The present passage throws as much light on the greatness of its meaning as any other. Cp. with it specially Ephesians 1:4-5.—In the O. T. Israel is “My people, My chosen, (Isaiah 43:20.) In the N. T. the chosen are “the Israel of God,” (Galatians 6:16 : cp. Galatians 3:29; Romans 4:11.) As with the old so with the new Israel, the choice is emphatically sovereign. On the other hand, the choice of the “justified and glorified” takes effect through means; through the Gospel. See 2 Timothy 2:10; (a passage sometimes, but not justly, quoted against a sovereign election to salvation;) and ante, note on “work together,” Romans 8:28.

It is God, &c.] The Gr. equally allows the rendering Is it God, &c.? And this on the whole is more likely to be right, if only because we are here in a series of questions, (from Romans 8:31-35 inclusive,) the force of which is surely greatest when unbroken.—The doctrine of the passage is unchanged by the difference of rendering. The only finally effective Accuser must be God Himself; but He is pledged to be the very opposite.

that justifieth]—“him that believeth in Jesus.” (Romans 3:26.) The use of this word here, so amply illustrated already, shews how entirely the acquittal and acceptance now in question are “not of works.”

Romans 8:33. Ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ, of God’s elect) Romans 8:29.—δικαιῶν, that justifieth) To justify and condemn are the words in antithesis to each other, Romans 8:3, note. In Isaiah 50:8-9, a passage, which we have previously quoted, there similarly comes first an hypothesis in each of the consecutive sections, and there follows the Answer subjoined by the speaker, in each case respectively, expressed in the form of a question; for example,

A.  He is near, who justifies me:[102]

[102] This expression, that He is near, seems to be in the meanwhile said in the Old Testament sense, whereas, on the contrary, He is said in the Romans to be the God that justifieth, without any restriction.

A.  He is near, who justifies me:[*]

B.  1. Who will contend with me? we shall (let us) stand together.

  2. Who is the lord of my cause? let him draw near to me.

C.  Behold the Lord God will help me:

D.  Who is he that shall condemn me?

Here the apostle seems to have assumed A, and on the contrary to have omitted B, and likewise to have omitted C, and on the contrary to have quoted D.

[*] This expression, that He is near, seems to be in the meanwhile said in the Old Testament sense, whereas, on the contrary, He is said in the Romans to be the God that justifieth, without any restriction.

Romans 8:33Shall lay - to the charge (ἐγκαλέσει)

Only here by Paul. Frequent in Acts. See Acts 19:38, Acts 19:40; Acts 23:28, Acts 23:29; Acts 26:2, Acts 26:7. Lit., "to call something in one." Hence call to account; bring a charge against.

The following clauses are differently arranged by expositors. I prefer the succession of four interrogatives: Who shall lay? etc. Is it God? etc. Who is He that condemneth? Is it Christ? etc.

Romans 8:33 Interlinear
Romans 8:33 Parallel Texts


Romans 8:33 NIV
Romans 8:33 NLT
Romans 8:33 ESV
Romans 8:33 NASB
Romans 8:33 KJV

Romans 8:33 Bible Apps
Romans 8:33 Parallel
Romans 8:33 Biblia Paralela
Romans 8:33 Chinese Bible
Romans 8:33 French Bible
Romans 8:33 German Bible

Bible Hub